When Can a Franchise Change?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 тра 2024
- If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. Their fee is
free unless they win. For more information go to forthepeople.com/JsReviews
*************
When a franchise goes through a major evolution, that naturally creates a difference of opinion within the audience on if that change was good or not. Following my video on Resident Evil 4, I heard a lot of discourse about what is a "real" RE game. Because of that, I decided to talk more about this idea and then more broadly, discuss when a franchise should change and when it should remain consistent and what the major pitfalls are. Cases including RE, God of War, Mega Man, Zelda, Sonic and the list goes on.
*************
Twitter ▶️ / jsreviews2
Consider Supporting Me on Patreon:
/ jsreviews
Check out the merch store: crowdmade.com/collections/jsr...
God of War 3 clips Were Borrowed from Tactical Bacon Productions
Mario 3D All Stars Footage Was Borrowed From KingK
*************
Chapters:
00:00 A "Valid" Entry
03:33 Getting It Right
11:08 Does The Series Need Change?
14:48 The Sonic Problem
*************
#residentevil #godofwar #sonicthehedgehog - Ігри
If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. Their fee is
free unless they win. For more information go to www.forthepeople.com/JsReviews
so true, bestie...
better call saul reference
@@bendito247 that's what i thought. saul would be the type of guy to sponsor a youtuber
the most left field sponsorship for a youtube video lmao
@@redisyourdad pheonix wright could do with this ad
It's crazy how Sonic and Castlevania are the 2 game franchises that undergoes the most changes in gameplay, tone, and audience appeal. On one hand, they usually aren't going to be accused of being stale and safe. On the other hand, they tend to suffer from having multiple people within their fandoms clashing over which style should be kept or forgotten. It's the double-edged sword that comes with trying to constantly reinvent yourself.
I’d argue (at least the main series) Castlevania played it too safe, we had 3 GBA games, 3 DS games, & 1 PS1 game released in less than 10 years, by the time Harmony of Dissonance came out, most of the fanbase was exhausted with the series
They’re also 2 of the first generally considered good video game adaptations
@@zaneheaston8254 harmony of dissonance just wasn't that good,it lacked the brilliant ost the games are known for and had some of the worst bosses in the franchise
Harmony of Dissonance is underrated af
@@SuxMenner Harmony of dissonance just can't compare to the greats like Metroid,Megaman Zero 3,Drill Dozer or Wario 4 like Aria of Sorrow and Circle of the moon can.Id personally like to hear your opinion about it since I appreciate different perspectives
Boiling it down to "don't be like Sonic" really is the most effective way to put it. Keep the elements of your series but in a new way, instead of abandoning everything and starting over every time.
Exactly
The problem with Sega/Sonic Team is that they take criticism the wrong way. They think if people don't like it, start over completely and redo everything.
Yea good point as much as it hurts my mega fan ego almost every game (even one’s with the same formula) don’t really stay all that close instead of improving an existing idea it’s try a new “better one”look at SA1 and 2 perfect example
It's nice to see you're experimenting with these video essay topics, it's a nice change of pace from the standard reviews. Plus it's interesting to hear your perspective on these things.
Another series that changed for the better would be Doom. Doom 2016 was able to keep the spirit of the originals but shook up the levels, enemies, and story to make it feel like a whole new type of FPS. Then they did it again with Eternal, keeping things fresh but keeping the soul.
The fact that the classic games have virtually unlimited content via the fan community certainly helps in Doom’s case.
Metroid Prime is another example of good change
Though at its core, it still a boomer shooter. Compared to other games in this video, Doom 2016 doesn't really shake up the franchise. More like going back to its roots and adding a few modern touches
@@teneesh3376 eh, it’s not entirely like a boomer shooter, especially those like Doom 1/2.
RPG mechanics, somewhat linear but 3D level design with a lot of platforming and vertical movement, cutscenes and lore explained through codecs, optional challenges, alt fire on weapons, collectibles, arcade modes with a scoring system, multiplayer with load outs, demon powerups, and ranking systems
It’s an evolution of a different formula, borrowing a lot from Quake (especially 2), Halo, and Unreal. It’s still deviates as much as something like RE4 and GoW18 do to their franchises.
@@AVGNROCKS1996 i can see that. But it's still an evolution to the boomer shooter and not a full deviation. Doom 3 was more of a deviation. That game was slower and went for a more horror take
It's a real interesting discussion. I pretty much agree with everything you laid out, but there's an aspect that I don't think was touched upon, at least not thoroughly enough imo, and I'd like to give my insight.
A series in danger of stagnating is a valid reason to explore different formulas for a series, but it gets to a point that a series has had so many games already, I think it's important to question if keeping the series going is necessary at all. I can think of a very few handful of series (Sly being the best example) that had a definitive ending, and didn't either burn out after years of stagnation, or just disappeared unceremoniously. Game series are pretty much expected to deliver game after game, without really analysing if this premise/story/world really necessitates further entries. (Just think of how many fans rabbidly demand a new game if a series has gone like 5 years without one, regardless of reasons why lol). I think this is the reason a lot of these shake-ups of long running series get a lot of push back, it becomes a lot more obvious that these series likely haven't examined this question, and have just seen fit to continue until fans are sick of it.
When fans push back against these shake-ups, I think a valid question that is often asked is "did this need to be part of *series title*? Can't it just be its own thing?" I think the logical conclusion to this question (and what I think is more important to ask) is "how does this difference in gameplay/tone etc. benefit from being part of this series?" That is to say, what unique experience do we get from this series in particular going in this particular direction? Does this just feel like a different game with this series branding on it? In the cases you laid out in the video, it's clear that these series greatly benefited from the change up and have us an experience we only could have gotten from this particular series changing in the ways it did (especially Jak 2). A series I can think of that did simply change for the sake of it, and could have been its own thing entirely was the late PS2 Crash Bandicoot games. Nothing in those screamed "this needs to be a Crash game". They did have a valid reason for changing up the formula, the series (and genre) was stagnating heavily at the time, so they had a good reason. The problem was Crash didn't need to keep going as long as it did, and the games we got weren't uniquely Crash games, they just had his name attached to them. (Obviously he's had good games recently, but it's different and complicated lol.)
Maybe I should turn these comments into videos for my own dumb channel that I don't upload to lmao, but I find your videos to be great jumping off points for interesting discussion that I can't help but litter your comment section with unhinged essays. Great video once again mate
Your comment reminds me of Danganronpa V3 ending and it's accurate.
It's always tricky asking people to say goodbye to a franchise and let devs move on to something new, especially when they also do an aesthetic shift as well. I feel like a lot of people who clamour for new Jak, Sly, Ratchet etc games aren't just fans of funny mascot platformers but also the more animated aesthetic that those games had as oppossed to the photorealism that came after it. When all the companies move on from those gameplay genred AND aesthetics into something new as one unit, it fosters hella resentment.
None of that is a good reason to stay mad, of course. I feel like it's perfectly okay for Sly and Jak to simply end, when the OG's want to move on. Just like it's okay for Infamous and Uncharted to end. I guess it's just that it feels like when the big guys move on from those genres there's not a lot of people who try and pick up the slack to do similar games- no more charmingly celshaded thief games, no more open-world superhero games that are truly themselves and not just Marvel / DC games with the advantages / disadvantages that follow... if there had been something to move on TO I feel like peoole would have an easier time accepting that sometimes games just end.
That’s the reason why JRPG tends to be anthologist series.
@@goranisacson2502 I think also that many people like the characters and world and want to be able to act out more stories from them in new professionally made games even if there wouldn't be any big gameplay revolutions, AKA "realize my fanfiction". And many blindly trust that imagination is an inherently infinite thing.
Crash especially I consider having short legs as a franchise because the characters are relatively inflexible, with few and unversatile inherent skills and very few appropriate ways to deviate from them. It was carried quite largely by its zaniness. And ad campaign. That said, Wrath of Cortex wasn't the wrong idea, just bad execution. Crash of the Titans and Mind Over Mutant tho? Even if they made sense canonically, they're still not what people came to Crash for, just like with Star Fox Adventures. Perhaps Crash should've finished up as an actual cartoon miniseries where such a fundamental shift in the core action would've been far more palatable. EDIT: Ha, I just learned of the Crash cartoon. Guess The Algorithm decided to be a sweetheart.
Yakuza/Like a Dragon is a series in recent memory that took a massive shift from 3D brawler action game to turn based RPG. The transition was very good and having a new protagonist in Ichiban Kasuga gives a new perspective on things while previous characters still showing up when necessary. Despite this shift, Judgment and Lost Judgment, the latter of which came after LaD7, is still an action game at its core, and an upcoming game starring original main protagonist Kazuma Kiryu is coming sometime this year and is still an action game.
The shift in gameplay came from a desire to do something different while still trying to maintain the series' zany identity, and, well, it pulled it off pretty well if you ask me. Yakuza 6 and Kiwani 2 both had the same combat system in their new fancy Dragon Engine, with very mixed results. Judgment while an imoorvement still has issues with one combat style being a little useless, but Lost Judgment improves the action in every way imaginable. If you aren't into RPGs it's hard to convince you otherwise, but it doesn't change the fact it's still a very well made game, and it's not like the action identity is gone at all.
Final Fantasy is a series known for being a different experience each time which has a bit of a Sonic problem but getting into that will take forever so I'll leave it at that
I'm actually going to say that I think you're a bit wrong about Final Fantasy being a different experience each time. Up until 10, pretty much every (numbered) game was just building off what came before.
1 Introduced the basic concept of jobs.
2 sucks and was a mistake (though it did give us chocobos).
3 allowed you to change up the jobs of your party mid game.
4 introduced the Active Time Battle System (which shall hence forth be abbreviated to ATB), but did backpedal on the job changing. It also gave us a more thought out story, while still giving each character a "job," so to speak.
5 reintroduced job changing, while making improvements to the ATB system (biggest one being that spells no longer take time to charge up before casting).
6 introduced the Esper system of letting people cast whatever magic you wanted them to by assigning specific Espers, (it also went back to FFIV's style of assigning jobs, but that's going to pretty much be the case for every game here on out. Oh well, it was nice while it lasted. At least Bravely Default picked up the job changing)
7 refined the Esper system into the Materia system, and gave the series a fresh new coat of PS1 paint
8 turned the Materia system into the Junction system
and 9 is a game I haven't played, so I don't know what they did.
I know it sounds like a just listed a bunch of reasons why they're all different, but keep in mind, from 4 through 9, they pretty much used the exact same battle system every game. Yeah, they kept making minor tweaks to what was going on outside the battles, but in battle, 4 plays pretty much the exact same as 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
Even if you're looking at setting, Final Fantasy has pretty much always been a Science-Fantasy series. In the first game, there's alien robots, and one of the dungeons is essentially a space station. In 4, you go to the fucking moon. 6 sees a blend on technology with the typical fantasy setting you'd be used to. Yeah, 7 and 8 lean more into the Science-Fiction part of it, but you're still dealing with fantasy magic chicanery and whatnot. And while 9 goes back to a more Fantasy style, it still has the extremely mechanical airships the series has been known for.
Really, the biggest thing that separates the Final Fantasy series, is the fact that every numbered game in the main series is a completely separate world and story from all that came before it, and all that will come after it (unless it's specified to be a sequel/prequel to one of the games. That's where you get games like 10-2).
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk
You could argue that outright changing classes was obsoleted with VI by the ability to build parties of specific characters while the more genericized magic, summon and accessory systems still allowed microcustomization-though the facts that anyone could have all of the standard spells at once AND that Economizers could be farmed kind of killed the late game challenge with VI specifically.
@@8-bitsarda747 I love that FF reinvents itself for each instalment. Even when it misses it’s still cool that it’s entertaining new ideas. 16 looks great.
@@SaberRexZealot And, being a more generalized RPG series defined more by microtraditions like spell categories (Cure/Fire/Blizzard/Thunder etc.), creature types (Chocobos, Moogles, Malboros blah blah) and vehicles (airship obvs) than exact story and play mechanics, it can get away with constantly reinventing itself whereas something more beholden to an overall style like Dragon Quest has to be far more careful to stay in the warehouse when going outside the box such as with IV's chapter gimmick.
I never thought I’d see the day where Morgan and Morgan sponsored a UA-camr I like, but here we are.
The argument of whether a franchise should change is always something I find fascinating. Sometimes you get people who argue about how a series changes and it feels like it's not like it was before and people spite it (Resident Evil, God of War). Then there are other series that don't change and after years of the same formula people get tired of it (Pokemon). It feels like a case by case basis and for some of these arguments it feels more like a personal attack than anything else about seeing a series change in terms of direction. When it comes to RE, my first RE wasn't until 4 which was fantastic imo. Then when it came to God of War I played the original trilogy and then the new God of War came and I couldn't come to grips with how much it has changed. But looking back I think it was the right thing to do. After a certain point people get tired of certain tropes. Though my mind goes to the sort of idea where if it strays to far from the original IP, why not make something new out of it? When RE4 was being developed we got IPs created from the previous remnants like Onimusha and DMC. There's so much you can glean from this certain aspect of gaming. Change is a necessity for things to grow. Sometimes it's done well and sometimes it can stumble at the starting point before it can truly get going, though the latter is more of a rarity. It does help to make certain games in IPs within a longer timeframe because it does a better job of preventing burnout. This is my two cents and I'll stop here before I ramble on any longer.
I think change is necessary when needed, but only when it can further the original formula of a series. For example, breath of the wild, while radically different, gave Zelda the innovation it really needed at the time by bringing back the appeal of the nes games open ended world.
True, but I find BOTW’s drastic change a bit jarring since the game ended up removing the clever and unique puzzle structures found in other games INCLUDING the OG. BOTW doesn’t have much thoughtful puzzles and or dungeons and I didn’t find myself scratching my head like OOT or ALTTP. That’s something that I criticize BOTW for doing… its a good open world game… but an extremely overhyped “Zelda” game.
Plus other issues with BOTW which made Zelda great like the compelling story or relationships you grow with characters… pretty much non-existent in BOTW…
With BOTW the open world design was fantastic but I feel like it came at the cost of dungeon design. My biggest hope with BOTW is that we get dungeon design more in line with TP and SS so we can have the best of both worlds
This is actually a good question to ask not just gaming franchises, but film franchises too. I think the MCU is at a paradigm shift right now. And Thor Love and Thunder was the cause of that shift. Pokémon is in a similar position. Scarlet and Violet are a HUGE change of pace to the franchise. They're working on a new anime WITHOUT Ash Ketchum. Sonic Frontiers was also a welcome change of pace. Sonic Prime was a fine addition to the franchise as well. I think change is necessary, when things feel stale. And for a lot of these mentioned franchises, things were stale for a LONG time. So the shift can either skyrocket them into the green, or plummet the franchise into the shadow realm.
I don't know about the MCU. Seems like we're still in same song and dance for the past few years and Ant-Man Quantumania isn't helping either.
@@kingbash6466 I think I should've been clearer in that I mean TLA is causing a paradigm shift for the audience. If Marvel doesn't change, they never will, and will lose that credibility they built up.
With the MCU, the shift happened earlier with Shang Chi and Eternals which people weren’t happy about. The problem with Marvel is that they’re still stuck in the same loop and they need to do something that’ll change for the better. This is why I think the “Cinematic Universe” idea is pretty much dead seeing how Iron Man to Endgame was a well thought out structured story and you can’t catch lightning in a bottle twice. The only hope for Comic Book movies would be if they’re made as stand alone movies.
I.e. The Batman
@@cloudshines812 Shang-Chi still feels like an MCU film, but Eternals did try to have a different approach to the formula. Unfortunately, I didn't think they succeeded in that mostly because the movie felt kinda bloated and wasn't able to really flesh out the 10 or so major characters in that time. If anything, I think the "Werewolf by Night" short is the one the few examples that shows the MCU can tackle different tones and styles and do them well.
@@cloudshines812 really? I was under the impression people rather liked Shang-Chi.
I think the issue with Sonic is that they never stopped to evolve any current style of Sonic game, every game tries something new & different, while abandoning any sort of cohesion the previous games had
Sonic is a strange series. You notice that they tend to regress when it comes to later games in the game style. Like you can't do as much in heroes compared to adventure 2. Or the many mechanics removed in forces that were in Generations.
And sonic frontiers is a new thing. That's the best thing I can say about it. I mean it desperately needs a lot more refinement and momentum, but fans like it
@Teneesh I'm the minority who doesn't like Frontiers for many reasons. But I hope that they make the next game a huge step up from Frontiers and if not, people are gonna trash Frontiers and realize that it's a bad game than they thought it was. Just like Colors, which I thought was decent.
@@nerodoesart5886 it's sonic though. I highly doubt it. Cause from forces onwards, sonic games have been rushed and never had enough budget or time. And with open world games, you need money and time for it to be good. Not even ubisoft knows how to make good ones, and they only make open world games
@Teneesh Yeah, true. But Ubisoft has a lot of budgets. The last time they had enough budget for a Sonic game was Colors and maybe Generation. Sonic Frontiers had as much time as most open-world games, but not enough budget.
@@nerodoesart5886 it's weird cause for games, more budget usually means more people and/or more time. And some times more people doesn't make it better. Like halo infinite
I feel like regardless whenever a franchise changes a significant amount, there's new standards and principles for it. Example: Kamen Rider going from Showa era to Heisei, adding stuff like more Riders and gimmicks per show, or any video game 2D - 3D transitions re-inventing certain gameplay mechanics due to game design. The changes become distinct enough from the what came before that they set apart new instalments from what came before as a new beginning
Usually, when an action game franchise goes from 2D to 3D, the basic action is kept but becomes more in service of exploration than of athletics, both to take advantage of full spatial movement and to make up for the potential increased difficulty of maneuvering in full space with both speed and precision as managing depth is harder than managing width and/or height. This is why Mario became a collectathon in 3D while Zelda and Metroid hardly fundamentally changed despite the yoke being lifted from the possibilities for environments, physics and perspective-action adventure is already inherently explorative. Sonic, being built around staying on the go at high speeds, couldn't really be super-explorative on the regular even if said speed facilitated exploration, so it instead used full space to expand on the original play and the camera to actually allow the player to decently see where they're going, facilitating not just normal play but also speedrunning, and added the Homing Attack as a crutch for bashing baddies and for making sudden turns in midair. It also threw in slower alternate playstyles that pretty much needed 3D to work well, but that's getting more into the topic of change in general than change specifically because of going 3D.
Very good topic. Change can be good or bad depending on how they handle it.
I think Kirby is an example of a franchise that ALMOST fell into the same trap as Mega Man, but I think Forgotten Land did a lot to refresh the series, not just with switching to 3D, but also HAL Labs changing their approach to level design, tossing out the boxy, “function over form” style levels of older games and instead fusing level design with the environment design. Not only does it make exploring these levels more fun, but it also goes a long way in selling the idea that the places that you’re going to are real, lived in places that have fallen into ruin due to them being abandoned for so long.
It's cool that you brought up Star Fox, i actually think that you could use that franchise as a another example of change as a concept. It's very interesting, that neraly every entry of that series has a different core gameplay! I mean nobody can agree on, if thats a good or a bad thing but I certainly would recommend checking the series out, if you havent already. Anyways good video and have a nice day
I like it a lot when you do these essay or discussion-esque videos on different topics about video games, a nice change of pace from the reviews and also helps start a discussion on these topics.
Nice to see you following the stuff you said in the video, keeping the core values but bringing some spice and diversity in your content. Similarly I liked your least backtracking guide on MMX3, I hope you do some more of those type of vids.
Surprised Paper Mario wasn't mentioned. THAT franchise has had some of the biggest backlash to changes while still retaining its genre technically.
Examples?
A valid Change to me has to check some boxes or nail one perfectly, these boxes are: 1: Introduction of a new gameplay mechanic that enhances entertainment and immersion into the narrative. 2: Story Continuity, we see in the RE series, as the story progresses, the bioweapons has been a known factor for awhile so government/military's forces are adapting thus a change in tone or gameplay depending on the focus of the progression of the narrative. 3: Character Perspective, often we'd see Main titles play one way and spinoffs another due to the change in story perspective. Most would consider a squeal to be a "TRUE or VALID" entry if can mostly carry on the spirit /theme of what made it popular.
A great video overall but I’m a bit surprised you didn’t touch on how spin offs can complicate expectations and desires for a franchise. For example, Sonic Riders was the first Sonic game I ever played and even today a small part of me sees the ascetic of that series as the “real” Sonic.
On the JRPG side I think it's worth talking about Persona and Dragon Quest.
Persona had 3 games before Persona 3 completely overhauled the visuals (2D to 3D), gameplay (random encounters to overworld encounters, Press-Turn, All-Out Attacks), and magic system (each game since P3 has a different way of unlocking Personas unrelated to the method in P1) and each game since built upon the last
P3 had AI controlled party with an emphasis on hitting elemental weaknesses for additional actions. P4 gave full party control and refined the post-battle rewards system. P5 added the Baton Pass mechanic that gives you the ability to pass your extra action to another party member. And even the social sim mechanics were updated where in P5 they have additional benefits outside of experience boosts. These are so jarringly different from the original Persona trilogy that most fans won't play the original games or even joke about how they don't exist, which is sad but clearly Atlus struck gold when they changed.
Meanwhile Dragon Quest is a series that prides itself on its unchanging nature and sticking to its classic roots (or so I've heard I've only played DQ11), so much so that when the studio announced in a livestream that DQ 12 would have "revamped" combat, fans became terrified that it would take the Final Fantasy approach and become a full action RPG (the same livestream said it would stay turn based but whatever I guess)
I see Persona fans always begging for change and Dragon Quest fans happy with the consistency. I guess the takeaway is it really depends because you can't please everyone, but you should still try to get a new/larger audience.
Yeah also with Final Fantasy I actually had someone say to me that ATB is what MAKES FF and they believe there hasn't been a proper FF game since FF9 and they feel that the series changing gameplay after 9 makes the series feel unfocused and makes it look like FF is suffering from an identity crisis as they feel that consistency is so important for any game series but honestly FFX has my favorite battle system of any FF game and despite XII being a bit polarising in some areas of the internet I hear some reviewers liking FF12 like Resonant Arc for example so I'm still keen on playing through FFXII one day
Nice! Now I have to get back to my 2023 BACKLOG even more! Love the channel and solid creative content always! Thx
Honey, wake up, J just uploaded a video.
Lol
You said it perfectly. Explained how change and work and when it works and when it doesn’t. You did a perfect job man
Nuance my friend. It helps your perspective so much and that's one of the pillars of this channel. Hats off
I would say Saints Row is a good example of changes done wrong. The first two games were fine, the second one refining elements of the first. But 3 short years later and Saints Row the Third felt like both a refined version of Saints Row 2 *and* a completely drastic dash to a different tone. It easily won more newcomers but it felt like it was made only for a group that wasn't the core fans of Saints Row. There's nothing bad about attracting a wider audience but it's a problem if you alienate a majority of the fans who were there from the beginning. The final game in the series, a reboot, ironically, is what happens when you rely on drastic change after drastic change without careful consideration of the core fanbase (which at that point was starving for just a simple return to the original two games in tone and gameplay--a Saints Row 3...not Saints Row *The Third*. If not that, an accessible way to play Saints Row 1+2).
Another example is Halo. The way its been handled is another sign of the core base being alienated as the series itself is mismanaged because the ones handling it seem to always want it to be something its not.
Not to mention they were envious of being called a GTA clone so they did everything to divert themselves from GTA in the wrong way.
I feel Star Fox is also guilty of not knowing how to correctly evolve it's series, since they did a good job with the first 2 games and even the originally unreleased sequel for the SNES was familiar enough while still changing plenty of things, but after 64 and people waiting 5 years for a new game they threw the IP into an unrelated game that plays nothing like the previous 2 games and divided the audience and then made games that changed key elements dreastically with both Assault in Command and later failed to bring things back to basics with Zero.
I definitely agree with this video and I think some prime examples of games evolving well is the Monster Hunter series and the Ys series, both kept core identities while expanding on the gameplay. Discourse around Monster Hunter World back when it was coming out was weird though, so many claimed it wasn't a Monster Hunter game when it honestly didn't do much different than it's predecessors. Yeah the monster variety was pretty bad but just like the previous ones, it added new core mechanics in the mantles and verticality (for 3 it was water, for 4 it was mounting, and for Generations/X it was the styles and arts) and like Tri, 4 and Generations/X before it, it was just low rank and high rank with a later expansion that added G rank which was Iceborne.
But as many here have said, it's definitely a case by case basis but there are some distinctions I'd make.
First, if the series isn't gameplay focused like the Yakuza/Like a Dragon series and Zelda, drastic change will probably work because the gameplay is a tool to enhance the storytelling. You don't need to be able to do a 50 hit combo for Yakuza to be wacky or zany and Zelda having an open world works because Wind Waker basically already did it and Zelda was made based off of Shigeru Miyamoto's love of exploring and the whole point of an open world is to explore it lol.
Drastic change for gameplay focused/gameplay is a big draw series like SMT, Tales of, DMC and Guilty Gear is definitely worse though because one of their main draws is what you are able to do with the gameplay. SMT's focus on exploiting strengths and weaknesses probably wouldn't work too well as an action RPG. Valkyria Revolution (while not it's only flaw) drastically deviated in gameplay compared to the previous Valkyria Chronicles games and was raked over the coals. A more controversial example would be the changes the latest game of the Tales of series: Arise, made for particularly the boss fights and that's because it changes it from a fighting game based action RPG to Monster Hunter/Dark Souls, which are two starkly different design philosophies packed into one game and (in my opinion) retroactively makes the battles against basic enemies pointless outside of EXP, money and material grinding because most of what you learn while fighting them can't be applied to bosses, losing a big part of past Tales games where you'd practice combos/set-ups during the regular battles and then replicate them during bosses. The only instance I see where drastic changes to a gameplay focused series works is if the previous games have a fundamentally broken system and thus need to be fixed in the sequels.
TL;DR: Non gameplay focused = Drastic change good/much less likely to backfire.
Gameplay focused = drastic change bad/could easily backfire.
Why Does J always have the best takes on the internet.
Nice vid mate your content is great keep it up!
I've always felt that a series can change its style whenever as long as it is executed properly. You can have a game follow up in a similar style than the previous game and still be underwhelming. Re0 like you said
I remember back when Metroid Prime was coming out people were kinda upset about the whole first person thing but retro knocked it out of the park and everyone is awaiting prime 4 at the time of writing.
Yakuza 7 is nothing like yakuza 1-6. In theory a turn based yakuza sounds like it wouldn't work. But RGG executed it and 7 is arguably in the top 3 best yakuza games.
Games like FF their identity is tied to the fact they experiment with each mainline entry. Whereas something like Dragon quest is meant to be the same thing over and over. It's a good way to have all your series not blend together imo.
There's also persona. P1 and P2 are nothing like 3-5 but that's to the series' strength cause odds are it wouldn't be as popular as it is now.
Execution is what matters. Great video
I think a great remake or remaster even would be Sonic Riders from the Gamecube, it'd had to much potential like the playstyle was so fast and fun
When a change is actually good and fun, instead of tiring its happily accepted. Sonic Frontiers is an odd example where they take concepts from the past: Combat, Classic Aesthetics, Minigames, and Slower Movement. The issue with this kind of "change" is that they're based on gimmicks from the past that were done better there than here. Sorry, the Sonic franchise is such a baffling section in gaming.
13:23 that's one of the reasons why I loved the legends games. They changed things up and turned the series into an action rpg.
It is also interesting looking at a game series that completely changes the genre from one entry to the next. And I mean completely. Warcraft is a good example of this. Going from an RTS series to an MMORPG. It is still the same universe but it was clear when developing WC3 that Blizzard wanted to take the series in a new direction. Hence why WoW was developed alongside WC3.
it's actually very simple. A franchise can change when you make a good game. When you make a bad game is when people say you shouldn't have changed things
I just want a new F-Zero, don't care it changes or not.
Same bro
I wouldn't mind if it took elements from Assault. Would love to have on foot combat be expanded on. At least anything that isn't just "Star Fox SNES but with a controller gimmick."
@@kingbash6466 I think you mixed up F-Zero with StarFox there buddy, but yeah, same sentement for StarFox. Though, I think everyone is asking for foot combat or some sort of element outside the vehicle along side the racing elements for an F-Zero as well. Maybe like an open world where you gather stuff and go on bounty missions to be able to participate in a Grand Prix and whatnot. It'd also be the coolest thing ever if we see a cross-over between the two. Not like nods to each other like the racer Mcleod, or G-Zero. An actual cross-over where you for example unlock Fox with his ship as a playable character in races and maybe even have it as story canon.. possibilities are endless... if only some studio stepped up to Nintendo about it.
@@DETahaX I say "Star Fox SNES with a controller gimmick" because the last game, Zero, really leaned in on being similar to Star Fox 64 right down to the plot being the same. Didn't help that 64 not only was already a "reboot" of the original SNES game, but also had a enhanced port 5 years before Zero on the 3DS. I think fans probably want to move on from the typical "Star Fox fights off Andross' army" plot and structure, and maybe play as characters outside of the main 4 like Krystal, Miyu, and Fey.
@@jlev1028 Maybe if they mark it as, I dunno, F-Zero Gaiden, it would be acceptable...Shit, now I want F-Zero Gaiden where you're basically playing Batman Arkham as Captain Falcon.
So many obnoxious people in the Sonic fanbase that believe that their specific part of Sonic is the only right one, hope Boost fans never end up as obnoxious as those guys.
Not that I can ever really find any.
nice video J
With Sonic in particular, you have to keep in mind why some defenders of the divergent playstyles approach claimed it was necessary: "Flying is inherently broken, especially in 3D, so Tails and to lesser extents Knuckles and Amy had to be changed if they were going to be more regular characters (and Tails is a child and shouldn't kick that much ass anyway let alone outshine Sonic so fuck you).". Which I don't buy for one Chaos-damned Pico-second. There are non-broken ways to implement flight-type moves even in 3D. Give Sonic one himself-like a one-shot-per-jump freely aimable air Spin Dash-and you can make levels he can beat without being too easy for his friends. You can and in fact should still have the divergent playstyles, but sparingly. (As for Tails's age, the whole point is that he's an all-around prodigy with the potential to outdo Sonic, which is why Sonic picked him as his sidekick as the Japanese 16-bit Sonic 2 manual hints at, and indeed prior to the Adventure games his energetic side got more emphasis than his mechanical aptitude even in Japan despite both him being like Sonic but flying and his machine expertise being co-primary skills of his. "bUt tHaT'S DuMb fOr a tEeN-OrIeNtEd sErIeS" Then you're not the sort of teen the series was oriented toward; rather, the sort of teen Sega of America wanted to help trample "Nintendon't" by being a fellow douche even though Sonic's against oppression and Tails used to be a bullying victim, so fuck you.)
Besides that oversight, though you didn't have to provide an alternative solution (or add the Tails-specific part) yourself, excellent video, J. You really are making quite the turnaround.
If I were to define my stance in the stagnation/innovation discussion, it would be "If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. However, if there's a good idea that could change for the better, then try it". Of course, it's much more complicated than that, but I think it's one point on where to start for me.
I am all for Franchise evolution if it does the games justice for that particular ip.
As a southerner a Morgan and Morgan ad is fucking amazing lol
1:30 I like the fake out.
Problem may be that you're looking at this from a "individual series in a vacuum" perspective when in reality certain group of players has a problem when new direction their every favorite franchise takes seems to be that nebulous "action adventure with RPG elements". They all blend together at some point to a lesser or greater degree.
As someone who's interested in the original GoW series, but hasn't had a chance to play them, this is me toward the new GoW. The old games look like some really fun hack and slash and from the little bit I played of 1 (I have the collection, but then my ps3 crapped out), yeah. It's pretty damn fun. The new games, however, just look like every other AAA game- something I already have 0 interest in.
It can change at any time, the question is how good the games are gonna be. Like with a lot of things : love comes first, and then the evaluation. If people love a game, they will praise it for the exact same things they despise in a game they dislike. So honestly it's like poker (or XCOM) - there's a lot of strategy involved, and a lot of luck
I agree with basically everything in this video, but I wanted to put my two cents in on a semi-related topic.
I believe that it would be a healthier mindset to both judge something based on how it fairs as an entry of the series it's a part of, but also judging it for how good it is on it's own merits.
Yoooo let’s get that Megaman Battle Network review ❤
Interestingly, Mario and Kirby, Nintendo's two big mascot platformer franchises, had more recently been accused of turning as samey as Mega Man. But why not earlier? Well, besides them not exactly churning out mainline entries at a machine gun pace until recently-and by that I mean around the time of the 3DS-Mario and Kirby are simply more flexible franchises in terms of suitable gameplay. Part of this is how they handle powerups: Mario finds them as items sprinkled throughout the world and Kirby can acquire them by eating certain minor enemies. While this means a lot of recycling as ideas get exhausted quickly, it also means the powerups are easily adaptable to other genres such as sports games, RPGs and puzzle games for shaking up the variety. With Mega Man, you generally only get special weapons when you defeat a boss, which makes them harder to weave into other genres without breaking the Mega Man feel. And, true, the powerups being largely new with each game may appear to make for more variety on the surface, but Mario and Kirby powerups often had widely varying forms of attacking and maneuvering between them. Most of the Mega Man weapons are simply single types of funky projectiles with the occasional shield or melee weapon to mix things up, meaning a lot of their variety becomes fake outside of the physics-driven platformer realm. But there's also tone to consider, another area in which Mario and Kirby stomp the Blue Bomber regarding adaptability. The former two are about largely happy-go-lucky characters in wonderlands that sell themselves on exploration solely through looks where the villains more quietly execute their plots of terror while the latter, even in the more kid-appealing classic incarnation, revolve around worker robots that barely have time to chill when they're not being corrupted to blow up one another in wars that seriously endanger their notably less electromechanical living mates on Earth. How would fun and games make much sense for the latter? Mega Man's Soccer already pushes the boundaries of sense for that world. Even Zelda's better tonally suited to party game spinoffs-what's up, Link's Crossbow Training? Hell, so is fricking Metroid as those games, despite carrying outright horror vibes, are about averting wars instead of fighting them after they'd escalated, plus Samus is a highly flashy fighter which still lends the games a good sense of cheer, opening the franchise to some gameplay levity. It's clear that the nonstandard game ships for Mario and Kirby only recently started to slow while Mega Man could never have much of one to start.
I wrote a business final on a similar concept to this
Given how half the comments section on CV were dunking on RE4, while also being obnoxious about it, I saw the comments on the RE4 video a mile away.
I think it's just easier to let the main series stick with a formula and try to build on it. And any major changes, just be left up to spin-offs.
I think it depends on the kind of games you're into. If you're into the Devil May Cry games, All of them except 2 and the reboot will be your favorite. All of them follow the same formula. It's the gameplay variety that changes. One of my favorite series is Doom. It pioneered and perfected FPS (First person Shooters) for me. The one game in the series that opted to change it drastically was Doom 3. Now Don't get me wrong. Doom 3 isn't a blight on humanity. It wasn't the straw that broke the camel's back. It didn't nearly derail the series like TR Angel of Darkness or DMC2. But it wasn't much of a Doom game. It was more shower paced, It had the controversial Flashlight mechanic, too damn Dark, The Shotgun was nerfed. But you can basically say that about almost any of the game. Doom 3 was a lot easier. I played it on Hard mode and it definitely didn't come close to the original Doom's difficulty. That and my biggest problem with it is it's pretty much a departure from Doom's story. In fact, John Carmack actually said this was a game where the first two Doom games didn't happen. So yeah. Doom 3 was and probably is still my least favorite Doom game.
Fortunately ID wised up and decided to make a new Doom game. I was skeptical about it as originally It was Doom 4 but it was going in a different direction. But as it was announced, I saw the gameplay trailer, I still wasn't feeling it. But when Doomguy didn't even let Samuel Hayden finish talking and pushed the monitor over, I was ready. Doom 2016 breathed new life into the series. It harkened back to Classic Doom while being a new game in it's own right. That's change done right. Once I beat it, I thought it was a blast to play. So it did get me hyped for the next Doom game. Doom Eternal and I'll tell you right now, I put at least no joke over 100 plus hours into that game. It was way more fun than Doom 2016. The perfect Arsenal, the new enemies, a more broad of biomes and locales, and the hyper glory kills. These were also in Doom 2016. But it was way more visceral in Eternal.
It was the first Doom since Doom 2 that tested me. Yes it's that hard. Overall, Doom Eternal has become my favorite Doom game when talking about how to do a Doom game. After Eternal, it's all downhill. I heard from a lot of people there's a lot of wads for GZ Doom and mods like Brutal Doom. And eventually when I get a PC, I'll play it. But yeah, that's all I have to say about video game changes. What do you think? Let me know.
Getting sponsored by a law firm of all things? J really did make it out of the hood fr 🔥🔥
I liked Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts because it still kept exploration and progression in some neat worlds. I'm aware this is a change many years after it's predecessor that no one asked for but I think it is in line with the series. Shame the fans don't agree.
Assassins crees is another one that changed drastically, but I think for the worse
In regards to Mega Man's unwillingness to change: To me it feels a lot like they had very little understanding of what made any of the games fun and/or interesting, and fell back to franchise staples in desperation. I feel it's most obvious when comparing X1 to Maverick Hunter X, and Legends 1 to Legends 2. In the former's case, there's a weird mishmash of things that were changed from the original and things that were (or at least were attempted to be) kept the same (the decision to revert the dash-walljump input back to X1's instead of keeping it the same as every other game was especially strange). And in the latter's case you have the first entry in a new series that very clearly is doing its own thing (at least compared to the rest of the franchise), with the sequel becoming far more in line with franchise tradition, even going as far as including a mandatory boss rush when the first game didn't have one.
J my bro would you like to try reviewing the battle network series
A franchise can always change however not all changes are good, lets use God of war as an example many say that Ascension is terrible is bad because the formula is tired but it really isn't. What makes Ascension bad is all the changes to the God of war formula it did, they changed how combos work making you unable to use half of them unless you build your rage bar which before was a temporary super mode but now is a bar that makes it so you can't use most of your combos unless you play perfectly, which is hard since they changed more stuff like making countering L1+X with a long ass window to be attacked if you misjudge your window instead of just making it L1 and having it quick, Ascension makes it incredibly awkward through its changes. Magic was made incredibly weird being unusable for most of the game except for fire since you need to max it out to use magic. There's also Enmies called Talos which grants rage orbs but usually comes in pairs of 2 and they have an invincibility mode that lasts so long that your rage bar depletes itself making it just confusing why it was designed this way, its infuriating really.
@ 5:25 you look like blast hornet from x3.
I would say paper mario is a good candidate for unnecessary change
J please review the Tak trilogy on GameCube! Tak and the Power of Juju Tak 2 the Staff of Dreams and Tak the Great Juju Challenge there amazing 3D platformers! Please review them! :)
Change can be good!
God of war 2 and 3 should have started with a bit more upgrades from the beginning. I find the fourth main game to be placed really well with the unlocks and moves/tools. Ive yet to play ragnarok to see how they handled the upgrade pacing
Great video but you should also mention Assassins Creed
Well it is the one constant
I want to know why a legal firm sponsored you. I've seen many ads but this is a first
This video is very interesting as Final Fantasy is going for a more action oriented gameplay from FF XVI
I think the boost trilogy (not forces that game sucks) actually didn't a good job with each game stepping up from the previous. Colors took the boost formula from unleashed and experimented with new ideas and approach to level design as you said, Unleashed was focused on spectacle and action, while colors focused more on platforming. Generations however blended what unleashed did and colors did and even took what other sonic games did and smushed it all into a single unit (kinda like what sonic 2 and cd did). I think if they stuck with what generations's modern stages did while improving the few flaws it does have it could've made sonic way more consistent than it was after generations. If only.
forces haters have single-digit iq, therefore opinion is invalid
The problem isn’t necessarily that you change but how you change.
As long as the core/spirit is the same but packed/presented differently, I think most fans will accept the change.
WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE FRANCHISE?
I feel like some the things said about mega man, could be applied in some ways to the Pokemon franchise.
Be great if you can do a assassin's creed franchise video game review
Changing is risky, look what happened to Mario Party. They peaked at 3 and everyone just wanted a glorified expansion pack, but they started experimenting wildly with the series and sales slowly declined, then spiked because one was on the Wii and crashed for years because of the antithetical car and even now, it feels like Nintendo has no idea what to do with it anymore.
More conservative, gradual evolution probably would have led to a healthier franchise.
You need good judgement to change a franchise, something Nintendo is often short on.
Ah the second ever video I've seen sponsored by Morgan and Morgan.
Wild.
While change is nowhere near as bad as nostalgia… I do find that small changes in the formula and retaining the true nature of the original concept is pretty much the best way to go. RE, GOW, even Spider Man are fantastic games that rehauled their formulas all together for a much better and unforgettable experience that appeal to audiences (after all these games made it all to TGA).
However, I feel a franchise that changes its formula even worse than Sonic, imo is Kingdom Hearts. People enjoy KH1 and KH2 for their decently written narratives, compelling characters, and platforming fast paced action that makes it welcoming for all players. However, aside from the first two games… the rest of the series lacks a sense of identity that I fully believe its just Disney and Square Enix throwing a random dart to see what they land on. I can’t tell you the amount of people who hate Chain of Memories, or Birth By Sleep, or Dream Drop Distance because they dramatically change the formula and core gameplay of each entry. This wouldn’t be bad either, except for the fact that KH is structured in a way where “each entry is important” and you have to play them all. Which all leads to Kingdom Hearts III, a game that goes back on its nostalgia route of the first two games… but ultimately fails by trying to incorporate every aspect from all these other side entries. Playing KH3 and comparing it to KH1 or 2 is pretty much night and day considering how basic functions they messed up because they tried to make the game accessible to all players in the franchise.
And post KH3 hasn’t looked any better either, with a random rhythm based game that’s extremely awkward to play… and production of Kingdom Hearts IV already being on the line… which gets me worried. Its fine to change the formula and the story of each entry… but if every single game is just made in a way that becomes completely irrelevant after a few years… you really start to question the developers and the fans of the franchise. I have a love hate relationship with Kingdom Hearts as I’ve been a fan since 2006’s KH2, but with all the changes I’ve slowly been falling out… and majority of the players are grown men in their 30s who’ve “claimed” they’ve been a fan since the beginning and will hold on… because of “nostalgia”
I think the video constructed once again by you J was very insightful and got me thinking a lot about changes in a franchise. To which I’ll end this comment with a quote by Master Oogway:
“Yesterday was history… tomorrow is a mystery… but today is a gift. That is why it is called the PRESENT”
I love how Sonic changes all the time. It's a factor why is my favorite series.
Change is a double-edged sword with Sonic. On the one hand, we could get something good like the boost games, but we could also get Boom.
@@spritvio639 I agree, but in context of the franchise, it works as a whole. I judge franchises by different standards. For example, I love Shantae SERIES, even if 3 games are kinda mid and only 2 are just kinda good (out of 5). But it's a series in a genre that I like, with continuity and every game is drastically different, while still maintaining the genre.
I judge Sonic series in a similar way. I like speedy platformers and continuity - Sonic satisfies both. However the approach for speedy platforming constantly changes and it keeps things fresh. I prefer fresh mid game over stale excellence as long it's in the speedy platformer niche.
@Gnidel I felt a change for Sonic makes the franchise worst in my opinion. Because they never get to fully improve on one gameplay style and do something new, but familiar with it.
I understand they want to do something new with Sonic, but when they do it just hurts the brand more like Shadow the Hedgehog, 06, Lost World, and Forces.
And a mediocre game that can someday be good is Sonic Frontiers.
They change the gameplay, tone, lore, continuity, voice acting, and art direction, which yes makes it fresh, but loses any sense of identity and consistency that the creators already identify. And makes a lot of excuses for all these making sense.
I feel the devs and Sega takes the wrong approach of changing a franchise by changing everything that originally works, depending on who is directing the games, which like J says causes people to have different visions and ideas of what Sonic should be, which is a huge problem with Sonic.
Sorry, if I turned into a rant. I had to get that off my chest.
@NeroDoesArt but hey, at least Sega is giving sonic team more budget but honestly idk what the future will behold and also I've heard there will be a new 2d modern game but idk if it will actually happen.
@Alejandro Aguilar Well, we don't know if they are giving Sonic Team more budget. Morio Kishimoto was shocked about the news on Twitter and said that he would've heard about it. He ends up knowing because of a Sonic article on Twitter. He said that he doesn't know which team is getting the budget since they're are more teams working on Sonic games than him. He isn't the only one Sega have to worry about.
That possibly means that more teams are working on more Sonic content and games because Takashi Iizuka felt bad for not giving us enough to wait during Frontiers.
How to change a franchise: God Of War
How to "not" change a franchise: Assassin's Creed
To me I don’t mind if a series changes as long as it’s still good. I feel like the new God of War games dumb down the combat and platforming too much to be enjoyable but GoW was in need of change so I get why they did it.
Dmc3 remake is a must
J why is this an ad?
This really is a case by case thing. What one would consider "evolution" or "innovation" could easily just abandon what made the appeal of the franchise what it was to begin with.
I'm curious if Smash Bros should reaally mix things up and add more mechanics. Ultimate was great but it does, in part, feel like "Smash's greatest hits" and didn't have a lot of new content in the base game. On one hand, don't fix what isn't broken. On the other hand, I want Smash to experiment with new gameplay mechanics that don't overcomplicate things, update some of the veterans like DK and Samus, and be bolder with stage selection especially. I'm mildly irked that a lot of the Mario stages are grassland themed and there's lacking Kirby representation outside of Super Star.
Spending money on UA-cam ads now? Well it's working.
0:57 Oh, God, I'm noticing it just now: RE's producer around RE5 thought RE needed to pull CoD numbers and thus needed to be more CoD-like to appeal to Americans, reason people even go to RE to begin be damned. No wonder RE6 "pulled a Sonic". This is why you don't try to compete with the whole world through something specialized. Noble identity-destroying greed is still identity-destroying greed.
God of war is the perfect exempel for change not inoriging the past but build on it and make the gameplay fresh
I think Star Fox is a series that could probably benefit from a gameplay shift similar to God of War or Resident Evil. The old rail shooter style I think is incredibly stale at this point and a gameplay shift like that could be the shot in the arm the series would need for a comeback.
I personally view RE4 as the gold standard while GOW4 leaned a little too close to the "Sonic Problem". Just because the games were stagnating in some aspects doesn't mean Santa Monica had to entirely overhaul everything, and my biggest hope for Ragnarok was actually that they put Atreus as an equal part of the gameplay, switching between the two mid-fight with Atreus being the lighter, more traditional Blades of Chaos wielder while Kratos sticks to the grounded visceral style of the Leviathan Axe.
Is it just me or did you just realize that his icon is A J
I think the Final Fantasy series is both a good & bad example of a franchise changing. It started out as a ridged turn-based series then in IV it introduced the now iconic ATB system. To keep the system fresh for the next five games, they continued to add gimmicks with each game, the series would've stagnated if it wasn't for X. The game returned to turn-based and gave a compelling story, world & characters, along with a great leveling system. That's where the XIII Trilogy failed, it tried to be fresh for the then new generation but what it gave players was gameplay that played itself, an uninteresting story, and flat characters. The franchise stagnated with the Final Fantasy XIII trilogy & the unfinished XV. Had it not been for the VII Remake who knows what would have happened.
Considering FFIX is considered possibly the best FF game and was pretty successful, FFVIII sold over 9.6 mil, and FFVII sold over 14 mil, I don’t think the series would’ve stagnated at all or was in the position to. I think honestly the series was doing fine until post 10, specifically XIII onwards up until 7R. To be a bit fair, despite its botched initial release, FFXIV:ARR is what I would call the turning point for the series in the right direction.
Metal gear is a great example of evolution
Just take a look at Pokémon and Castlevania in games that are mechanically similar to previous games but the gameplay always remained enjoyable
Can you try teppen
As far as sonic game goes, nothing tops Sonic Robo Blast 2
Nice video, I agree that artists should not stagnate by working on the same thing for too long. Franchises like Sonic or Sly have either evolve or take a hiatus to figure out where to go next.
An example of a franchise changing when it should not is bayonetta.
The first game set the standard and 2 perfected it. All they needed to do was keep with that but instead they chose to change literally everything for the worse
One company that tends to really overdo the changes is Square Enix.
Exhibit A: the Final Fantasy series. It has had so many completely different settings and gameplay changes that many find this series has lost its identity.
Exhibit B: Bravely Default. A series specifically advertised as going back to the original turned based style of the old Final Fantasy style ends up going for the ATB approach on its third game.
Exhibit C: Dragon Quest. So you know that big boost in popularity that came with XIS and also the Smash rep? It made a lot of positive reviews comment on how nostalgic the game felt and how it had a really good grasp of turn based combat. Tone-deaf as usual, Square Enix announced in the teaser of Dragon Quest XII Flames of Fate that it was going to be darker and they were going to drop the turn based aspect. Changing it when it's losing relevance is one thing, but at the peak of its popularity?
As for a series where I think the changes were necessary, that'd be CAVE's Dodonpachi. Sure, the games were good, but the games only differentiated themselves from other bullet hell games in the general level of difficulty and that there was a slightly more complex story. Therefore, I do think that something needed to be added so that one couldn't mistake those games from a competing space shooter. I also *thoroughly* disagree with the reasoning that CAVE's increasing focus on story and female characters were what inevitably lead to Deathsmiles.
Final Fantasy has never really had a core identity, each entry is meant to be different in terms of world, gameplay and story. The games that often have the most negative receptions are the direct follow-ups to a mainline FF game.
@@charlestonobryant807all the ff games did have one core thing turned based rpg with some being ATB but now it's all action
@@doniartsthey still have different mechanics and systems though. FF7R has the materia system expanded and learning moves to put on other weapons as well as a focus on ATB gauges, something FFXV nor XVI have. Just because their action games does not mean they play the same at all. DMC doesn’t play like MGR.
@@charlestonobryant807 way to miss the whole point... I never even said they were the same and you're putting words in my mouth lol when did I say DMC played like MGR?
Positive comment
I remember when GOW2018 was shown, and I was worried that DMC would suffer a similar fate. I like the new GOW games but I VASTLY prefer the older games. DMC is one of my favorite game series ever, and I’m so relieved that for 5, they kept to their guns and innovated on the same style they’ve been using since about 2001. I like the new GOW games, but I think DMC evolved much better and naturally
What really sucks about your Mega Man example is the 8 boss structure has been more or less a mandate from the start. When Mega Man 3 began development the devs wanted the game to have a structure similar to Mario 3 with a world map where levels would unlock in a linear fashion with only a few diversions. Had they done this we wouldn’t be stuck with the only Mega Man games with more than 12-15 stages being the non-platformers.
But Capcom insisted they stick to the 8 level and robot master format
Isn't that essentially what Megaman and Basss is? Megaman with an overworld map?
@@Darkfawfulx sorta but it still only has 8 stages
@@skibot9974 Wait it really only had 8? I remembered there being more. That's what I get from watching an LP only once.
@@Darkfawfulx there’s technically 10 before the fortress. But one is the tutorial intro and the other is a hub to practice your abilities and earn bolts
My point is the 8 boss structure severely limits the length of each game. Even Mega Man 11 a downloadable game was called too short by critica
@@skibot9974 Well they could bring back the two castles to lengthen the game. I do agree the games are too short.