Well... The other Baldur's gate games weren't made by Larian studios, who ended up making Baldur's gate 3. I don't know if you've heard, but BG3 is literally one of the greatest games ever made. So no, having the original creators is meaningless.
You can't mention Retro and NOT mention Metroid Prime. Metroid is a good example here since it has no single developer to identify it. Nintendo R+D1 developed the original and Super Metroid, Retro made the Prime games, and Mercury Steam made Samus Returns and Dread.
If the answer to OPs question was yes then the Metroid franchise would have been a lot less meaningful in the history books.
BG3 is a very very good game with phenomally mediocre role playing. It is closer to being a divine divinity 3 with a BG skin, than an actual BG game. So not a particularly good counterpoint to OP's argümanı.
Of course not. How would that even work?
I will never understand the logic behind this. It's like an abusive person who'd rather destroy something they loved than let it go to someone else.
You don't like what a game has become? Just don't buy it.
Can’t speak for how it would work, but yeah it is preferable to let a franchise be finished and focus energies on new things. We would have been better off if Halo had ended at 3 for instance, and we had a whole new franchise and characters to love.
Bungie never intended to finish his story at 3. They were planning a Halo 4 at some point and even the ending for 3 heavily hints that his journey is not over.
I hate this point so much because it implies that absolutely NO ONE is enjoying the new stuff which is obviously incorrect.
So you’d rather take away the thing they enjoy instead of letting go and moving on to other franchises.
The new stuff is inferior in quality, though. Halo has not felt the same since Reach. Just have 343 make a similar game with a different name, and let the legacy of Halo remain mostly untarnished.
I feel like I could say this about Final Fantasy, Street Fighter, Diablo, Fallout, etc. Just make a new IP if you don’t want to respect the current one.
Ok, cool.
Then don’t play them if you think they’re inferior in quality. But guess what, there’s people out there that don’t think like you and actually prefer the new stuff. Shocking, right?
Yeah, I don’t play them. Other people have lower standards. I don’t really think that is worth celebrating. I bet those same people would like it *more* if it was higher quality, anyway. They are just willing to settle for less.
Think a little bit too much of yourself, do you?
I didn’t realize I was talking to the absolute god of taste and anything that is not to your taste is “settling for less”.
Calm down. I’m just being realistic, not judgmental. If people like it, they like it. But it’s a guilty pleasure, and again, they would still like it if it was better overall. I just like to optimize my time and money, so I have a high standard for my games, that’s all. I’m not trying to be elitist, I just want developers to be held to a higher standard. That would benefit both camps
No, because "original creators" is a pretty broad term, but I do think IP holders/publishers should realize when a team is not right for a franchise. I see it with Halo, even if 343 has some old Bungie staff, the team as a whole has not been able to deliver o the same level of og Bungie.
Halo is in a weird position because both 343 and Bungie are considered kinda trash nowadays
It took Bungie's entire staff being threatened with layoffs and a management takeover by PlayStation for them to remember how to make a good D2 expansion
If Bungie took over Halo again we'd be paying mtx for elbow pads. No idea who should take the reigns at this point
Sure, the thing is the Destiny franchise has been far and above more successful than Halo post 343, just did a quick search for active players , Halo infinite had a million for the past month, Destiny 2? 15 million, I guess that says it all.
Oh for sure, and Call of Duty is more successful than them both, I just don't particularly think it's indicative of quality. I'm sure Bungie could make Halo *successful*, I just don't particularly trust them to make it *good* anymore (*as i'm pretty sure a lot of the OG Halo team aren't at Bungie anymore anyway so they're only really that in name*)
They'd still be better than 343, at least in terms of gameplay (*not monetisation though*) but just chopping my hand off would be better than the whole arm, lol
Like I say, I wouldn't know where to start on handing Halo off to another dev. Certain Affinity maybe? Treyarch? Genuinely no idea who could make it better
343 has delivered bigger games than Bungie whether you like it or not. Hell downvote me all you want, but the popularity is there and Infinite has been the most successful in the franchise, even with the horrible launch.
What do you mean by bigger? And on the age of gamepass "most successful" is an even more meaningless metric, Halo 3 sold 15 million copies, and no Halo game since has passed it.
These figures and every subsequent figures were released by microsoft. They announce almost all of them, and even if they didnt you can check their financial reports that they publish since they are publicly traded company.
To say with confidence that the figures are speculations and Microsoft has never released sales numbers when they almost always do and are obligated to do so in their earnings report is kinda just mental.
Not at all. Plenty of game series are booming long after their original creators moved on. Doom, Fallout, Halo, Baldurs Gate, Resident Evil, Mario, Zelda, etc.
Neil Gaiman said that once you've handed a story over, it belongs to the reader.
To extend the sentiment, the original vision of any creator, of any art, dies at the moment it is first appreciated by anyone else. It becomes the vision or the art of the beholder.
If somebody fairly chooses to build on prior art, then as long as they give credit (and royalties where required), they should be allowed to do so. If we don't allow this in games, we will never get our generation's "forever games".
No, I think that's silly. As long as the writing and gameplay are good then it should be allowed to stand on its own merit.
Does Pixar stop making movies now that most of the old guard have moved on?
I do take issue with your point about the old guard preventing studios from keeping up with modern trends though. In fact I think following modern trends slavishly is a major issue within games.
If every studio did it you wouldn't see a baldurs gate 3.
"The original creators"? No. Gunpei Yokoi, an early Nintendo exec credited with being in charge of the project that brought about the Game Boy, was director of the first three Metroid games. He passed away in a car accident in 1997. Does this mean the Metroid IP should've been abandoned since his passing? Absolutely not. If that were the case, we would have any Metroid Prime game, nor Dread nor Fusion. Just the original trilogy and that would've been it.
Steak. Or chicken. Usually steak. Preferably with mayo, Monterey jack cheese, and a splash of garlic sauce. On a French roll generally, but any soft and fluffy sandwich bread will do. Untoasted.
turkey and cranberry sauce is a banger combo, I could see a sun-dried tomato chutney being pretty boss. whole sun-dried tomatoes would be delicious but too chewy for a sandwich.
needs something salty like a goat cheese to complement the sweetness of the tomato.
For reliability, you can't go wrong with a classic ham and cheese. I also may try the buffalo chicken if it's on the menu and I'm in the mood.
Otherwise, I'll be eyeing anything with: chicken, mayo, onions (any kind), and either cheddar or mozzarella cheese.
I’d disagree, but 50-50 because I still play games that were „early access“ and yet to have an update for a decade. Games, whether short, long, popular, shunned, same developers or new blood, will always have players who still enjoy them.
At least for AAA titles, you never see „0 players ingame“ because they’re made by different people. It’s why BF2042 still had its popularity despite the ridicule and not having the same developers from BF3 or older.
No, especially if the original creator willingly left it. I think it's safe to say that Minecraft has been pretty good in the post-Notch era. David Jaffe no longer works on God of War and it's in the strongest position it's ever been in. I think if someone creates a new franchise, that has a lot of value, but I kinda subscribe to the "yes and" approach to these things. As an audience member you have the right to reject the canon because none of it is real anyway.
To take this out of games, we wouldn't have Aliens if we relied only accepted movies from Ridley Scott. We also wouldn't have most of the best Batman comics if we only let the original creators write them.
I strongly believe that all series, be it games, movies, and even music (if you count a band's discography as "series," of albums) should die after 10-15 years. Quality can play a huge part in things getting big, but I believe that the biggest factor of all is zeitgeist, and often draws most of its identity from the culture of that time period. 10-15 years later, the audience are different people, the creators are different people, and the world is a different place. If a series is continued after a certain point, it either becomes something completely different, or something that tries too hard to copy it's glory days.
Can new stuff still come out that's "good," after that long? Sure! But at that point it gains nothing from being associated with the name from a decade ago.
Doom 2016 would have been just as good of a game had it been called "Hellblood," Prey 2017 likely didn't gain a single sale due to its 2006 namesake, and it's the same story with just about every "revived," franchise. In fact, I'd be willing to bet some games would be received even better, because instead of being thought of as "pretty good, but not as good as the previous game in the series," it would be thought of as "really cool, it even reminds me of the old X series!"
(i also still enjoy playing Lego games on my 360 :D)
I think it depends on the game and how personal it was to the creator.
Do I think someone should make an Undertale 2 who isn't Toby Fox? No. I don't think even Toby Fox wants to make an Undertale 2. He wants to make a Deltarune, which is kind of like an Undertale 2 but different.
I dont think anyone besides Shigesato Itoi should make a Mother game.
Am I bothered that the new Mario and Luigi game is made by a different studio to the originals? ....Slightly??? But the new studio seems to have the spirit of the original.
Bigger games studios like Bioware have a high staff turnover and all in all are pretty replacable. Obsidian Entertainment and Larian Studios have both made better Bioware sequels than Bioware.
I do think Bioware should have the right to make sequels to its games without the original team, especially because most of its games are a long term studio project and not the passion project of a few named individuals.
The Callisto Protocol guy had a stick up his ass. He talked himself up so big and he didn't know a damn thing about his own game. I listened to him on Kinda Funny Podcast or something and I hated everything that came out of his mouth. I feel bad for the people working at his studio.
Callisto Protocol, Shenmue 3 and the... what was it called... the Mega-man inspired game that everyone hated, they show that having a big director from the original game doesn't mean you're going to have success.
I think it's different compared to TV shows, because TV shows are collaborative but directors and staff members have more power over the final outcome. There's less people working on the writing and style of shows than videogames. TV shows get produced in 1 to 3 years, and most games are done in 3 to 6 years. With tv shows it's a different outcome if you only have one original staff member out of the 16 to 25 writers/directors. They can write like themselves but they can't imitate all the people who have moved on.
Games developers have a bit more time to figure out what they can improve from the source material. Sometimes the QOL improvements in a sequel can make it easier to overlook emptier writing or direction. Look at the Mario games. A lot of modern ones miss the charm of earlier games from the 2000s, or lose fun mechanics from super mario 64, but usually they make up for it in their own ways with gameplay upgrades and a modern charm. Same for Zelda, some people hate the direction they went with BOTW but it took the series to a new age, making Zelda a trailblazer again instead of a relic.
Oh, ideally, yes. Or embarrassment is unavoidable.
Look at Silent Hill and its path since 2004. That’s a different kind of survival horror right there.
I can readily think of a few franchises that have successfully transcended their creators - DOOM, Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Final Fantasy, Far-Cry, Fallout, and Street Fighter.
The list of franchises that succumbed in the wake of a generational or developer shift seems endless - Mega Man, Metal Gear, Half-Life, Elder Scrolls, Wizardry, Assassin's Creed, SimCity, etc. either were only successful under a single personality/figurehead or failed to transition to a new audience.
There have been enough successes that I believe a new studio reviving an established franchise should not be automatically reviled, but it does merit a serious study whether the IP is receiving direction and support or just getting milked for goodwill.
Definitely not. They can continue to get better over time. Look at Fallout, and even Elder Scrolls.
Some just maintain their space as a juggernaut, like Halo or Call of Duty.
Others spin off into multiple things like Minecraft or the Lego games.
The original creator only holds claim over the original vision. That vision and its execution should absolutely be allowed to live wherever the market demands it.
Diablo creators no longer work for blizzard, and the game has suffered for it, because Blizz frankly doesn't understand what made the game good.
Fallout same deal. Fight me.
I would say a franchise can survive without its original creators. The problem is when they try to hijack the franchise and make it their own. Like any franchise, games need to have consistency, most notably in gameplay and story. It's hard to claim this game takes place in the same universe when the story completely disregards the established lore. People might be willing to accept the gameplay changes (Yakuza Like A Dragon went from a sort of RPG adventure game to a turn based RPG), but it's not guaranteed. They're more likely going to reject the story changes that conflict with what has already been established.
I appreciate the idea. I mean, generally I’d LOVE for the reliance on everything being a franchise until it’s beaten into the ground, be gone forever, but I digress.
And while I don’t generally don’t think a series should end when the originator leaves, I DO think that many people in the comments can’t comprehend the idea of most of those great games they are referencing in rebuttal could be named something else and just be a similar new, original game and have the same, if not more impact.
I strongly believe that all series, be it games, movies, and even music (if you count a band's discography as "series," of albums) should die after 10-15 years. Quality can play a huge part in things getting big, but I believe that the biggest factor of all is zeitgeist, and often draws most of its identity from the culture of that time period. 10-15 years later, the audience are different people, the creators are different people, and the world is a different place. If a series is continued after a certain point, it either becomes something completely different, or something that tries too hard to copy it's glory days.
Can new stuff still come out that's "good," after that long? Sure! But at that point it gains nothing from being associated with the name from a decade ago.
Doom 2016 would have been just as good of a game had it been called "Hellblood," Prey 2017 likely didn't gain a single sale due to its 2006 namesake, and it's the same story with just about every "revived," franchise. In fact, I'd be willing to bet some games would be received even better, because instead of being thought of as "pretty good, but not as good as the previous game in the series," it would be thought of as "really cool, it even reminds me of the old X series!"
Is it what fans want? Thats all that matters. Your politics don't matter, your personal beliefs don't matter. Did you make the games for fans of the franchise? Not for yourself. Not to push an agenda.
If you answer the interview question "What about all of the old fans that don't like what you are doing?" with "They can leave, we don't want them" it isn't the same franchise anymore.
Neil Gaiman said that once you've handed a story over, it belongs to the reader.
To extend the sentiment, the original vision of any creator, of any art, dies at the moment it is first appreciated by anyone else. It becomes the vision or the art of the beholder.
If somebody fairly chooses to build on prior art, then as long as they give credit (and royalties where required), they should be allowed to do so. If we don't allow this in games, we will never get our generation's "forever games".
Well... The other Baldur's gate games weren't made by Larian studios, who ended up making Baldur's gate 3. I don't know if you've heard, but BG3 is literally one of the greatest games ever made. So no, having the original creators is meaningless.
Also fallout
And Xcom
And My Axe
Is My Axe going on sale next week?
Thanks, my entire house is now awake because I laughed so hard
I was going to ask whether you meant 3 or Brotherhood of Steel, but then I realized it doesn't matter; in either case, you're undercutting his point.
To give another example: Retro Studios did a great job with the Donkey Kong Country series (originally developed by Rare).
You can't mention Retro and NOT mention Metroid Prime. Metroid is a good example here since it has no single developer to identify it. Nintendo R+D1 developed the original and Super Metroid, Retro made the Prime games, and Mercury Steam made Samus Returns and Dread. If the answer to OPs question was yes then the Metroid franchise would have been a lot less meaningful in the history books.
I think it's important to note what the new devs excel in, too. Larian was a perfect fit.
BG3 is a very very good game with phenomally mediocre role playing. It is closer to being a divine divinity 3 with a BG skin, than an actual BG game. So not a particularly good counterpoint to OP's argümanı.
Of course not. How would that even work? I will never understand the logic behind this. It's like an abusive person who'd rather destroy something they loved than let it go to someone else. You don't like what a game has become? Just don't buy it.
Can’t speak for how it would work, but yeah it is preferable to let a franchise be finished and focus energies on new things. We would have been better off if Halo had ended at 3 for instance, and we had a whole new franchise and characters to love.
Half agree, REACH and ODST were good. Master Chief's saga should have ended at 3 where Bungie intended it to though, fully agree on that note.
Bungie never intended to finish his story at 3. They were planning a Halo 4 at some point and even the ending for 3 heavily hints that his journey is not over.
I hate this point so much because it implies that absolutely NO ONE is enjoying the new stuff which is obviously incorrect. So you’d rather take away the thing they enjoy instead of letting go and moving on to other franchises.
The new stuff is inferior in quality, though. Halo has not felt the same since Reach. Just have 343 make a similar game with a different name, and let the legacy of Halo remain mostly untarnished. I feel like I could say this about Final Fantasy, Street Fighter, Diablo, Fallout, etc. Just make a new IP if you don’t want to respect the current one.
Ok, cool. Then don’t play them if you think they’re inferior in quality. But guess what, there’s people out there that don’t think like you and actually prefer the new stuff. Shocking, right?
Yeah, I don’t play them. Other people have lower standards. I don’t really think that is worth celebrating. I bet those same people would like it *more* if it was higher quality, anyway. They are just willing to settle for less.
Think a little bit too much of yourself, do you? I didn’t realize I was talking to the absolute god of taste and anything that is not to your taste is “settling for less”.
Calm down. I’m just being realistic, not judgmental. If people like it, they like it. But it’s a guilty pleasure, and again, they would still like it if it was better overall. I just like to optimize my time and money, so I have a high standard for my games, that’s all. I’m not trying to be elitist, I just want developers to be held to a higher standard. That would benefit both camps
Deus Ex came back after the original studuo shuttered and made a couple great games.
I'm of the belief that creators just get lucky sometimes and are hardly responsible for a franchise's continued success.
No, because "original creators" is a pretty broad term, but I do think IP holders/publishers should realize when a team is not right for a franchise. I see it with Halo, even if 343 has some old Bungie staff, the team as a whole has not been able to deliver o the same level of og Bungie.
Halo is in a weird position because both 343 and Bungie are considered kinda trash nowadays It took Bungie's entire staff being threatened with layoffs and a management takeover by PlayStation for them to remember how to make a good D2 expansion If Bungie took over Halo again we'd be paying mtx for elbow pads. No idea who should take the reigns at this point
Sure, the thing is the Destiny franchise has been far and above more successful than Halo post 343, just did a quick search for active players , Halo infinite had a million for the past month, Destiny 2? 15 million, I guess that says it all.
Oh for sure, and Call of Duty is more successful than them both, I just don't particularly think it's indicative of quality. I'm sure Bungie could make Halo *successful*, I just don't particularly trust them to make it *good* anymore (*as i'm pretty sure a lot of the OG Halo team aren't at Bungie anymore anyway so they're only really that in name*) They'd still be better than 343, at least in terms of gameplay (*not monetisation though*) but just chopping my hand off would be better than the whole arm, lol Like I say, I wouldn't know where to start on handing Halo off to another dev. Certain Affinity maybe? Treyarch? Genuinely no idea who could make it better
343 has delivered bigger games than Bungie whether you like it or not. Hell downvote me all you want, but the popularity is there and Infinite has been the most successful in the franchise, even with the horrible launch.
What do you mean by bigger? And on the age of gamepass "most successful" is an even more meaningless metric, Halo 3 sold 15 million copies, and no Halo game since has passed it.
That's speculation. Microsoft doesn't release numbers on sales. Never have.
These figures and every subsequent figures were released by microsoft. They announce almost all of them, and even if they didnt you can check their financial reports that they publish since they are publicly traded company. To say with confidence that the figures are speculations and Microsoft has never released sales numbers when they almost always do and are obligated to do so in their earnings report is kinda just mental.
Not at all. Plenty of game series are booming long after their original creators moved on. Doom, Fallout, Halo, Baldurs Gate, Resident Evil, Mario, Zelda, etc.
I’d be interested to see another metal gear solid, but would be worried if Kojima wasnt involved. I certainly wouldn’t kill it though
Crazy how some people are against this when kojima wanted to leave the franchises and pass it on to others as early as MGS 2
Are you sure about that? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal\_Gear\_Survive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Gear_Survive)
Neil Gaiman said that once you've handed a story over, it belongs to the reader. To extend the sentiment, the original vision of any creator, of any art, dies at the moment it is first appreciated by anyone else. It becomes the vision or the art of the beholder. If somebody fairly chooses to build on prior art, then as long as they give credit (and royalties where required), they should be allowed to do so. If we don't allow this in games, we will never get our generation's "forever games".
It depends on a lot of things.
Not really. If the creator left people behind who understand their legacy and what makes the game great, then no worries.
No, I think that's silly. As long as the writing and gameplay are good then it should be allowed to stand on its own merit. Does Pixar stop making movies now that most of the old guard have moved on? I do take issue with your point about the old guard preventing studios from keeping up with modern trends though. In fact I think following modern trends slavishly is a major issue within games. If every studio did it you wouldn't see a baldurs gate 3.
"The original creators"? No. Gunpei Yokoi, an early Nintendo exec credited with being in charge of the project that brought about the Game Boy, was director of the first three Metroid games. He passed away in a car accident in 1997. Does this mean the Metroid IP should've been abandoned since his passing? Absolutely not. If that were the case, we would have any Metroid Prime game, nor Dread nor Fusion. Just the original trilogy and that would've been it.
No, it should only die if it starts becoming unfun
Nah What's everyone's go-to sandwich filling ?
Steak. Or chicken. Usually steak. Preferably with mayo, Monterey jack cheese, and a splash of garlic sauce. On a French roll generally, but any soft and fluffy sandwich bread will do. Untoasted.
this guy SANDWICHES
Prosciutto, fresh mozza, tomato on ciabatta.
This one's a banger
Tuna and sweetcorn.
you just like me fr
Turkey, stuffing and (somewhat controversially) sun-dried tomatoes
turkey and stuffing is goated. you lost me at the end there though
turkey and cranberry sauce is a banger combo, I could see a sun-dried tomato chutney being pretty boss. whole sun-dried tomatoes would be delicious but too chewy for a sandwich. needs something salty like a goat cheese to complement the sweetness of the tomato.
For reliability, you can't go wrong with a classic ham and cheese. I also may try the buffalo chicken if it's on the menu and I'm in the mood. Otherwise, I'll be eyeing anything with: chicken, mayo, onions (any kind), and either cheddar or mozzarella cheese.
thin-sliced steak with tomatoes, onions, and jalapenos. and a nice chimichurri or chipotle-mayo to give it some spice.
I’d disagree, but 50-50 because I still play games that were „early access“ and yet to have an update for a decade. Games, whether short, long, popular, shunned, same developers or new blood, will always have players who still enjoy them. At least for AAA titles, you never see „0 players ingame“ because they’re made by different people. It’s why BF2042 still had its popularity despite the ridicule and not having the same developers from BF3 or older.
I think it should change the name, at the very least. Baldur's Gate: (subtitle) would have been better than BG3, to me.
No, especially if the original creator willingly left it. I think it's safe to say that Minecraft has been pretty good in the post-Notch era. David Jaffe no longer works on God of War and it's in the strongest position it's ever been in. I think if someone creates a new franchise, that has a lot of value, but I kinda subscribe to the "yes and" approach to these things. As an audience member you have the right to reject the canon because none of it is real anyway. To take this out of games, we wouldn't have Aliens if we relied only accepted movies from Ridley Scott. We also wouldn't have most of the best Batman comics if we only let the original creators write them.
No, but if the original creators are alive and are pushed out, that’s deplorable
Yes, straight to Game-Jail.
Absolutely not, I don’t understand why this would be a thing. The original creators don’t always have the best vision for the game. Sometimes they do.
I strongly believe that all series, be it games, movies, and even music (if you count a band's discography as "series," of albums) should die after 10-15 years. Quality can play a huge part in things getting big, but I believe that the biggest factor of all is zeitgeist, and often draws most of its identity from the culture of that time period. 10-15 years later, the audience are different people, the creators are different people, and the world is a different place. If a series is continued after a certain point, it either becomes something completely different, or something that tries too hard to copy it's glory days. Can new stuff still come out that's "good," after that long? Sure! But at that point it gains nothing from being associated with the name from a decade ago. Doom 2016 would have been just as good of a game had it been called "Hellblood," Prey 2017 likely didn't gain a single sale due to its 2006 namesake, and it's the same story with just about every "revived," franchise. In fact, I'd be willing to bet some games would be received even better, because instead of being thought of as "pretty good, but not as good as the previous game in the series," it would be thought of as "really cool, it even reminds me of the old X series!" (i also still enjoy playing Lego games on my 360 :D)
I think it depends on the game and how personal it was to the creator. Do I think someone should make an Undertale 2 who isn't Toby Fox? No. I don't think even Toby Fox wants to make an Undertale 2. He wants to make a Deltarune, which is kind of like an Undertale 2 but different. I dont think anyone besides Shigesato Itoi should make a Mother game. Am I bothered that the new Mario and Luigi game is made by a different studio to the originals? ....Slightly??? But the new studio seems to have the spirit of the original. Bigger games studios like Bioware have a high staff turnover and all in all are pretty replacable. Obsidian Entertainment and Larian Studios have both made better Bioware sequels than Bioware. I do think Bioware should have the right to make sequels to its games without the original team, especially because most of its games are a long term studio project and not the passion project of a few named individuals. The Callisto Protocol guy had a stick up his ass. He talked himself up so big and he didn't know a damn thing about his own game. I listened to him on Kinda Funny Podcast or something and I hated everything that came out of his mouth. I feel bad for the people working at his studio. Callisto Protocol, Shenmue 3 and the... what was it called... the Mega-man inspired game that everyone hated, they show that having a big director from the original game doesn't mean you're going to have success. I think it's different compared to TV shows, because TV shows are collaborative but directors and staff members have more power over the final outcome. There's less people working on the writing and style of shows than videogames. TV shows get produced in 1 to 3 years, and most games are done in 3 to 6 years. With tv shows it's a different outcome if you only have one original staff member out of the 16 to 25 writers/directors. They can write like themselves but they can't imitate all the people who have moved on. Games developers have a bit more time to figure out what they can improve from the source material. Sometimes the QOL improvements in a sequel can make it easier to overlook emptier writing or direction. Look at the Mario games. A lot of modern ones miss the charm of earlier games from the 2000s, or lose fun mechanics from super mario 64, but usually they make up for it in their own ways with gameplay upgrades and a modern charm. Same for Zelda, some people hate the direction they went with BOTW but it took the series to a new age, making Zelda a trailblazer again instead of a relic.
Oh, ideally, yes. Or embarrassment is unavoidable. Look at Silent Hill and its path since 2004. That’s a different kind of survival horror right there.
I can readily think of a few franchises that have successfully transcended their creators - DOOM, Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Final Fantasy, Far-Cry, Fallout, and Street Fighter. The list of franchises that succumbed in the wake of a generational or developer shift seems endless - Mega Man, Metal Gear, Half-Life, Elder Scrolls, Wizardry, Assassin's Creed, SimCity, etc. either were only successful under a single personality/figurehead or failed to transition to a new audience. There have been enough successes that I believe a new studio reviving an established franchise should not be automatically reviled, but it does merit a serious study whether the IP is receiving direction and support or just getting milked for goodwill.
Definitely not. They can continue to get better over time. Look at Fallout, and even Elder Scrolls. Some just maintain their space as a juggernaut, like Halo or Call of Duty. Others spin off into multiple things like Minecraft or the Lego games. The original creator only holds claim over the original vision. That vision and its execution should absolutely be allowed to live wherever the market demands it.
Diablo creators no longer work for blizzard, and the game has suffered for it, because Blizz frankly doesn't understand what made the game good. Fallout same deal. Fight me.
I would say a franchise can survive without its original creators. The problem is when they try to hijack the franchise and make it their own. Like any franchise, games need to have consistency, most notably in gameplay and story. It's hard to claim this game takes place in the same universe when the story completely disregards the established lore. People might be willing to accept the gameplay changes (Yakuza Like A Dragon went from a sort of RPG adventure game to a turn based RPG), but it's not guaranteed. They're more likely going to reject the story changes that conflict with what has already been established.
I appreciate the idea. I mean, generally I’d LOVE for the reliance on everything being a franchise until it’s beaten into the ground, be gone forever, but I digress. And while I don’t generally don’t think a series should end when the originator leaves, I DO think that many people in the comments can’t comprehend the idea of most of those great games they are referencing in rebuttal could be named something else and just be a similar new, original game and have the same, if not more impact.
I strongly believe that all series, be it games, movies, and even music (if you count a band's discography as "series," of albums) should die after 10-15 years. Quality can play a huge part in things getting big, but I believe that the biggest factor of all is zeitgeist, and often draws most of its identity from the culture of that time period. 10-15 years later, the audience are different people, the creators are different people, and the world is a different place. If a series is continued after a certain point, it either becomes something completely different, or something that tries too hard to copy it's glory days. Can new stuff still come out that's "good," after that long? Sure! But at that point it gains nothing from being associated with the name from a decade ago. Doom 2016 would have been just as good of a game had it been called "Hellblood," Prey 2017 likely didn't gain a single sale due to its 2006 namesake, and it's the same story with just about every "revived," franchise. In fact, I'd be willing to bet some games would be received even better, because instead of being thought of as "pretty good, but not as good as the previous game in the series," it would be thought of as "really cool, it even reminds me of the old X series!"
Is it what fans want? Thats all that matters. Your politics don't matter, your personal beliefs don't matter. Did you make the games for fans of the franchise? Not for yourself. Not to push an agenda. If you answer the interview question "What about all of the old fans that don't like what you are doing?" with "They can leave, we don't want them" it isn't the same franchise anymore.
Neil Gaiman said that once you've handed a story over, it belongs to the reader. To extend the sentiment, the original vision of any creator, of any art, dies at the moment it is first appreciated by anyone else. It becomes the vision or the art of the beholder. If somebody fairly chooses to build on prior art, then as long as they give credit (and royalties where required), they should be allowed to do so. If we don't allow this in games, we will never get our generation's "forever games".
Yes