Have you ever sat down and thought 'Yep, this franchise is dead'?

MammothBlade

It's not that I LIKE you b-baka!
Oct 12, 2011
5,246
0
0
Kind of. I've come pretty close with Final Fantasy, after FFXIII it's going to need a massive overhaul. There are alot of unsalvageable changes in gameplay which change the franchise from a tactical RPG to a tacked on, laggy pseudo-action adventure.
 

GonzoGamer

New member
Apr 9, 2008
7,063
0
0
Yea.
Burnout Paradise. I know a lot of people liked it but it's too much like every other driving game.
It was confirmed recently when they released a game entirely around the more unique Crash Junctions that really differentiated the earlier releases from most other driving games. I thought (okay, I hoped) that would save the franchise but it ended up just being the final nail.
 

Estarc

New member
Sep 23, 2008
359
0
0
AnarchistFish said:
Estarc said:
I don't quite feel this way about the Assassin's Creed franchise, so maybe I shouldn't mention it, but I am very disillusioned with it. The original AC was a game that showed a lot of promise, and Assassin's Creed 2 delivered on that. But then we had Brotherhood which was an expansion with a new mechanic priced as a full game. And now we have another bloody expansion coming out. As far as I'm concerned, until I see a new game with a new number, a new time period, a new protagonist, and multiple bloody cities, I'm over this franchise.
I don't think Brotherhood is an expansion game. I thought it would be but it's another game in its own right. Just because you play as the same guy as in the last game, I don't see why that makes it bad. It had a few new features (although I still prefer ACII) including multiplayer.

I agree about the multiple cities part though.
My reasons for viewing Brotherhood as more of an expansion to ACII than as a full game in its own right are due to more than simply reprising the role of Ezio. For one, I felt that the whole "brotherhood" feature was tacked on and poorly balanced. Save for the mission where you recruit your first assassin, it had no bearing on the main plot, aside from giving Ezio a few nameless assassins to rule over after he becomes the Grand Master.

This might have been forgivable if they were superbly implemented into the games gameplay, but they weren't. They were ludicrously overpowered. I remember one Borgia captain that I failed to kill multiple times, because he was surrounded by guards and only a dozen or so metres from his tower door. Once I got my first assassin, I tried calling him to see what would happen. If I got within half a mile of the captain his guards would attack me and the guy would bolt. But my level one assassin was able to sprint right up to him with no reaction, then jump him and kill him.

Aside from that, being restricted to one city upset me. I don't care how big it was (half of it was grasslands anyway), it was nowhere near as enjoyable as traveling between Jerusalem, Damascus and Acre in the first game, or Florence, Venice and the other cities in ACII. Each of those cities may have been smaller than Rome, but they felt big enough to me, and the unique designs and cultural differences of each city were really interesting.

Lastly, Brotherhood just felt a lot less substantial than ACII. Really, there were only two things I really liked about the game; the time spent advancing the plot in the present day, and the addition of weapon combinations, such as the sword and hidden gun.

PS: And the "ultimate" armour looked shit and had no business being so powerful, lore wise.

PPS: And what was up with the timings for counter attacks with the hidden blade? Counter attacks were very powerful in the first game, and the fact that hidden blade counter attacks were guaranteed kills made them more so in the second. But this was sort of balanced by the brutal timing required to pull them off in ACII. However, in Brotherhood hidden blade counter attacks have the same easy timing as Ezio's other weapons do, but still automatically kill the opponent. Why on earth would they make the franchise's easy combat even easier?!
 

Mike Richards

New member
Nov 28, 2009
389
0
0
I've been thinking, and I honestly can't find a single instance of thinking a franchise is dead. I guess I'm just no where near cynical enough to assume that any bad moves in a series will completely prevent good ones from being made down the line.

I mean heck, I still think Metroid can be awesome again, even a story focused installment. If Other M couldn't kill my hope for that series, I don't think anything ever will.
 

Alma Mare

New member
Nov 14, 2010
263
0
0
Samurai Shodown - The first 3 games were steadily evolving in a coherent direction. Every game after the 3rd was either a re-mix of the previous with split characters and repainted scenarios or just forgettable platform jump attempts.

Age of Empires - after the excelent III, a 6 year hiatus and a poorly scrapped together online dollar trickling machine are as good as a tombstone.

Silent Hill - 8 games in the series with only the first 4 improving the previous ones. Nothing more to see here.
 

Shoggoth2588

New member
Aug 31, 2009
10,250
0
0
Admiral Stukov said:
No one said it yet?
Duke Nukem. It's been dead for over a decade, and the reanimated corpse construct that is DNF did nothing to change that.
WAY back on the Playstation when I saw gameplay of Duke Nukem: Time to Kill. Even the demo didn't save it for me and, this was during a time when 80% of the time I spent on my Nintendo 64 was spent on Duke Nukem 64!
 

badgersprite

[--SYSTEM ERROR--]
Sep 22, 2009
3,820
0
0
I was going to say 'Star Trek' before I saw this was gaming discussion.

After Final Fantasy XIV, though...I know picking on Final Fantasy is in vogue and all that, but when even the CEO admits it did serious harm to the franchise, I think that's fair.

I remain optimistic that Versus XIII will be good and revive the series.
 

M4t3us

New member
Oct 13, 2009
193
0
0
Final Fantasy... as a game franchise anyway. Squeenix can start a movie franchise with it, considering how much "play"time 12 and 13 had in them.

badgersprite said:
After Final Fantasy XIV, though...I know picking on Final Fantasy is in vogue and all that, but when even the CEO admits it did serious harm to the franchise, I think that's fair.
Like I just did?
 

SidingWithTheEnemy

New member
Sep 29, 2011
759
0
0
Some of you are probably too old for that, but Master of Orion II had (or rather had) a very large fanbase. My Favorite Strategy game (if I could bear the Graphics)
Now, Master of Orion III is just an excel sheet with some random number generators and sounds.
 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
You know... if the Final Fantasy crew had a smaller budget and the cutscene department was axed they might actually make.... a game.

I don't like the direction FF13 went in and the series is dead to me until they make something that's worth more than brief spectacle.