VG Opinion Poll #16 - Do franchises work for you?

[glasfen]

Random thought: if you haven't had a medium-rare triple prime burger, you haven't lived! Tonight, I live.

VG Opinion Poll #16

I promised you a more intellectual poll, so here goes.

As discerning gamers, you are all well aware of the many franchises which exist in the gaming universe. Some are legendary, like Zelda and Final Fantasy, and others, like Dead Space and Boom Blox, have just begun their legacies. When you pick up a game from an established franchise, you probably know what to expect. Indeed, that may be the reason you chose the game in the first place. It may also be the reason you avoid certain games.

Now, I'm not really asking you to separate those franchises that you like and those that you dislike but I would ask you to consider the concept of a franchise itself. Think about the way that games in a series are similar, but different. Here's the question:

Would you prefer a game from an established franchise to be similar to its predecessors in its plot/style/gameplay or would you rather it break new ground while maintaining the spirit of the series?

A. Stay the course!

B. Break the mold!

More cerebral than usual, no? Results soon!

[Malaki-LEGEND.sys]

I'm gonna go with A, as when I think of Final Fantasy game, I think of a high-production value RPG that'll usually hit all the right notes for me. I think of great characters, battle mechanics, a good soundtrack, etc. Sure, most of the Final Fantasy games could probably sell well enough on their own, but putting that name on the box will raise the chances that it'll sell more copies and as I mentioned before, it sends the message "hey this is Final Fantasy, therefore you can expect good things from it" to the consumer who likes that sort of game. I can't blame a company for trying to maximize profit, especially when it means that it'll be likely I'll see more of the games I like.

I don't think that games like Dead Space or Kingdom Hearts by themselves could be considered franchises however. Both game series have interconnected stories and the same game mechanics spread between the whole series. I think what makes a game a franchise would be for the series to "branch out" in terms of ideas. Take Ninja Gaiden for example(the latest Team Ninja series). On it's own, it's not a franchise, but if you put it together with the DOA fighting game series(also Team Ninja), you could say that it is a different take on the same universe, and if Code Chronus had ever been in development, that would have furthered the "Team Ninja" franchise by adding and action/RPG to the series.

tl;dr : I think a franchise is just fine as long as it makes sure to keep up quality control. It also needs to "spread out" genre-wise.

[Rozovian]

A and B

In the case of Zelda, I want less wolves, boats, chickenpeople, trains, and more fighting and puzzle-solving. But at the same time, I'm not opposed to, say, a strategy game set in the Zelda universe. It'd just have to be marketed as something other than a Link saves Zelda and Hyrule from Ganondorf-type Zelda game. If I make a distinction between franchise and game series, there's room for more than one type of game in a franchise, but games in a game series should use the same gameplay and not try to revolutionize stuff with every game.

[LuketheXjesse]

B.

It takes a ton of innovation in a game to drag me away from my guitar even for a second these days. (unless you're Street Fighter 4)

[linkspast]

A.

I like things that work. If it works dont fix it. Leave it alone. make more of what ever made it good.

Save the innovation for new IP`s like Shadow of the Colossus.

[Level 99]

A.

I do like when a proven concept is fleshed out with either additional story, small improvements and changes in a working gameplay style, or graphical and audio updates to help better convey the franchise's game-sake. I will also say that some companies SHOULD just be pumping out more original games and less franchises because they often 1) change too many gameplay elements and ruin what may have made a franchise so darn likeable and there aren't enough original ideas yet and a lot deserve to be set apart. I have more reasons so I may edit this later with additional info when I have more time!

[Alexis]

A

Innovation is great, but not when you go and change something that doesn't need to be changed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Sonic was a great game when I was growing up, but they changed a lot about the gameplay, added a bunch of characters and other things to keep up with other games and it pretty much ruined it for me.

Somebody also mentioned Final Fantasy; and I absolutely agree. When you buy a Final Fantasy game, you're expecting to get an RPG with the nice music, story, battle system, etc... (although not all of them have followed through on every one of these aspects...but that's another discussion)

I agree with what linkspast said - leave the innovation for new games. That's the nice thing about them. There's no history yet, so it can be anything. Look at Portal..it's new(ish) and very innovative, had a new concept. But if they made a new Portal, and they changed anything about how portals worked, people would get angry.

[Flare4War]

Mostly A but both of the above. I want improvements, however; I don't want it to break the mold. Final fantasy for example I like for what it is. Honestly I think SquareEnix is getting to flamboyant. Just write a cool story make the main character a bad ass with a sword and give me an incredible sound track. All the futuristic stuff is giving me a headache.

Lets look at Smash Bros. Absolutey stay the course. Brawl was an awesomely well done game. I dare say that the only reason I like Melee better is because they incorporated tripping. There is no need for them to wander into another genre of fighting. Just make a new neat soundtrack, improve the graphics, new levels and characters and I'm sold. They don't need to change the aspects of the gameplay.

Edit: Also, strongly agree with Alexis. I used to love Sonic but they changed the gameplay way to much now I don't even raise an eyebrow to sonic games. I won't even rent them and my brother has a gamefly account. That's how badly they broken new ground.

[Cerrax]

I hate to say A, but I really can't find any advocacy for B. Like everyone else, if you want a drastic new direction for a game, don't use an established franchise as the bait to lure gamers in. You risk disgracing the franchise or worse, splitting the fanbase between pre and post-game change. Look at Starfox. I know young kids who love the new Starfox games, which feature more flight sim type play, that think the older games like Starfox 64 are too limited and boring because they're on rails. Its so frustrating because we both like Starfox, but we can't really have a conversation about it because they only play the flight sim games and I prefer the old rail shooter style.

[Dj Mokram]

A

....and B. Certainly, you do realize it can't be as simple as that.

The best exemple for me is Final Fantasy: perfect franchise.

Changing course each time, but keeping the core element to drag the fanbase.

I've skipped some episodes I didn't liked, but each added its lot of innovation and plot twist, and half-hour summons.

Appart from that, the serie break into smaller fork, which expands the franchise in genre and in possibilities,

with titles like Chocobo Dungeons, Dirge of Cerberus, Crystal Chronicles and such.

Now, what we don't tend to see, is that games are softwares.

And in that regard, treated as well, with new episodes simply improving the formula,

while some others covertly serve the purpose of being a beta to a major title.

That being said, as an 'old-school' gamer, I'll obviously play games that have seen a certain amount of sequels over the years.

So inevitably, I'll tend to be both more conservative, and more inclined to expect innovation from said franchises.

Which, mind you, doesn't stop me from playing both the new Bionic Commando AND Final Fantasy VI at the same time.

[Gario]

B.

Yeah, partly just to be different, but to be honest if a game regurgitates the exact same mechanics, but with fleshed out graphics it tends to bore me really, really fast. Generally a game that does such a thing will a.) be inferior to the previous game in that mechanic or b.) simply feel old and overused. When I played the Lost Levels for Mario I was very disappointed - sure, it was the mechanics that I knew and loved on Mario, but it just felt stale the second time around.

For every installment of a franchise there needs to be at least some change to the core game play mechanics - Final Fantasy is a good example of a game that changes it up in at least one significant way or another. Sure, it's similar, but there's always something unique in every game that keeps me interested in a different way every game.