Game franchises that betrayed their original fanbase

  • 164 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Shenmue_Jehuty
#-49 Posted by Shenmue_Jehuty (5211 posts) -

Final Fantasy for sure- the last good FF I ever played was FFX.

Resident Evil- I can appreciate the advances in RE4, but I feel like that game was the beginning of the end of the series for me. Here's hoping RE6 redeems it, given Capcom doesn't try to rob us all blind with same day DLC

Capcom's versus; MvC3 was a disgrace compared to nearly all prior releases.

Avatar image for dvader654
#-48 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

Thank god Bioware does not listen to you crazy people. :P

Oh and let me throw in many of my fellow RE fans in that crazy bunch.

Avatar image for da_chub
#-47 Posted by da_chub (3140 posts) -
resident evil.
Avatar image for Metamania
#-46 Posted by Metamania (12031 posts) -

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

[QUOTE="brucecambell"]

This

Conviction is the best example of a betrayal. Completely different game, different genre, & the complete opposite of what it originally was.

Solid_Snake325

No. It's not.

Yes. It is.

No. It's not. You keep telling yourself that it betrayed the series when it really hasn't. No such thing. Not now. Not ever. And no one will convnce me otherwise.

Avatar image for Kell_the_Gamer
#-45 Posted by Kell_the_Gamer (873 posts) -
Crytek, just Crytek....
Avatar image for turtlethetaffer
#-44 Posted by turtlethetaffer (18731 posts) -

I guess CoD.

Also you could say Final fantasy, but I liked FFXIII, so... take that how you want it.

One could also make the argument for Zelda with SS, since there wasn't alot in the way of exploration, but, again I liked it.

Avatar image for Pikminmaniac
#-43 Posted by Pikminmaniac (11267 posts) -

[QUOTE="Archangel3371"]I can't think of any game franchises that I've played that have "betrayed" their original fanbase. I've been a fan of ones like Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Mass Effect, and Dragon Age just to name a few and I'm still very much a fan of them now. Usually I find that most of the changes they've made are for the better.GreySun369

^ I agree with this. I don't understand why gamers think change is always a bad thing. I've played a lot of games that I felt changed for the better and I would have been disappointed if the developers kept the exact same formula for every sequel because then every game would feel exactly the same and pretty soon it would get boring. That's kind of how I felt about the Legend of Zelda series which is why I stopped playing them.

You'll forgive us for not liking the fact that these companies decided to make their sequels less than their predecessors. In most of these cases, the developers removed content rather than add like a proper sequel should do.

Avatar image for xXCombatWombat
#-42 Posted by xXCombatWombat (1529 posts) -

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake325"][QUOTE="Metamania"]

No. It's not.

Metamania

Yes. It is.

No. It's not. You keep telling yourself that it betrayed the series when it really hasn't. No such thing. Not now. Not ever. And no one will convnce me otherwise.

.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#-41 Posted by foxhound_fox (97243 posts) -
I don't understand why gamers think change is always a bad thing.GreySun369
I don't think anyone has ever claimed such a thing. I personally don't understand why some gamers don't support the idea of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Avatar image for Metamania
#-40 Posted by Metamania (12031 posts) -

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake325"] Yes. It is.xXCombatWombat

No. It's not. You keep telling yourself that it betrayed the series when it really hasn't. No such thing. Not now. Not ever. And no one will convnce me otherwise.

.

Neither. And that's a stupid retort to bring at me. It really is, so thanks for wasting my time. :)

Avatar image for Kell_the_Gamer
#-39 Posted by Kell_the_Gamer (873 posts) -
[QUOTE="GreySun369"]I don't understand why gamers think change is always a bad thing.foxhound_fox
I don't think anyone has ever claimed such a thing. I personally don't understand why some gamers don't support the idea of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

It seriously baffles me how people like Metamania don't see how a realistic shooter turning into an arcadey one, or a stealth/survival game turning into a pure action one might upset its original fans.
Avatar image for Supabul
#-38 Posted by Supabul (4266 posts) -

I alway's wanted Mass Effect to have explorable area's like KOTOR

Avatar image for rastotm
#-37 Posted by rastotm (1380 posts) -

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="GreySun369"]I don't understand why gamers think change is always a bad thing.Kell_the_Gamer
I don't think anyone has ever claimed such a thing. I personally don't understand why some gamers don't support the idea of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

It seriously baffles me how people like Metamania don't see how a realistic shooter turning into an arcadey one, or a stealth/survival game turning into a pure action one might upset its original fans.

It's a change of the target market and that makes it pure and utter betrayal,as long as it is the same franchise. Especially when the developers don't make this very clear.

Avatar image for dvader654
#-36 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

[QUOTE="Kell_the_Gamer"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] I don't think anyone has ever claimed such a thing. I personally don't understand why some gamers don't support the idea of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."rastotm

It seriously baffles me how people like Metamania don't see how a realistic shooter turning into an arcadey one, or a stealth/survival game turning into a pure action one might upset its original fans.

It's a change of the target market and that makes it pure and utter betrayal,as long as it is the same franchise. Especially when the developers don't make this very clear.

So a franchise should just do the same thing over and over, never evolve, never try something new. Its crap like that that gets a franchise killed, stale, unwanted. If Resident Evil never changed it would have DIED, as simple as that. It would be Silent Hill, a shell of its former self. But Capcom was bold and created one of the greatest games of all time. As for Mass Effect, it was never a deep RPG. Bioware decided to focus on the gameplay, on the combat, on what the player is PLAYING for about 80% of the game. But people want boring menus, they want to mess with numbers on a screen rather than have great shooting mechanics. It baffles me. Thankfully Bioware focused on the gameplay.
Avatar image for Ashley_wwe
#-35 Posted by Ashley_wwe (13412 posts) -

While I still love thesefour series (they're in my top 10 of all time), there's no denying that they have changed a little/updated etc.:

Tomb Raider (Tomb Raider Legend onwards, or even Angel of Darkness)
Splinter Cell with Conviction
Resident Evil with 4
Call of Duty with Call of Duty 4

Oh,I just thought.This one probably hasn't been mentioned and it is in my mind right now so I am going to mention it. I haven't played too many Rainbow Six games unfortunately (I should change that), but they changed a little with the Vegas games. But with that being said, the Vegas games are absolutely fantastic :). But I can definately tell the difference between that and, for example, Raven Shield.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#-34 Posted by foxhound_fox (97243 posts) -
[QUOTE="dvader654"] So a franchise should just do the same thing over and over, never evolve, never try something new.

"Evolution" and "Revolution" are two entirely different concepts. Evolution implies that there is a strong semblance to the form that came before. Drastic mutations almost never occur, and are almost never beneficial. To use a nature metaphor. I'd say a good example of "evolution" in a game series is Assassin's Creed -> Assassin's Creed II. Where everything that worked in the first was improved upon, but not drastically changed.
Avatar image for cryceaye5
#-33 Posted by cryceaye5 (1190 posts) -

Is it just me or this another topic on a bunch of internet forums willing to down tread on the Mass effect franchise. I've very much liked all the mass effects. I enjoyed the first one more than i did the second. And i'm enjoying the third more than the first and the second for many reasons. This petition to change the ending in ME3 is ludacris. There simply is no point. I haven't finished it myself, yet if i had completed it and had already seen the ending then whats the point in changing it. Surley not much will change whatever you do.

Avatar image for dvader654
#-32 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="dvader654"] So a franchise should just do the same thing over and over, never evolve, never try something new.

"Evolution" and "Revolution" are two entirely different concepts. Evolution implies that there is a strong semblance to the form that came before. Drastic mutations almost never occur, and are almost never beneficial. To use a nature metaphor. I'd say a good example of "evolution" in a game series is Assassin's Creed -> Assassin's Creed II. Where everything that worked in the first was improved upon, but not drastically changed.

And sometimes the formula reaches the point where it hits the limit and it needs a change. Plus almost always a series returns to its roots, so then you get the best of both worlds. What is most important is that the dev makes the best possible game.
Avatar image for cabose38
#-31 Posted by cabose38 (1162 posts) -

Mirror's Edge may be going the unwanted route, form the trailer i saw a couple of hours ago for the sequel. Male lead only - Faith's son since Faith has been kidnapped - and most likely turned into yet another shooter. Guess it was too much to ask for for EA to not interfere with that game.Smokescreened84

That was fanmade lol.

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
#-30 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12605 posts) -

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

[QUOTE="Kell_the_Gamer"]It seriously baffles me how people like Metamania don't see how a realistic shooter turning into an arcadey one, or a stealth/survival game turning into a pure action one might upset its original fans.dvader654

It's a change of the target market and that makes it pure and utter betrayal,as long as it is the same franchise. Especially when the developers don't make this very clear.

So a franchise should just do the same thing over and over, never evolve, never try something new. Its crap like that that gets a franchise killed, stale, unwanted. If Resident Evil never changed it would have DIED, as simple as that. It would be Silent Hill, a shell of its former self. But Capcom was bold and created one of the greatest games of all time. As for Mass Effect, it was never a deep RPG. Bioware decided to focus on the gameplay, on the combat, on what the player is PLAYING for about 80% of the game. But people want boring menus, they want to mess with numbers on a screen rather than have great shooting mechanics. It baffles me. Thankfully Bioware focused on the gameplay.

It's one thing to evolve, but something else to drastically change the entire premise of the game. Flight Simulator is an example of evolving. It did the same thing over the course of it's 20+ year run (and still does with Microsoft's latest, Flight). What it did do is evolved graphically, i.e. from vector graphics to 2D graphics to 3D graphics. They also added features such as weather and ATC. Some planes were a staple of the game and others were used and dropped. The gameplay was the same, fly a general aviation aircraft or a jet airliner. The game evolved.

The difference between Rainbow Six and Rainbow Six Vegas is day and night. Gone are the team based tactics that you planned out in a planning phase taking up to 8 team members to do a hostage rescue. Gone are the hostage rescue missions and the planting bugs missions for surveillance. Now, all one has to do are kill terrorists and soak up bullets. Gone also is the best feature found in any game (see my above post for what it is). A once innovative game is long gone and the only thing left is the name.

Avatar image for dvader654
#-29 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="rastotm"] It's a change of the target market and that makes it pure and utter betrayal,as long as it is the same franchise. Especially when the developers don't make this very clear.

WhiteKnight77

So a franchise should just do the same thing over and over, never evolve, never try something new. Its crap like that that gets a franchise killed, stale, unwanted. If Resident Evil never changed it would have DIED, as simple as that. It would be Silent Hill, a shell of its former self. But Capcom was bold and created one of the greatest games of all time. As for Mass Effect, it was never a deep RPG. Bioware decided to focus on the gameplay, on the combat, on what the player is PLAYING for about 80% of the game. But people want boring menus, they want to mess with numbers on a screen rather than have great shooting mechanics. It baffles me. Thankfully Bioware focused on the gameplay.

It's one thing to evolve, but something else to drastically change the entire premise of the game. Flight Simulator is an example of evolving. It did the same thing over the course of it's 20+ year run (and still does with Microsoft's latest, Flight). What it did do is evolved graphically, i.e. from vector graphics to 2D graphics to 3D graphics. They also added features such as weather and ATC. Some planes were a staple of the game and others were used and dropped. The gameplay was the same, fly a general aviation aircraft or a jet airliner. The game evolved.

The difference between Rainbow Six and Rainbow Six Vegas is day and night. Gone are the team based tactics that you planned out in a planning phase taking up to 8 team members to do a hostage rescue. Gone are the hostage rescue missions and the planting bugs missions for surveillance. Now, all one has to do are kill terrorists and soak up bullets. Gone also is the best feature found in any game (see my above post for what it is). A once innovative game is long gone and the only thing left is the name.

Not all are good movies, that is an example of a bad move.
Avatar image for JustPlainLucas
#-28 Posted by JustPlainLucas (78391 posts) -
[QUOTE="dvader654"] So a franchise should just do the same thing over and over, never evolve, never try something new. Its crap like that that gets a franchise killed, stale, unwanted. If Resident Evil never changed it would have DIED, as simple as that. It would be Silent Hill, a shell of its former self. But Capcom was bold and created one of the greatest games of all time. As for Mass Effect, it was never a deep RPG. Bioware decided to focus on the gameplay, on the combat, on what the player is PLAYING for about 80% of the game. But people want boring menus, they want to mess with numbers on a screen rather than have great shooting mechanics. It baffles me. Thankfully Bioware focused on the gameplay.

If by one of the greatest games ever made, you mean Resident Evil 5, then I have to disagree with you. Its focus on shooting gallery gameplay and putting the entire atmosphere into the sunlight (not to mention the necessity to play online co-op to get anything done, because your AI partner is a complete dunce), is what turned me off from the game. I couldn't even get past 1-2. I'd rather RE die at four than continue to make all these mainstream changes to keep the series "alive". By the way, Silent Hill will always be the better franchise. :P
Avatar image for klusps
#-27 Posted by klusps (10386 posts) -

Resident Evil and Crysis.

Avatar image for gamerdude375
#-26 Posted by gamerdude375 (204 posts) -

So a franchise should just do the same thing over and over, never evolve, never try something new. Its crap like that that gets a franchise killed, stale, unwanted. If Resident Evil never changed it would have DIED, as simple as that. It would be Silent Hill, a shell of its former self. But Capcom was bold and created one of the greatest games of all time.dvader654

Silent Hill is a shell of it's former self because it DID change and turned it's back key elements that fans loved about the original games.

The original three games were all in the same consistant positive reception range from both critics and gamers:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation/silent-hill(Critics Average - 86, User average - 9.1)

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-2/silent-hill-2(Critics Average - 89, User average - 9.1)

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-2/silent-hill-3
(Critics Average - 85, User average - 8.9)

.....starting with the fourth installment the series became something very different from the original three games, and unsurprisingly, the fourth installment is where we see a drop in both the critical and gamer reception:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-2/silent-hill-4-the-room(Critics average - 76, User average - 7.4)
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox/silent-hill-4-the-room(Critics average - 76, User average - 6.9)

The fourth installment they started putting in first-person elements, the game didn't even really take place in Silent Hill, the story didn't have anything to do with Cheryl / Alessa, the cult, or even the town of Silent Hill itself...the monster designs were different as was the atmosphere....again, because SH4 was originally never intended to be a Silent Hill game in the first place, it was originally planned by the creators to be a new ip (especially considering SH3 wrapped up the original story perfectly)...The Room was shoehorned into the Silent Hill series by Konami marketing.

The series then "changed" again with the following installments....Team Silent was disbanded....and Western developers took over for the next major console installment...lets see the result:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/silent-hill-homecoming
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/silent-hill-homecoming

Not an improvement.

Now, because of that kind of change, the Silent Hill series is indeed a shell of it's former self.

...as for RE4, that game retained enough elements from the original core series while also delivering a fresh take, which is totally cool.....it was RE5 which through all that out the window by becoming an all out action game with forced co-op which was an annoyance.

Avatar image for dvader654
#-25 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -
[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"][QUOTE="dvader654"] So a franchise should just do the same thing over and over, never evolve, never try something new. Its crap like that that gets a franchise killed, stale, unwanted. If Resident Evil never changed it would have DIED, as simple as that. It would be Silent Hill, a shell of its former self. But Capcom was bold and created one of the greatest games of all time. As for Mass Effect, it was never a deep RPG. Bioware decided to focus on the gameplay, on the combat, on what the player is PLAYING for about 80% of the game. But people want boring menus, they want to mess with numbers on a screen rather than have great shooting mechanics. It baffles me. Thankfully Bioware focused on the gameplay.

If by one of the greatest games ever made, you mean Resident Evil 5, then I have to disagree with you. Its focus on shooting gallery gameplay and putting the entire atmosphere into the sunlight (not to mention the necessity to play online co-op to get anything done, because your AI partner is a complete dunce), is what turned me off from the game. I couldn't even get past 1-2. I'd rather RE die at four than continue to make all these mainstream changes to keep the series "alive". By the way, Silent Hill will always be the better franchise. :P

No I mean RE4 of course.
Avatar image for dvader654
#-24 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]So a franchise should just do the same thing over and over, never evolve, never try something new. Its crap like that that gets a franchise killed, stale, unwanted. If Resident Evil never changed it would have DIED, as simple as that. It would be Silent Hill, a shell of its former self. But Capcom was bold and created one of the greatest games of all time.gamerdude375

Silent Hill is a shell of it's former self because it DID change and turned it's back key elements that fans loved about the original games.

The original three games were all in the same consistant positive reception range from both critics and gamers:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation/silent-hill

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-2/silent-hill-2

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-2/silent-hill-3

.....starting with the fourth installment the series became something very different from the original three games, and unsurprisingly, the fourth installment is where we see a drop in both the critical and gamer reception:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-2/silent-hill-4-the-room
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox/silent-hill-4-the-room

The fourth installment they started putting in first-person elements, the game didn't even really take place in Silent Hill, the story didn't have anything to do with Cheryl / Alessa, the cult, or even the town of Silent Hill itself...the monster designs were different as was the atmosphere....again, because SH4 was originally never intended to be a Silent Hill game in the first place, it was originally planned by the creators to be a new ip, it was shoehorned in by Konami marketing.

The series then "changed" again with the following installments....Team Silent was disbanded....and Western developers took over for the next major console installment...lets see the result:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/silent-hill-homecoming
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/silent-hill-homecoming

Not an improvement.

Now, because of that kind of change, the series is indeed a shell of it's former self.

Yeah the games got worse but the still play the same way. What was missing was the cool city to explore but the combat never went anywhere. The scares started to get predictable. The series wasnt changing to create a new formula, it was changing simply cause the quality of the game was diminishing. Who ever was making these games had bad ideas, did not know what to do with that formula. A reboot could easily fix that.

Avatar image for gamerdude375
#-23 Posted by gamerdude375 (204 posts) -

Yeah the games got worse but the still play the same way. What was missing was the cool city to explore but the combat never went anywhere. The scares started to get predictable. The series wasnt changing to create a new formula, it was changing simply cause the quality of the game was diminishing. Who ever was making these games had bad ideas, did not know what to do with that formula. A reboot could easily fix that.

dvader654

It's true....the combat in SH was always a low point, but the original SH games were never about action really, they were actually more survival horror adventure games.

In addition, like I said, SH3 wrapped up the original game's storyline perfectly, and I'm betting was intended to wrap up the series, at least from a primary standpoint. If Konami had let the series conclude right there as it should have, it would have been remembered as a great trilogy, since by 2003, it wasn't yet stale...not to mention Silent Hill 3 had among the best visuals of any game on that generation (even today it's character models hold up against current games).

Which is why Team Silent wanted to branch out with a new ip with something different. From what I've read, what unfortunately ended up becoming Silent Hill 4, was originally supposed to be a sort of creepy japanese ghost story / haunted house type of game with menacing japanese style spirits (this actually explains some of the creature designs in SH4). The also wanted to experiment with first person gameplay, which made it into the final product, but not really in the way Team Silent originally wanted when they intended it to be a new ip....but supposedly, either supposely Fatal Frame's sales wasn't what Konami hoped for or they got spooked at the idea of marking a new ip that might be too similiar to Fatal Frame and might canabalize sales (I've also heard it was a combination of both)...either way, marketing supposedly they got scared at the idea of putting out a new ip with a japanese ghost story atmosphere, and Konami Marketing forced Team Silent into shoehorning this very different game into the Silent Hill series.

Another reason for the drop in critical reception...it was actually rushed out and the development time was cut short. When it was originally being developed as an original ip, from what I've read, it wasn't originally intended to come out just a year after Team Silent had released Silent Hill 3, supposedly they wanted quite some time to really get a grasp on the new ideas and how to fit it into their vision for a new ip.

Change is good when it's done for creative reasons and make a game the best it can be.
...but when it's done to chase a dollar or try to cash in on what is percieved to be a lucritive audience, the results can and have sometimes tarnished what were originally great series.

Avatar image for JustPlainLucas
#-22 Posted by JustPlainLucas (78391 posts) -
[QUOTE="dvader654"] No I mean RE4 of course.

Ahh, you had me worried for a sec. RE4 was amazing on the Wii thanks to the remote aiming, but I had a very hard time with it on the Cube. I hate aiming with the analogue stick, one of the major reasons why I hated RE5.
Avatar image for deactivated-5b19c359a3789
#-21 Posted by deactivated-5b19c359a3789 (7785 posts) -

id software did a tremendous job in general.

Their products have gone from gameplay based to technology based. No one played Quake to see what kind of lighting effects they were able to produce, but that's all they've cared about since Doom 3.

Avatar image for DarkCatalyst
#-20 Posted by DarkCatalyst (20965 posts) -
As someone who is taking their first steps into development, here's my take on the whole matter. Many times as a gamer I've felt betrayed ("misled" might be a better word) by developers, Nintendo and Square Enix being the worst offenders. The idea of knowing exactly what you're getting by the name on the box has always been very important to me, and I've never really gone back to supporting studios that take away that sense of security. Thus, it is equally important to me to preserve that security for my future playerbase. That is why I have already decided that I will never change any series I make on any drastic level. If interest wanes in a series I'm working on, I will simply end the series and work on something else. That feeling of being held out of the experience of a series you used to love is a terrible one and I would never want to be the cause of it.
Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
#-19 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12605 posts) -

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"]So a franchise should just do the same thing over and over, never evolve, never try something new. Its crap like that that gets a franchise killed, stale, unwanted. If Resident Evil never changed it would have DIED, as simple as that. It would be Silent Hill, a shell of its former self. But Capcom was bold and created one of the greatest games of all time. As for Mass Effect, it was never a deep RPG. Bioware decided to focus on the gameplay, on the combat, on what the player is PLAYING for about 80% of the game. But people want boring menus, they want to mess with numbers on a screen rather than have great shooting mechanics. It baffles me. Thankfully Bioware focused on the gameplay.dvader654

It's one thing to evolve, but something else to drastically change the entire premise of the game. Flight Simulator is an example of evolving. It did the same thing over the course of it's 20+ year run (and still does with Microsoft's latest, Flight). What it did do is evolved graphically, i.e. from vector graphics to 2D graphics to 3D graphics. They also added features such as weather and ATC. Some planes were a staple of the game and others were used and dropped. The gameplay was the same, fly a general aviation aircraft or a jet airliner. The game evolved.

The difference between Rainbow Six and Rainbow Six Vegas is day and night. Gone are the team based tactics that you planned out in a planning phase taking up to 8 team members to do a hostage rescue. Gone are the hostage rescue missions and the planting bugs missions for surveillance. Now, all one has to do are kill terrorists and soak up bullets. Gone also is the best feature found in any game (see my above post for what it is). A once innovative game is long gone and the only thing left is the name.

Not all are good movies, that is an example of a bad move.

Is that just a typo or what? Does it also mean you are agreeing with me? Your post is a bit ambiguous.

Avatar image for northernrage
#-18 Posted by northernrage (27 posts) -
Resident Evil. They have done away with all the horror to the point that it cannot even be considered a survival horror anymore.
Avatar image for deactivated-5b19214ec908b
#-17 Posted by deactivated-5b19214ec908b (25072 posts) -

Syndicate. Great tactical isometric shooter, made into a mediocre FPS.

XCOM is probably ther next to disapoint.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a9b3f32ef4e9
#-16 Posted by deactivated-5a9b3f32ef4e9 (7779 posts) -

Nobody has mentioned Command & Conquer yet? :P

Avatar image for 190586385885857957282413308806
#-15 Posted by 190586385885857957282413308806 (13084 posts) -
As for Mass Effect, it was never a deep RPG. Bioware decided to focus on the gameplay, on the combat, on what the player is PLAYING for about 80% of the game. But people want boring menus, they want to mess with numbers on a screen rather than have great shooting mechanics. It baffles me. Thankfully Bioware focused on the gameplay.dvader654
Yeah it's crazy for fans of RPGs to want to play RPGs And there's no way a game that dumbed itself down into almost another genre is a betrayal in any way.
Avatar image for Dracula68
#-14 Posted by Dracula68 (33109 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"] As for Mass Effect, it was never a deep RPG. Bioware decided to focus on the gameplay, on the combat, on what the player is PLAYING for about 80% of the game. But people want boring menus, they want to mess with numbers on a screen rather than have great shooting mechanics. It baffles me. Thankfully Bioware focused on the gameplay.smerlus
Yeah it's crazy for fans of RPGs to want to play RPGs And there's no way a game that dumbed itself down into almost another genre is a betrayal in any way.

Who said ti was a deep RPG? They just decided to try and get everybody they can to buy it so to accomplish that they removed a ton of *** from the original to ruin the series for people like me that love RPGs.

That be like Borderlands 2 taking everything from the original that worked AND all the RPG elements to make it more of a shooter. (If that really happens I will give up on games entirely)

Avatar image for gamerdude375
#-13 Posted by gamerdude375 (204 posts) -

I'm surprised no one mentioned the abysmal reboot that Microsoft did to Shadowrun....taking one of the best and most beloved RPG brandnames, and what do they do with it, they turn it into a mediocre multiplayer FPS....that's one of the biggest betrayal to an original fanbase I've seen.

Syndicate. Great tactical isometric shooter, made into a mediocre FPS.

toast_burner

Agreed....like Shadowrun, took a great brandname, and turned it into yet another mediocre shooter.

XCOM is probably ther next to disapoint.

toast_burner

I'm actually looking forward to 2K Marin's XCOM, also, unlike the other two games mentioned above....original fans are getting a strategy game....so 2K Marin's XCOM is actually a side-game, not a replacement.

But I will agree....they should have never used the XCOM name in the first place, their game should have been an original ip. As an original ip I think it would have been mostly well received.

In addition, 2K Marin (which I consider a great development studio), need their own ip to make a name for themselves, instead of living in the shadow when they only made sequels and reboots to original ip's that brought other developers critical acclaim.

Not to mention, using the acclaimed XCOM brandname seems to have backfired in that they got far more backlash for making it an fps....I wouldn't be surprised the backlash is why this game has gone pretty silent now.

2K Marin really should have made it an original ip and they still have time to do so...all they need to do is change the name. For one, their game really has nothing to do with X-COM, at least the way it is remembered by fans. Second, it's not as if the X-COM brandname has sole ownership of the whole 1950's/1960's Alien Invasion idea. Third, even in terms of new releases, their "XCOM" will be in the shadow of Firaxis upcoming X-COM strategy game, which most people will consider a true sequel.

It's sad, cause on it's own, 2K Marin's game looked like a pretty cool FPS game with a cool look....they really should just change the name, and make the game it's own original ip.

....and it's not like this idea hasn't worked well before...supposedly Devil May Cry was originally supposed to be a Resident Evil sequel, but it was decided to make it into an original ip, and a whole new successful series was born.

Avatar image for dvader654
#-12 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"] [QUOTE="Dracula68"]

[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="dvader654"] As for Mass Effect, it was never a deep RPG. Bioware decided to focus on the gameplay, on the combat, on what the player is PLAYING for about 80% of the game. But people want boring menus, they want to mess with numbers on a screen rather than have great shooting mechanics. It baffles me. Thankfully Bioware focused on the gameplay.WhiteKnight77

Yeah it's crazy for fans of RPGs to want to play RPGs And there's no way a game that dumbed itself down into almost another genre is a betrayal in any way.

Who said ti was a deep RPG? They just decided to try and get everybody they can to buy it so to accomplish that they removed a ton of *** from the original to ruin the series for people like me that love RPGs.

That be like Borderlands 2 taking everything from the original that worked AND all the RPG elements to make it more of a shooter. (If that really happens I will give up on games entirely)

It was never a game for you! It was an attempt to create the first true TPS RPG, it was NEVER an RPG first. ME2 fixed the most important aspect of the franchise by far, the combat. If the combat does not work this series does not work. It needs to be a functional shooter to be the game Bioware wanted it to be. I still believe all the cuts they made in ME2 helped the flow of the game, and removed most of the useless junk that clutters RPGs. Yes the simplified the class building but the fixed the balance in ME3. Mass Effect was always a shooter, too bad if that is not what you want. There a million RPGs for you out there, there is only one game series like Mass Effect.

Avatar image for genocidecu
#-11 Posted by genocidecu (103 posts) -

Rainboe Six

Splinter Cell

Avatar image for Zensword
#-10 Posted by Zensword (4509 posts) -
Crysis 2
Avatar image for CLOUDsea
#-9 Posted by CLOUDsea (1095 posts) -
Final Fantasy XIII is close enough. Resident Evil 4, on the other hand ...
Avatar image for Vangaurdius
#-8 Posted by Vangaurdius (671 posts) -
Final Fantasy Mass Effect- Self explanatory. It went from a Space Opera that was kinda cool to Hamburger's Gay Buttsex Space Simulator Dragon Age- Could have improved upon the last one so we actually had an RPG to play since Skyrim ditched RPG for Action Adventure but noooo. Have to get at the casuals. Anything EA gets it's filthy hands on Total War- Complexity got lower and lower. Which is surprising since it was a fairly easy game as far as strategy went. Now it's just archers spam of doom. Civilization- Removed a lot of the complexity X COM- Well, I guess there is that proper one but still. The new X game- ONE MOTHER ******* SHIP?! ONE MOTHER ******* SHIP? I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR STUPID DRONES. What made X3 great was having a fleet of capital ships crammed with smaller ships to impose your will. Call of Duty-Went from a quality series that made you feel like you weren't a one man army, but part of a team. CoD4 was okay but felt lacking and easy, especially the MP. Command and Conquer- Now bioware is going to ruin that too. EA needs to **** off and let it rest in peace. Crysis- The open-end feel of the previous was gone along with a lot of the strategy, especially with custom missions. Battlefield- Went downhill with Bad Company. Now there's BF3 EXTREME CASUAL EDITION: LOADSA BLOOM AND LENS FLARE! REGENERATING EVERYTHING! BLOODY SCREEN! SO REAL! WUBWUBWUBWUBWUB! Ghost Recon- Went from a highly tactical shooter where stupidity would result in you getting you're **** slapped. Now it's turned into a third person Call of Duty. Far Cry- The gameplay previews say it all. Rainbow Six- Turned into Call of Duty just like Ghost Recon. No pre-mission planning where your choices could result in things going very very wrong and you lose the lives of valuable team-members Stronghold-All the 3d iterations were horrendous and buggy. 3 was just shameful. Empire Earth- The reviews say it all. Age of Empires-The FTP game. Ace Combat Turned into a movie. Sword of the Stars- The fact that they released it is just...There is no word to describe how disgusting that is. IL2-Cliffs of Dover is still a broken mess and is far more arcadey than 1946. I really wish someone would make a proper modern ww2 plane simulator. Splinter Cell- Ditched stealth for an action game with stealth tacked on. Hitman- Probably going to be just like Conviction because casuals don't have any patience. I'll add more if I think of them.
Avatar image for immortality20
#-7 Posted by immortality20 (8546 posts) -

Reading this thread just makes me shake my head. Most of the games mentioned are changed for the drastic better, and prove it with sales and review scores. But hating something popular has become the "cool" thing to do this gen.

Avatar image for Vangaurdius
#-6 Posted by Vangaurdius (671 posts) -

Reading this thread just makes me shake my head. Most of the games mentioned are changed for the drastic better, and prove it with sales and review scores. But hating something popular has become the "cool" thing to do this gen.

immortality20
It has nothing to do with hating something because it's popular. Popularity does not make something good. It means that it's easy for idiots to interact with.
Avatar image for Pixel-Perfect
#-5 Posted by Pixel-Perfect (5778 posts) -

Definitely going with Final Fantasy here. After ten it fell apart.

Avatar image for Hatiko
#-4 Posted by Hatiko (4669 posts) -

Hai gais:

Is Dante cool enough now?

Avatar image for deactivated-5a9b3f32ef4e9
#-3 Posted by deactivated-5a9b3f32ef4e9 (7779 posts) -

Hai gais:

Is Dante cool enough now?

Hatiko

:lol:

I'd forgot about this one - thanks for reminding me :cry:

Avatar image for Venom_Raptor
#-2 Posted by Venom_Raptor (6959 posts) -

Shift 2: Unleashed. The first game was great, but most of what made Shift so good was altered or removed in the sequel, which was so disappointing.

Avatar image for Doggybones
#-1 Posted by Doggybones (105 posts) -

The warcraft series went from RTS games to pay to play MMORPG.

Avatar image for 190586385885857957282413308806
#0 Posted by 190586385885857957282413308806 (13084 posts) -
[QUOTE="dvader654"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Yeah it's crazy for fans of RPGs to want to play RPGs And there's no way a game that dumbed itself down into almost another genre is a betrayal in any way.dvader654

Who said ti was a deep RPG? They just decided to try and get everybody they can to buy it so to accomplish that they removed a ton of *** from the original to ruin the series for people like me that love RPGs.

That be like Borderlands 2 taking everything from the original that worked AND all the RPG elements to make it more of a shooter. (If that really happens I will give up on games entirely)

It was never a game for you! It was an attempt to create the first true TPS RPG, it was NEVER an RPG first. ME2 fixed the most important aspect of the franchise by far, the combat. If the combat does not work this series does not work. It needs to be a functional shooter to be the game Bioware wanted it to be. I still believe all the cuts they made in ME2 helped the flow of the game, and removed most of the useless junk that clutters RPGs. Yes the simplified the class building but the fixed the balance in ME3. Mass Effect was always a shooter, too bad if that is not what you want. There a million RPGs for you out there, there is only one game series like Mass Effect.

Did you ever play ME 1?