"Reheating" the IP's

[Art Axiv]

So I took a moment out of my measly but somewhat awesome life to think about what's happening to the world, and somewhat to the game industry.

Seen some similar threads to this one, and it got me wondering... recently what's happening we keep re-heating the old IP's. Be it music [ remixes of remixes anyone? ], or games, the industries are starting to follow their own tails, like a somewhat confused dog that doesn't know what to do with himself. Ok, That's nothing new what I said. But listen further.

What I've noticed, is that people are hardly satisfied with the "reheating" process. Be it Fallout, or Prince of Persia, or Mario.. I think everyone is starting to feel the lack of original content. More to that, we don't see the developers putting the effort of providing us new content as they claim to be "risky" to be "innovative" ( though we know how e.g. Nintendo did it with Wii ).

Question posed is, do You like your remade, redone, remixed, rehashed or whatever IP's?
I... have to say I am a bit - each time I see a new title from my favourite series, my eyes sparckle - just to *usually* leave a harsh aftertaste when I start to play the game OR I am finished with it.

 

[CapnGod]

Some IPs I am fine with. I like the prospect of a new Diablo, and StarCraft doesn't sound bad, either.

But I do like that there are some, if not that many, new IPs out there. Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, and LittleBigPlanet (though I haven't gotten to play this one yet).

It depends on the IP, really. If it is made with the intention of a sequel, or begs for more, then it's probably ok. Diablo screamed for a sequel when the hero jammed Diablo's Soulstone into his own forehead. The destruction of the Worldstone leaves me panting for the next. Mass Effect was made to be a trilogy, and I'm cool with the prospect thereof.

Now, I've never played them, and I could be wrong, but games like Tomb Raider felt like abusing horse corpses. At least, that's the way it seemed in reviews. That was cash cow milking, without love and care. Yes, yes, the argument could be made about Diablo, but there's also love and care evident in the game and sequel.

I think there is room for both, and I'm glad, too. Not every game gets to do everything it sets out to do, and things can be addressed in the sequel. I loved going back to Tristram (yes, I have been playing D2 a whole fucking lot lately, why do you ask?) and seeing what happened, you know?

Fuck it, I might be rambling, but I think you're likely to get at that which I'm driving toward.

 

[Chickenlittle]

I find this to be incredibly infuriating for some developers. Nintendo especially, lacking in innovation, or just lazy, apparently.

There are indeed some good new IPs out there, like CapnGod stated, but the old ones are just drowning everything else. I don't mind if a sequel or three are made for a game, but at least take the time to make sure it's playable before you release it!

 

[geldonyetich]

I'd say it depends on the game, really. There's a difference between releasing more of the same versus releasing a significant improvement to an original.

Does it annoy me when they've released more of the same? Again, it depends. Sometimes, I'm not really bored of that game yet and more of the same is all I really needed. E.G. your average Expansion Pack.

 

[CapnGod]

I don't think expansion packs really count against the dev, though, because it's just usually cool, you know? Maybe some more maps or whatever.

But just rehashing your tired fucking football game year in and year out? Maybe slow it down to a two or three year cycle and just update rosters or something. Those have got to be sucking cash that could be used elsewhere for new IPs.

And that's the real problem, isn't it? Not enough cash to risk on a lot of new things, so just milk that festering turduckhen grease soaked Madden teat some more. Or, you know, whatever crap you (as a dev or publisher) keep rehashing.