|
|
|
A Nintendo community by the fans!
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|
Should classic franchises be allowed to die? [roundtable]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Parrish has an interesting blog post at USGamer.net covering a topic I've discussed a few times on this site in the past: Classic video game franchises and the default assumption that they should continue in perpetuity. He makes an argument similar to one I've made. Namely, a series doesn't have to keep going on and on forever. Those that have run their course should be fondly remembered, replayed and recommended to newcomers, sure, but don't need to be kept alive with new installments just for the sake of it. He mentions the likes of Mega Man, Castlevania, and even Metroid as beloved series that he wouldn't mind being put out to pasture. That doesn't mean that what makes these games great needs to die as well. Games like Mighty No. 9 will continue the spirit of Mega Man, games like Axium Verge will continue the spirit of Metroid. But the characters and worlds of those games don't need to continue. As you may have guessed, I agree full-heartedly. I want a new Metroid game from Nintendo as much as the next guy, but I want it because I like the way Nintendo makes those kinds of games, not because I need more adventures from Samus in her iconic ship. If Nintendo released something like Shadow Complex would the new style and setting make it less of a game? As Parrish says, it might make it even better because the developers will be free to break the mold of a franchise's staples in a way that they wouldn't feel comfortable in making a new Metroid game. From Nintendo's perspective, I understand why they are quick to slap one of their IPs onto most of their new games. Brand recognition is important and all things created equal, Mario Paint Attack would likely outperform Splatoon. So I don't think we'll actually see franchises that are still money makers like Mario disappearing anytime soon. But a series like Metroid which was never a blockbuster and has had recent flops? It's a possibility (although I think they probably realize that a new Metroid can rejuvenate their base in a way that makes it worthwhile even if the sales aren't overwhelmingly strong). I understand it from a fan's perspective, as well, but in the end I think it's coddling. Consumers these days seem to want to be kept in an artificial childhood. They want everything from their formative years to remain forever so that they don't have to deal with the brutal reality that time passes, we get older, things change and people die. This might make people feel more content in a world that forces you to reckon with these realities in plenty of ways outside of media, but I think it ultimately lessens what we can get out of our interaction with art and media. It might seem trivial, but I think forcing gamers to cope with the fact that Samus has blasted Ridley away for the last time would do them some good. At the very least, I think fans need to come to terms with the idea that Nintendo doesn't owe it to them to keep these series running and that they are not entitled to a new Metroid game every generation. What do you guys think? How would you feel if Nintendo officially signaled the end of some of their long lasting franchises? Should Mario and Zelda games keep coming out long after Miyamoto is dead and gone? Are there any series which you would rather see call it a day than continue on their current trajectory? Bonus Question: Does Seasons 11-30 of the Simpsons diminish what made the first third of the series great? URL to share (right click and copy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
04/11/15, 05:24 Edited: 04/11/15, 05:27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@TriforceBun I loved it. Least favorite of the trilogy for me but that's only because they're all so good. @Guillaume Hmm, but didn't Prime 3 outsell 2 and don't most people like it more than 2? (Generally, for instance here on NW.) I kind of wonder if the series just never had much steam to begin with. The first Prime sold pretty good, but it was the first Metroid in years and one of the highest rated games EVAR and still didn't come even close to the best selling games of that generation, or even the best selling Gamecube games. 2 and 3 (and Hunters, for that matter) sold ok but not that great. Maybe it just wasn't meant to be, especially when you consider that Nintendo rarely spends so many resources for so few (relative to their big games) sales. ...BUT I STILL BELIEVE IN PRIME 4. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TriforceBun said:Am I the only one that loved Metroid Prime 3 here!? I love... to hate it. But in all seriousness I realize my extreme dislike of that game borderlines on emotional instability* and is at least partially irrational, it's not "utter garbage", if I worked at IGN or someplace and was forced to review it I'd have to begrudgingly admit it's actually a pretty good game. I just have major problems with it, and many of my issues are actually issues with Wii in general and not the game (i.e. outdated graphics and motion controls, two things I was never a fan of). That said, even ignoring the problems I have with the way the game looks and controls, I don't think it was a stellar game. But I don't think it ruins the integrity of older Metroid classics, I just don't think that way, I'm not the kind of fan who worries that things like the new Star Wars movies will ruin my childhood, there could be a thousand bad Star Wars movies and I'll still love Empire with as much fervor as I did when I was 8 years old. That's the crucial thing I guess I'm missing in this whole discussion. For me there is no risk involved in Nintendo making another Metroid game. Only the chance that it will be awesome. This is coming from someone who liked Other M though. That's another part of the equation I think I'm missing. Other M didn't ruin anything for me, especially Samus as a character, did I love her portrayal? Nope. Does that mean anything to me when I'm running around in Metroid Fusion kicking total ass and having the time of my life? Nope. Would I play the hell out of game that took place right where Metroid 4 left off? Yep. Do I have faith there are people at Nintendo with just as much passion and talent as Tom Happ? Yes, I really do. *This entire thread is kind of proof how emotional I get when Metroid is involved so I apologize if I'm being a little crazy. I love Metroid folks, it's hard for me to explain just how much I love it, I love even the unpopular games like Hunters, in fact I think Hunters is one of the most underrated games of all time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that a franchise can be diminished by sub-par entries. Even if The Simpsons only has 2 or 3 classic episodes per season now (which I'm not informed enough to be able to say, honestly), that's still an extra 2 or 3 classics to add to the canon.
As far as games, I think it's a case-by-case basis. As long as the games are good or even have the potential to be good, the franchise deserves to exist. If the franchise can still offer fresh experiences, even more so. The Mario franchise, for example, still has a ton of vitality. Nintendo beat the 2D Mario drum a bit too many times recently, but even the NSMB games are fairly unique. And 3D World didn't feel stale at all. It actually felt like a breath of fresh air. That may be a reflection of its place in the overall gaming landscape, which brings us to another important point. A new DOOM game might not be able to offer something radically different from the current crop of games, but Super Mario 3D World definitely carved out its own place in the current gaming landscape. (Honestly, even DOOM could, if it went back to the old FPS design aesthetics.)
In the end, I don't necessarily agree with Parish at all. I don't think old franchises have to be put to pasture for Logan's Run-esque reasons. I wouldn't mind if Sonic died. But not because it's an old franchise.
I DO think that the American media formula of endless success = endless serialization does pose serious problems to storytelling-based media, but that's a different issue.
I just bought a Simpsons Jeopardy board game at a flea market, by the way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@GameDadGrantI've seen too much! @TriforceBunTwo eps? Sure, why not? As a Simpsons buff, I gave Futurama a chance for a season or two. The first episode was promising, but the show never really delivered on that promise for me. There are a couple of decent eps, like the college one with the Monkey or the Star Trek one. I think the show is often clever, but rarely FUNNY. A lot of the times, like in Family Guy, the reference itself is the joke. And there are clever sci-fi concepts once in a while, but it's a comedy show! Speaking of which, the tone gets a bit too sappy and emo for me at times. It's like a fourth of the episodes are Lisa episodes! And the relationships between the characters are inconsistent. I like character-based comedy, like Ranma 1/2, but the characters have to behave consistently to pull it off. And Fry, Bender, Zapp Brannigan, and Kif are the only appealing characters to me. Hermes and Amy are utterly useless. Leela's a decent straight (wo)man. The Professor and Nibbler are kind of one-note jokes. Zoidberg is like a low-quality Jewish comic, such that at least half of his jokes are basically "Oy! I'm Jewish!" But yes! Two episodes! I'll watch them (and give you my impressions, if you want). And you can critique my criticism of Futurama, if you want. I've been meaning to respond to your Simpsons list, as well. I've seen about half of them. Out of curiosity, how would you rank King of the Hill, Futurama, Family Guy, and The Simpsons? @Mop it upWhatever happens to them, hopefully their licenses end up in good hands. Or at least decent hands. Lots of stuff is unavailable because of licenses which fall into the hands of companies that don't even want to think about them. @HinphPachinko. The past, present, and future of Japan is Pachinko. Video games were just a momentary blip. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|