Jimquisition: A Game By Any Other Name

[MDSnowman]

In the case of the Silent Hill games.... the name has been abused so badly already that trying something new with it won't tarnish it anymore. If we get a good game out of it then I don't see it hurting anyone. Give the game a chance and if it bombs, it does so on its own merits.

DMC is a little fuzzier because the last game did pretty well all things considered (I wasn't touching it with a ten foot pole, but then the game series had already burned most of its bridges for me ages ago). So a hard reboot, on a proper console (and not a handheld) is much more likely to rub people the wrong way.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

*huge snip*

I hope you do more posts like this in the future. It means I have to type less.

Our biggest problem with DmC isn't that Dante, hell, every character and story element presented so far looks like shit. That doesn't help, but that's not the main reason.

It's that it's cutting a pretty huge branch from a tree without many branches to begin with.

It has yet to be called a spin-off. It has yet to be said that the original series will continue. It has only been called a reboot. With this in mind, along with Capcom's seemingly endless efforts to make as many poor decisions as possible, we can only assume one thing.

The original series is dead. This is the new direction.

If it were most any other series of spectacle fighters, this probably wouldn't ruffle as many feathers, but because this is Devil May Cry, it pisses fans off. This is because:

1) The original series wasn't over. There were still many loose ends, and the series still had loads of life left in it. The only reason the original series has been accused of growing stale is because Capcom half-assed Devil May Cry 4 so hard, not because the gameplay was getting tiresome.

2) This isn't your average series of spectacle fighters. This isn't like God of War, or Lords of Shadow, or Heavenly Sword, etc. This is a series known for its depth, precision, and difficulty. Hell, it fucking invented the high-complexity spectacle fighter.

Even Devil May Cry 4, half-assed though it was, still stomps the shit out of every other game this generation in its genre in terms of depth, speed, and precision. Except Bayonetta. Ninja Gaiden 2 would count if its camera wasn't so goddamn horrible.

By virtue of being so high quality, not many developers release games of its calibre. At this point, we got Platinum Games and, well, Platinum Games.

I haven't sat down and played it, but considering the framerate and the developer, I don't even need to to say without a doubt DmC will not be as precise and quick and previous DMC titles. It will not live up to the pedigree of DMC's 3 or 4. Maybe not even 1. Just seeing the demo footage and tech details makes that blatantly obvious. I'm sure it's fun, but it's not Devil May Cry, and that's why we're pissed.

It looks up to par with God of War. Trouble is, God of War is nowhere close up to par with Devil May Cry, and there are way more games with God of War-level depth than there are at the level of Devil May Cry.

Imagine if a new Street Fighter was released, one that played like Mortal Kombat, and all signs pointed to this being the new direction of the series. And for good measure, let's make the cast look like they've done shitloads of crack, coke, meth, heroin, or some combination thereof. Just for giggles. And they act all pissy and say "fuck" a lot.

Mortal Kombat's fun and all, but it isn't Street Fighter. I play Street Fighter for Street Fighter, not for Mortal Kombat Lite. So don't sell me Mortal Kombat Lite and expect me to love it because you tell me it's Street Fighter.

 

[Dfskelleton]

The only game I've actually judged by it's name is Metal Gear Solid Rising Revengeance.
Not because it's Metal Gear Solid and it's not exactly the same as the others, it's just a really stupid title.
I guess that's more of judging it's title rather than juding it by it's title.

Also, while I'm not too fond on the idea of cosplaying, I would like to go to Jim's booth dressed up as God and say "You're welcome."

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

I'm gonna have to say that I disagree with you here Jim, for the first time in months. I think the name *IS* important, people buy games and sequels because of what they've grown to love and gotten used to. If publishers want to produce the same thing because people like it, then that's their prerogative. If you are going to take a franchise in a completely different direction, for god's sake, why do they have to lean on the success of other games then? Just give it a totally different freaking name! Open the door for more creativity! Don't just milk the success of previous titles. For example: imagine Red Dead Redemption being called GTA 5: Western Vices or some shit. That would just be ridiculous. But they took it in a completely different direction, making a solid, awesome game that stood on its own.

Having said that, I still do judge games on their own merits, to be fair. I don't like the direction Resident Evil is taking, I wish there was more survival horror around, but I still think RE5 is a fantastic game. And I'll be buying RE6 without hesitation (haven't played and won't comment on Raccoon City). The new Dante just looks crap though, regardless of what people say. And I still wished Fallout 3 wasn't and FPS, but that's still an absolute cracker despite the bugs. I just think it'd be easier sometimes, especially on fan backlash, to just start a new franchise once in a decade, y'know?

 

[TAdamson]

Gonna pull you up on Fallout 3 there Jimbo because this is somewhere where I repeatedly disagree with you.

Though I disagree with the No Mutant's Allowed version of events that requires all people to hate Fallout3 just because, there are two BIG reasons to be disappointed with Fallout 3.

1) Isometric RPGs looked like they were never going to be made again and there are plenty of people, such as myself, who miss them. It wasn't that Fallout 3 weren't going to be exactly like it's predecessors but dropping that style in favour of what initially looked like another generic FPS was a bit of a kick in the nuts.

Look at the similar outrage levelled at the FPS XCom, it looked like was just going to make Bioshock with Xcom slapped over the top, this would be a good game perhaps, but it's not the Xcom we want after 15 years of no Xcom. Look at the bland nothing that resulted from EA's pasting of Syndicate's artifice over the top of a dull shooter.

2) Fallout3's story is retarded. There isn't a single quest or world element in that game that makes any sense.

And the linear railroading of many of the quests completely jettisoned Fallout and Fallout 2's approach of having multiple endings for each quest. These had real choices that actually made sense instead of the usual Fable/Bioshock/Bethesda "pat the puppy"/"kick the puppy" options.

This is something that returned somewhat when Obsidian did New Vegas but for a while it looked like the Fallout Universe I knew and loved was dead in spirit as well as delivery.

That said I think that it's generally agreed that F3 is a good game. It's just a terrible Fallout game. And the sad thing is that New Vegas is a great Fallout Game, just bugged to shit so nobody actually liked it.

Now all the kiddies want Fallout games with dumb Bethesda stories that make no sense. (Seriously Bethesda: I love your worlds but your in game narratives are at best dull and at worst mentally disabled.)

 

[Vault101]

I get what jim is saying but

buuuut

I cannot forgive Banjo kazooie nuts and bolts

 

[Vault101]

]JonTron's a whiny ***** who spends an entire video complaining that Banjo Kazooie Nuts and Bolts sucks because it's not Banjo Threeie. Well guess what JonTron, Nuts and Bolts isn't trying to be Banjo Threeie, that's why it's called Nuts and Bolts instead of Threeie. So stop fucking whining and enjoy a great game.

?

he's just a guy doing a video for entertianment purposes...no need to be agressive

 

[awdrifter]

I don't like agree with Jim on this issue. Especially on DMC. The main character in that game is no longer Dante, the game is developed by a different developer, it's DMC in name only. While a name doesn't directly make a game worse (or better), players (especially fans of the series) will play the game with certain expectations, if you change those key elements of a series, it will reduce the enjoyment of the players. I'm a big Gran Turismo fan, if GT6 is a arcade Mario Kart style game, I will flip out. But I'm perfectly happy playing Mario Kart.

 

[Negatempest]

6 minutes Jim. Six minutes of talking about spin-offs and not a single mention of Mario? The guy is a shinning example of Spin-offs done with care. Most of the spin-offs have nothing to do with the "main" series other than having the same characters appear in each one. Super Mario 3 plays nothing like Super Smash Bros. Paper Mario plays nothing like Mario Kart. Have our video game mascots play on a video game board game? Heaven forbid such a thing should ever happen. >_>

Having video game developers make a spin-off game enjoyable? Imagine that....

 

[Negatempest]

Just cause I want to

Star Wars Battlefront: God, a Star Wars game that barely has anything to do with Star Wars other than playing as some recognizable characters.

Super Puzzle Fighter: Such a disgrace of a game. Has nothing to do with Street Fighter other than recognizable visuals in the background.

Super Mario 64: What did they do to you Mario? You are not longer a 2D sprite but a barely recognizable polygon in a 3D world. It'll never work, I want my 2D sprite world back!

Final Fantasy 9: Such stupid looking characters that don't even look realistic like FF7 or FF8. Not even interested. (Not a spin-off, so sue me )

Street Fighter vs X-men: A spin-off game that has Street Fighter characters fighting the X-men? Can that even work?

 

[lowkey_jotunn]

I have no empirical evidence to back up this claim, but here's my anecdotal opinion on the matter. More often than not, when a game "spins off" an existing series, particularly a popular one, it's because the new game is shit.

Using the Silent Hill game as a potential example: Imagine they're 90% through the development process of Random Dungeon Crawler 13, a game completely and totally unrelated to Silent hill. At this point, they realize their game is crap... but have gone to far and invested to much to quit. Some one gets the bright idea to slap the Silent Hill name on it, and presto you've sold an extra million copies to the SH faithful.

This doesn't mean that spin offs are automatically garbage, just a higher percentage. We'll see.

 

[Spearmaster]

Well if some of these games are good enough to stand on their own why don't they have their own name or title?

Gamers complain because if a game is labeled with a name they recognize they expect a product they recognize with that name. Using a familiar name to sell a different/new game is seen as a clear bait and switch which is dishonest and preys on less informed gamers.

It is true that some of these games are good but the fact that developers and publishers are to lazy to make up an original title for them makes me to lazy to care about the game. Spin-offs and necro-resurrections of an IP just seem like a cheap cash in of the original title.

The only exception I can see is when its a major overhaul of an IP like in the case of the fallout series.

 

[MrBaskerville]

For every fan of 3D Castlevania games, there was a thriving and passionate 2D following on handhelds.

Actually it seems that Mercury Steam has taken over the entire franchise, so there´s only big grimdark and epic installments in the franchise, and it seems to be the grim future for the series.

But yeah, i agree with most of what you wrote, it´s mostly about availability.
But there´s also some expectations when playing a game in a series, you could make a Killzone game with cellshaded graphics, and it could still be a killzone game if the art style was done right. The problem is that a lot of new "sequels" and "spin-offs" ditch everything that defined the original series and instead they only hold a very vague resemblence to the source material.

 

[Trishbot]

For every fan of 3D Castlevania games, there was a thriving and passionate 2D following on handhelds.

Actually it seems that Mercury Steam has taken over the entire franchise, so there´s only big grimdark and epic installments in the franchise, and it seems to be the grim future for the series.

Hence my use of the past-tense.

... There USED to be an alternative. There really isn't anymore. That's my problem, and what Jim is missing. Spin-off as many games as you like, but when the core game's essence and original appeal flat-out no longer exists, there's a problem.

 

[MrBaskerville]

Was a bit fast there, read it wrong^^. Then we agree!

 

[Allthingsspectacular]

I can think of a game that was ruined by its name: Shadowrun for the 360 and PC.

Why? Because it was ****ing depressing. The first, and only, modern Shadowrun game and it is just an average multiplayer FPS with counter strike structure. It does absolutely nothing with the name, has no bearing on the style and has nothing to show for itself.

Does the game stand on its own without the name? Honestly, yeah. But for Shadowrun, it was embarrassing.

 

[ex275w]

I agree to some exent that brand name shouldn't affect my feelings on a game, but there is a huge flaw to that argument: WE AREN'T UNFEELING ROBOTS and this causes the following conflicts:
a) Names and words are used to identify certain qualities: When I hear Lord of the Rings I think of elves and orcs, when I hear the word shit I think about Dragon Age 2 and poop.
b) New products in an old brand CAN cheapen the old products: Many people after playing Mass Effect couldn't replay the old ones, because they recognized the old products with the unsavory aspects of the new ones. This reminds me of he main reason why Bill Watterson was opposed to Calvin and Hobbes merch, he didn't want his comic strip associated with banal, corporative items. Fans don't want their favorite franchises to be associated with corporate greed or terrible quality.
c) New products represent change, both good and bad: For many Dragon Age 2 represents the new face of the franchise, which many of the original fans dislike and would rather have it go away.
d) New products don't satiate the need for certain experiences: While Silent Hill is having its roguelike stuff, nobody is making the classic Silent Hill that the fans would have.

 

[Doclector]

I actually did a video a while back about book of memories, and now...I agree and disagree.


See, back then, I hadn't seen any hands on previews. I had seen a trailer, and it didn't look that good, especially with one of the devs desperately trying to reasure fans. I was incredibly surprised when I saw people saying it was pretty damn good. No harm, no foul, right? Well...not so much. If they wanted to make a dungeon crawler, why silent hill? Could they not have made a new horror universe not so reliant on isolation and psychology? Maybe they could have based it on existing work, HP lovecraft, hammer horror, hell, clive barker's probably up for more videogame work, and as awful as jericho turned out, he usually has pretty good ideas for monsters, enviroments, and stories. Hell, I could even see this kind of game being easy to tie in with "supernatural" effectively, playing as a team of hunters eliminating all manner of beasties.

Point is, it's rather obvious the game has been made as a silent hill game because the name sells. There are spin offs that fit with the main franchise, halo wars was a logical step to RTS' (and it did it a damn fine job of giving an RTS console controls that work, I'm honestly surprised we haven't had more people copy it) banjo kazooie nuts and bolts fit with the franchise's style and playfulness, but silent hill being made into a co op dungeon crawler? I don't see it.

I'm all for spin offs and franchises trying different genres, but what I don't like to see is a franchise being squeezed into a genre that doesn't fit. It wouldn't stop me enjoying a game (I like doom 3 although it's completely not what doom's supposed to be about) but crucially, it could stop me buying a game in the first place, simply because it gives off an impression, that at best, the people on control don't really know what they're doing, and at worst, it's a work to sell a game by attaching a well known name onto it.

 

[Doclector]

c) New products represent change, both good and bad: For many Dragon Age 2 represents the new face of the franchise, which many of the original fans dislike and would rather have it go away.
d) New products don't satiate the need for certain experiences: While Silent Hill is having its roguelike stuff, nobody is making the classic Silent Hill that the fans would have.

On that last point, silent hill downpour is actually pretty damn good. The monster design is a little lacklustre, and the combat's pretty damn bad, but they actually seem on the right track to regaining what made silent hill terrifying in the first place.

 

[Master_Fubar23]

I pretty much agree.
I LOVED Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light. A departure from "normal" series but it was a great little spin-off title. One which I enjoyed a lot more than the more recent Tomb Raider games. It felt like a Tomb Raider without being one in terms of perspective and in the way you play it. It kept all the little nuances that make a game feel like a Tomb Raider but in a whole new package.

Also, I haven't quite understood the rage of having Dante's hair brown. (nor really the decision to change it unless there's an important and telling story arc which explains/justifies it) because the game is obviously still going to be typical DMC game.

Syndicate on the other hand was stupid. With no plans to resurrect the original franchise, it couldn't be called a spin-off and bar the odd weapons the FPS only used the name of the original to lure people to it. It used no game mechanics or ideas from the original game. It used nothing from the old game to it's advantage.
If it had been called something else, no one would have been the wiser about it's "origins". They turned that franchise in to something massively run-on-the-mill and average. The reasons for it being glaringly obvious and I'm sort of happy it didn't really work well for them. (except for the dev studio lay-offs. That sucked). I'm glad they didn't get the message: Take old games name. Turn it into a typical FPS because "that's what sells". Mindless FPS buying sheep will buy. Profit.
Now that was weak.

I completely agree and to depict a good version of new games with old IP are the X-com games coming out. I was massively disappointed when I heard about X-com being a shooter since I wanted the tactical combat of the first X-com. However, when I watched the gameplay footage and found out the back story I didn't mind as much (Homefront destroyed any faith in I had in game footage and Dev hype). The game appears to have a good story (we'll see once it?s released) but more importantly it has a solid reason for the change. Also, the Dev's acknowledge that people want a version of the old game so they are in the process of making one which ties into the shooter version. This is the best use of IP change I can think of.