Simple solution. Don't buy them.
As far as addressing your actual question when devs actually do take chances the fans of the series often bitch about the changes. Such as Cell-da. So its damned if you do, damned if you don't.
And FF13 is different for what its worth. Its shit imo but its different than what the series was before. As in no towns. So taking chances doesn't automatically mean those changes will be good.
I dunno, most people seem to love Wind Waker, I dont think that's a good example. Going from Celda to Twilight Princess actually caused more backlash.There was nothing but bitching about the look of Wind Waker for the longest time. Revisionism has people now looking back fondly on it. Especially with the weakened state of Wii graphics.
Because games are now multimillion dollar projects and potentially alienating a consistent audience in the name of creative freedom wouldn't go over well with stockholders.
I dunno, most people seem to love Wind Waker, I dont think that's a good example. Going from Celda to Twilight Princess actually caused more backlash.There was nothing but bitching about the look of Wind Waker for the longest time. Revisionism has people now looking back fondly on it. Especially with the weakened state of Wii graphics.
RE 5 is another. Lots of bitching and complaining. Because lots of people simply wanted RE 4 again. So not every change is guaranteed to be a hit with fans or more accurately message board types.
I'd much rather concern myself with overall quality rather than revolutionary gameplay. Because one is a lot harder than the other to produce. Take your revolutions where you can get them imo. Appreciate them for what they are. But its unrealistic to expect most games to be that way. Its a money making enterprise. And the more it costs, the less risk taking is generally done. It's easy to take risks when it doesn't cost much or the sales expectations aren't very great.
Fans are contradictory in what they want. First they say that want something new and fresh, but then they get bent out of shape when a sequel "tosses the legacy of its predecessors".
I understand what you are getting at, but on the issue with RE5, didn't people bitch because RE5 played EXACTLY as RE4, just that it wasn't as good game?
I understand what you are getting at, but on the issue with RE5, didn't people bitch because RE5 played EXACTLY as RE4, just that it wasn't as good game?
I'm more saying if a person doesn't agree with the chances being taken, they won't look favorably on it. Look at Starcraft 2. From what i've heard it seems to essentially be a throwback game. It ignores most of the fundamental changes that have occurred in the RTS market. But the fans of the series like that. They don't want it to be different. They want an improved version of what they already like. Same with Street Fighter. Same with Halo. Same with Call of Duty. Etc.
Fans are contradictory in what they want. First they say that want something new and fresh, but then they get bent out of shape when a sequel "tosses the legacy of its predecessors".
I understand what you are getting at, but on the issue with RE5, didn't people bitch because RE5 played EXACTLY as RE4, just that it wasn't as good game?
I'm more saying if a person doesn't agree with the chances being taken, they won't look favorably on it. Look at Starcraft 2. From what i've heard it seems to essentially be a throwback game. It ignores most of the fundamental changes that have occurred in the RTS market. But the fans of the series like that. They don't want it to be different. They want an improved version of what they already like. Same with Street Fighter. Same with Halo. Same with Call of Duty. Etc.
Yeah, I thought this thread might be about SC2. But Blizzard gets away with that because hey, Starcraft came out TWELVE YEARS AGO. Sure, it has the same gameplay but holy fucking shit I've been waiting all this time so to get a graphical update with a great campaign and perfect multiplayer along the lines of the original -- I am fucking happy. But when you have Halo or COD coming out every year or two, it wears a person down.
I also agree with your statement about "overall quality" -- and that's where Blizzard pretty much destroys EVERYONE. I know you're looking forward to D3 (as am I).
This has me curious as to how Burnout Paradise sold in comparison to its predecessors. That was a reimagining done right, as much as I was opposed to the idea. I still have my qualms with it, but fuck if I didn't sink a shitload of time into it.
:bow Burnout series :bow2
This has me curious as to how Burnout Paradise sold in comparison to its predecessors. That was a reimagining done right, as much as I was opposed to the idea. I still have my qualms with it, but fuck if I didn't sink a shitload of time into it.
:bow Burnout series :bow2
My biggest complaint about Burnout Paradise was how the crash mode was just awful compared to the previous games. I liked the open world nature though.
Don't get why you're mentioning halo, halo 2 took a lot of chances and halo reach looks pretty promisingIt depends on how familar a person is with a series. If a person is very familar with a series then the changes in any specific iteration seem huge. If a person is less of a hardcore fan of a series then the changes often seem like not that big a deal. That goes for any series. Halo fundamentally is the same series it began as. (not a knock. Nearly every franchise is) The weapon balance has changed. News features and weapons have been added. But the series is fundamentally recognizable to most people as the same basic series despite how the pistol has changed over the years or specifically how health regen works or other examples like that.
Because games are now multimillion dollar projects and potentially alienating a consistent audience in the name of creative freedom wouldn't go over well with stockholders.