In recent months several games series have come to be rebooted. My question is would you rather see these properties be rebooted or have some new IP fill their void and bring something new to the table rather than a reimagining. I have an idea if a game is going to be good or not from the publisher usually along with what to expect in terms of other aspects(business practices ect.) So whats to stop the game publishers greenlighting some new original ideas? Any thoughts?
Reboots vs New IP.
- Thread starter Sherokain
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I like both. There is nothing wrong, really, with reboots. Every time I eat something I previously enjoyed, I'm technically rebooting it. Certain concepts are enduring because they're extremely strong.
I think we're a bit hard on sequels and reboots to be honest. Yes, it's gotten a bit ridiculous at points, and we've run some ideas right into the ground with the me-too train. But if I were to go through a list of my favorite games of all time, the top 10-25 would be thick with long running series. It would be quite disingenuous of me to claim I have no appetite for more of the same.
I think we're a bit hard on sequels and reboots to be honest. Yes, it's gotten a bit ridiculous at points, and we've run some ideas right into the ground with the me-too train. But if I were to go through a list of my favorite games of all time, the top 10-25 would be thick with long running series. It would be quite disingenuous of me to claim I have no appetite for more of the same.
I don't really like reboots. Most of the time it feels like companies are trying to warm up a corpse and put some make up on. Or more creepy, they just skin the corpse and throw it over something else.
That's not to say I hate all reboots ever, I just feel that quite a significant portion of them can, and probably should, be new IPs. Alternatively, should be done...well, better, as vague as this sounds.
That's not to say I hate all reboots ever, I just feel that quite a significant portion of them can, and probably should, be new IPs. Alternatively, should be done...well, better, as vague as this sounds.
I like reboots for one reason, it can take a franchise that's dying, revamp a lot of things about it, and still be familiar. Sometimes reboots lack the soul of the original, but if they don't(lack it)...they are great.
Also, reboots/remakes can take a good game, and bring it up to today's standards, and make it new and interesting. Not to mention the ability to play it on modern hardware... which is a huge win a lot of times to me.
new IPs are pretty hit or miss. Sure I like new IPs, and always crave something new. But in the end, it's a huge risk weather i'll even -like- a new IP. And a new IP will have to work out all the kinks, if the kinks are bad enough, we'll never see them worked out any way.
Reboots don't have that issue.
...So, what I'm really getting at is, niether should be discounted. Both can be good or bad, and...really, it doesn't freaking matter as long as it's a good game.
Also, reboots/remakes can take a good game, and bring it up to today's standards, and make it new and interesting. Not to mention the ability to play it on modern hardware... which is a huge win a lot of times to me.
new IPs are pretty hit or miss. Sure I like new IPs, and always crave something new. But in the end, it's a huge risk weather i'll even -like- a new IP. And a new IP will have to work out all the kinks, if the kinks are bad enough, we'll never see them worked out any way.
Reboots don't have that issue.
...So, what I'm really getting at is, niether should be discounted. Both can be good or bad, and...really, it doesn't freaking matter as long as it's a good game.
Well, this sounds like you hate all reboots ever. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, DOPO?DoPo said:
Geek culture is almost defined by repeating really time worn tropes and formula. Hell, the bulk of fantasy is defined by its propensity for aping a 60 year old trilogy. So if you, say, are going to do another turn based tactical game about aliens invading earth, why NOT call it XCOM? Would it be greatly improved if it were called Space Burglars and the sectoids were red?
I'd be up for some game remakes, but reboots I'm not too much a fan, most of the time they'd have been better as spin-offs instead of trying to reinvent the franchise. I'd love a new battlefield 1942 for example, WW II on their new engine would be awesome, not sure if that would be a remake or reboot though.
Indeed I am. You have an astonishing degree of attention to detailBloatedGuppy said:
There is repeating tropes and making new stuff with an old label on. For the record, I just like stories be done and finished. I've got no problem with series of any sort ending (well, assuming they do end and aren't just stopped from production) - I'd rather see that instead of the story picking up from the beginning but now the protagonist's dog is instead a squirrel and the antagonists now wear suits instead of jeans and stuff. That's just annoying and wasteful. It's even worse if the protagonist changes gender, their per is in fact a talking sword, the antagonists are mutated zombies (in suits) and it's all set on the moon instead of New York. That's just a completely different game that must be forcefully fit into an old mould for the sake of fitting it into an old mould not that it would help any.BloatedGuppy said:
If it makes sense in the story, then sure, why not, have a blank slate. Maybe we're now playing the descendants of everybody or something that must face the old challenges in new environments, for example. That works. The old story is still wrapped up and completed and this is a completely new chapter. I've not actually played XCOM yet but I thought you could have different unrelated stories there across different games.
I can also excuse reboots out of necessity - two games as examples here:
First, there is Heroes 5/6 (and everything else of the M&M franchise since these) - they are pretty much reboots, since it's mostly the name and the mechanics that tie them to the previous ones (in H6's case, not even mechanics as much). Actually both do have some of the old heroes[footnote]Lord Haart was there, as well ...hmm, Adela, I think and a few others - Crag Hack and Sandro got their own DLCs in 6, too[/footnote] but two things here - first the games changed ownership after 4 so it makes sense that Ubisoft would want to start from a clean slate, second the whole thing is set in Ashan and in-universe it would also make sense to be a separate place that shares none or very little with the previous depictions of the worlds.
My second example is the World of Darkness. Simply put, the old one had become a mess, soon to be unmanageable one. That is true in many regards - mechanics operated poorly and not at all if you tried to mix two game lines[footnote]or at least not at all in the way they are supposed to work - werewolves from their respective gameline are a whole different beast (pun...maybe intended) than the ones depicted in Vampire, for example. Also some of the templates completely lack features other template has and relies upon - for example, a vampire that can use a power that calls the opponent to check their Self-Control or maybe even Humanity, only neither werewolves nor mages (among lots of other critters) either possess these traits or even have anything comparable[/footnote], the backstory[footnote]it had characters that suddenly resurrected themselves for no apparent reason, some that apparently were several people at once, and the infamous Rasputin who in several works was described as belonging to the vampires, to the wraiths, to the mages and who knows what else[/footnote], and finally White Wolf had written themselves into ending everything - there were all these signs of Armageddon coming, so going "Soon, the world will end! *taking a breath* Soon the world will end!" for a while longer would have become just silly. Producing new content was becoming a BIG hassle - mechanically and story-wise, as new writers would need to go through a decade of literature sometimes on scanned PDFs and sometimes the literature would even be consistent. Moving to the new World of Darkness was almost a necessity. Also, the new World of Darkness fixes everything that was wrong with the old one to a very satisfactory degree.
So reboots do have their place. But having a reboot for the sake of having a reboot, I don't think is one.
Finally, we could all stand to gain if instead of recycling the old we get some new ideas and products instead of getting so many "X's take on Y" every so often.
If you want to make a game that is similar to a game you already have, then reboot it. If its different then make a new game. It's only going to hurt your own business if you make a game that is similar to another game franchise you own. People will immediately complain "why didn't you just make another in that series!" even if it was too dissimilar for you to just make it a sequel.
Then again if you reboot it everyone will just say 'reboots are crap!' The only way to not get massive hate, is ironically to kill good idea that are similar to idea you already had and do only different idea even if they are bad. That's so very sad.
Then again if you reboot it everyone will just say 'reboots are crap!' The only way to not get massive hate, is ironically to kill good idea that are similar to idea you already had and do only different idea even if they are bad. That's so very sad.
Im for both. New IPs are great and show that there is still alot of new ideas in the gaming industry. Reboots on the other hand can be great too. XCOM EU is basically a reboot and it turned out to be a great game. Now with that said reboots should really done carefully for every XCOM will get a bunch of reboots like Syndicate.
both have their place, I prefer a reboot of an older and classic series, or a dead genre (war for the overworld anyone?)
I hate some of these reboots that are treated more like a "series getting boring, press the restart button"
I hate some of these reboots that are treated more like a "series getting boring, press the restart button"
I think that reboots should be saved for things that actually deserve a reboot.
It doesn't make sense to reboot something that is already working, or is just a couple years old. Reboots are best when they take a failure, something that was almost good but didn't quite make it (for example, Dark Void) and trying to fix the flaws that now seem obvious. That way, new good ideas have a market, working good ideas keep going, old good ideas with poor execution get a second chance.
Of course, this isn't going to happen because there's too much money in the current system. Still, a commenter can dream...
It doesn't make sense to reboot something that is already working, or is just a couple years old. Reboots are best when they take a failure, something that was almost good but didn't quite make it (for example, Dark Void) and trying to fix the flaws that now seem obvious. That way, new good ideas have a market, working good ideas keep going, old good ideas with poor execution get a second chance.
Of course, this isn't going to happen because there's too much money in the current system. Still, a commenter can dream...
Spin-offs. Look at the Megami Tensei series with it's Persona, Devil Summoner, Devil Survivors, ect ect series. I really wish more developers would take a page from that book when exploring new systems but wanting to make use of a brand and tie it to other successful games.
it depends usually when we are talking new ip its not really new, but rather a "clone" of another franchise. few clones actually are good, the saints row franchise is the only one that comes to mind that has succeeded in evolving fro its clone mold.
for the most part i favor new ip like dishonored or assassins creed that turn into home-run successes because of innovation, and i would also include the arkham games, despite being licensed property.
on the reboot side of things, i can only think of modern warfare that did a good job at updating the franchise. i cannot think of any other reboots that have made a overwhelming positive impression on me. perhaps bioshock
for the most part i favor new ip like dishonored or assassins creed that turn into home-run successes because of innovation, and i would also include the arkham games, despite being licensed property.
on the reboot side of things, i can only think of modern warfare that did a good job at updating the franchise. i cannot think of any other reboots that have made a overwhelming positive impression on me. perhaps bioshock
I don't mind reboots as long as it does things completely different from the original series. See DMC and Tomb Raider.
I'm all for new IPs though. Kinda tired of playing sequels.
Off topic question for mods: The captcha thingy is saying "Diagnostic mode enabled" and I have to do a captcha for every post. How do I turn it back to normal?
I'm all for new IPs though. Kinda tired of playing sequels.
Off topic question for mods: The captcha thingy is saying "Diagnostic mode enabled" and I have to do a captcha for every post. How do I turn it back to normal?
Well that is what reboots are, new IP cashing in on the old name, there is just not more to it then that.
I'm perfectly fine with reboots when they aren't of franchises I liked, but devs are knowingly pissing on the very fans they are cashing that name on... that is just being a **** turned up all the way to 11.
I'm perfectly fine with reboots when they aren't of franchises I liked, but devs are knowingly pissing on the very fans they are cashing that name on... that is just being a **** turned up all the way to 11.
Depends how good they are. Goes without saying that a good, new IP is appreciated, but slapping the name of an old franchise on it when they do not share a setting or characters or gameplay is a dubious practice and likely to draw the wrong kind of attention from former fans.
I remember I was talking to my mate about reboots, "DmC: Devil May Cry" specifically. He argued that "All these reviews are saying it's a good game, but not necessarily a good Devil May Cry game. If the game only has the loosest link by way of characters and very loosely by story, why not change the characters and story and make a new IP?" I basically said "Well, Batman Begins is a reboot. It has nothing to do with the Burton/Schumacher films, the only connection is character names and story. Why not change the characters and story to make a new film?"
Reboots are tricky, sure it's easy to say is "The companies are just using the name to make money", but if the reboot is for the better then why not endorse it? Maybe you'll get some new fans from it. That said I do think the either "Spiritual Successor" or "Spin-Off" are better ways to go, like what infinity_turtles said about the Megami Tensei series. In their case even the numbered "Persona" games are mostly self contained (few references notwithstanding), you can pick up any one of those games and not get lost story wise.
Reboots are tricky, sure it's easy to say is "The companies are just using the name to make money", but if the reboot is for the better then why not endorse it? Maybe you'll get some new fans from it. That said I do think the either "Spiritual Successor" or "Spin-Off" are better ways to go, like what infinity_turtles said about the Megami Tensei series. In their case even the numbered "Persona" games are mostly self contained (few references notwithstanding), you can pick up any one of those games and not get lost story wise.
When I think of a new IP for video games...I find it hard to think of any. I bought dishonored. I did not like it, I will spare you the details of why. However, it seemed like a spiritual successor to other games. I returned it and picked up used copies of Fallout 3 and Saint's Row 3. Fallout 3 the reboot of the Fallout series that was the spiritual successor to wasteland. Saint's Row 3 the third installment of a spiritual successor to GTA San Andreas, which was the third installment of the GTA reboot from the original Grand Theft Auto.
It was said earlier, as long as the game is good.
It was said earlier, as long as the game is good.