Should franchise based VGs be judged solely, or according to their predecessors.

Author Message
moegooner88

  • Total Posts : 2046
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 12/6/2009
  • Location: Alexandria, Egypt
  • Status: offline
Should franchise based VGs be judged solely, or according to their predecessors. - Friday, April 26, 2013 4:34 PM ( #1 )
My question here is should franchise based video games, such as MGS4, Mass Effect 3, and Final Fantasy XIII; mainly the ones which deviated from the normal route/ design set by their predecessors, be compared to the previous entries or should they be judged solely. The reason I am asking this, is because I couldn't help but notice that many people, pointed out that such games are great games on their own, but not a great MGS/FF game. Also, should this go both ways, for instance ME2 was much better received than ME1, despite the focus on combat rather than the story, whereas ME3 was criticized  by many (ending aside) for having what was described as an uncompelling story.
<message edited by moegooner88 on Friday, April 26, 2013 4:36 PM>
Kon

  • Total Posts : 11113
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 12/13/2010
  • Location: Brasil
  • Status: online
Re:Should franchise based VGs be judged solely, or according to their predecesso - Friday, April 26, 2013 4:43 PM ( #2 )
They have to be judged as a whole no doubts...
Stop Cyberbullying!

13/05/2014 - The day innovation died.
Nate-Dog

  • Total Posts : 2115
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 7/28/2010
  • Location: Alexandria Castle
  • Status: offline
Re:Should franchise based VGs be judged solely, or according to their predecesso - Friday, April 26, 2013 4:43 PM ( #3 )
It depends, I think all games should be judged on their own merits but with games / series that have a large focus on narrative and which are connected it's often very difficult to judge each title alone. Final Fantasy games aren't connected which helps with separating them, but with Metal Gear Solid it's not so easy (funny you mention this by the way since I just made a comment about this regarding MGS4). I see Metal Gear Solid 4 as a great game as it is for the amount of things it allows you to do, but as a sequel and an "ending" to the series it is poor on many accounts.


MattyG

  • Total Posts : 3355
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 1/1/2012
  • Location: 1912- Coast of Maine
  • Status: offline
Re:Should franchise based VGs be judged solely, or according to their predecesso - Friday, April 26, 2013 4:44 PM ( #4 )
I think they should be judged separately. Even if a game is part of a series, it is still it's own game and should be judged as such. A good game is a good game and a bad game is a bad game, regardless of what came before or after. 
<message edited by MattyG on Friday, April 26, 2013 4:46 PM>

ZombieNinjaPanda

  • Total Posts : 11431
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 6/23/2008
  • Location: Uranus
  • Status: offline
Re:Should franchise based VGs be judged solely, or according to their predecesso - Friday, April 26, 2013 4:46 PM ( #5 )
If they were to be judged solely on their own, why do they take the title, characters and story line from previous games? If you're gonna call yourself METAL GEAR SOLID, you're going to be compared to METAL GEAR SOLID. It's like titles with Bioshock infinite. Decent game, but a ton of content has been removed as compared to the other 4 titles in the shock series. 

If a new Zelda is to come out, it will be and it better be compared to previous titles in the series. Because if you cannot improve upon what you did 10 years ago, then the criticism is deserved. It's all about improving upon the past. And if you take something and make it completely different, name it differently. It's like when artists make remixes of songs that have no shred of sound of similarity between the new one and the original. But they call it a remix to gather attention and gain sales. The same goes for video games. DMC: Devil May Cry is an example of using the title while changing it too much.




MattyG
 

I think they should be judged separately. Even if a game is part of a series, it is still it's own game and should be judged as such. A good game is a good game and a bad game is a bad game, regardless of what came before or after.  
 


So then why bother having sequels? There's no point in making them then, there's no point in improving on past content. A good game can be worse than a good game that came before it you know. Just because it is its another game doesn't keep it from being judged alongside its past titles. If this were true, we'd be giving out 10s A LOT more than we already do. Hell, this type of thinking would never fly in the movie industry either. I have no idea why video games are the golden child that should always be exempt from these standards.
<message edited by ZombieNinjaPanda on Friday, April 26, 2013 4:50 PM>

MattyG

  • Total Posts : 3355
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 1/1/2012
  • Location: 1912- Coast of Maine
  • Status: offline
Re:Should franchise based VGs be judged solely, or according to their predecesso - Friday, April 26, 2013 5:01 PM ( #6 )
ZombieNinjaPanda


MattyG
 

I think they should be judged separately. Even if a game is part of a series, it is still it's own game and should be judged as such. A good game is a good game and a bad game is a bad game, regardless of what came before or after.  
 


So then why bother having sequels? There's no point in making them then, there's no point in improving on past content. A good game can be worse than a good game that came before it you know. Just because it is its another game doesn't keep it from being judged alongside its past titles. If this were true, we'd be giving out 10s A LOT more than we already do. Hell, this type of thinking would never fly in the movie industry either. I have no idea why video games are the golden child that should always be exempt from these standards.

You have a good point. I never said they shouldn't improve though, it just feels that the better a game predecessor is the more people hate the sequel. Take MGS3 to 4. 4 is a great game, but it seems like a lot of people bash it more that they should because 3 was regarded by many as the pinnacle of the series. I guess they should be compared to the rest of their series, but quite often that criticism comes of as unfair and it usually seems like fans just can't be satisfied.


So yes, a good game can be worse than a good game that came before it, but it seems like the margin for error there is very slim and there are only extremes now, no middle ground. It's either "this sequel improved" or "this sequel messed couple things so it should burn in the depths of hell". Maybe this is less about the games themselves and more about the (it's an overused, but necessary term) vocal minority of gamers that can see no gray area of "well this got better, but this didn't". 
(Let me know if this didn't make sense, my brain is kinda scattered with other things right now. I hope I didn't ramble too much.)

<message edited by MattyG on Friday, April 26, 2013 5:03 PM>

ZombieNinjaPanda

  • Total Posts : 11431
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 6/23/2008
  • Location: Uranus
  • Status: offline
Re:Should franchise based VGs be judged solely, or according to their predecesso - Friday, April 26, 2013 5:07 PM ( #7 )
MattyG

You have a good point. I never said they shouldn't improve though, it just feels that the better a game predecessor is the more people hate the sequel. Take MGS3 to 4. 4 is a great game, but it seems like a lot of people bash it more that they should because 3 was regarded by many as the pinnacle of the series. I guess they should be compared to the rest of their series, but quite often that criticism comes of as unfair and it usually seems like fans just can't be satisfied. 


So yes, a good game can be worse than a good game that came before it, but it seems like the margin for error there is very slim and there are only extremes now, no middle ground. It's either "this sequel improved" or "this sequel messed couple things so it should burn in the depths of hell". Maybe this is less about the games themselves and more about the (it's an overused, but necessary term) vocal minority of gamers that can see no gray area of "well this got better, but this didn't". 
(Let me know if this didn't make sense, my brain is kinda scattered with other things right now. I hope I didn't ramble too much.)





it made sense. But remember, the main point of having a sequel is to improve and continue. Improve gameplay, improve aspects, improve art direction, improve the story and then continue the story line, continue what happened. That's why games that are sequels can never be judged on their own, because they already carry the weight of their past. It's also why games of similar genres can never be judged on their own, because if something else does it better, then something else does it better. Entertainment is entertainment, but entertainment is also an industry. It's gotten to the point where we have to start demanding improvements being made. Because these companies want our money. If a toyota has less features than a honda, I'm clearly gonna buy a honda, even if the honda is a couple years older. (that example was probably **** but still)


Take for example Half Life 2. Great game. Did lots of things right. The sequels had good storyline and the gameplay changed up a bit with the vehicle segments. But the weapons which make up a huge part of the game didn't change, thus the sequels were viewed as being worse than the previous ones. Just because you toss in a new story doesn't make up for the fact that you changed nothing. It's why Pokemon games are usually viewed as great games (the handheld main titles) because they ALWAYS add something new under the hood. It may not seem like it from the tried and true concept of story and game they use, but if you actually know about them, you'd see that they add A LOT with each new generation.
<message edited by ZombieNinjaPanda on Friday, April 26, 2013 5:10 PM>

MattyG

  • Total Posts : 3355
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 1/1/2012
  • Location: 1912- Coast of Maine
  • Status: offline
Re:Should franchise based VGs be judged solely, or according to their predecesso - Friday, April 26, 2013 5:12 PM ( #8 )
ZombieNinjaPanda


MattyG

You have a good point. I never said they shouldn't improve though, it just feels that the better a game predecessor is the more people hate the sequel. Take MGS3 to 4. 4 is a great game, but it seems like a lot of people bash it more that they should because 3 was regarded by many as the pinnacle of the series. I guess they should be compared to the rest of their series, but quite often that criticism comes of as unfair and it usually seems like fans just can't be satisfied. 


So yes, a good game can be worse than a good game that came before it, but it seems like the margin for error there is very slim and there are only extremes now, no middle ground. It's either "this sequel improved" or "this sequel messed couple things so it should burn in the depths of hell". Maybe this is less about the games themselves and more about the (it's an overused, but necessary term) vocal minority of gamers that can see no gray area of "well this got better, but this didn't". 
(Let me know if this didn't make sense, my brain is kinda scattered with other things right now. I hope I didn't ramble too much.)





it made sense. But remember, the main point of having a sequel is to improve and continue. Improve gameplay, improve aspects, improve art direction, improve the story and then continue the story line, continue what happened. That's why games that are sequels can never be judged on their own, because they already carry the weight of their past. It's also why games of similar genres can never be judged on their own, because if something else does it better, then something else does it better. Entertainment is entertainment, but entertainment is also an industry. It's gotten to the point where we have to start demanding improvements being made. Because these companies want our money. If a toyota has less features than a honda, I'm clearly gonna buy a honda, even if the honda is a couple years older. (that example was probably **** but still)

Yup, that makes sense. Now that I think of it, we kind of subconsciously judge things based off what came before. I didn't like AC3 because it felt more restricted (and generally worse) than AC2. If you had handed me AC3 without me ever playing 2, I would have thought it was much better than if I had played 2. And I guess, theoretically you could say that about any series.

xXxSeTTriPxXx

  • Total Posts : 277
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 10/26/2010
  • Status: offline
Re:Should franchise based VGs be judged solely, or according to their predecesso - Friday, April 26, 2013 5:32 PM ( #9 )
moegooner88


My question here is should franchise based video games, such as MGS4, Mass Effect 3, and Final Fantasy XIII; mainly the ones which deviated from the normal route/ design set by their predecessors, be compared to the previous entries or should they be judged solely. The reason I am asking this, is because I couldn't help but notice that many people, pointed out that such games are great games on their own, but not a great MGS/FF game. Also, should this go both ways, for instance ME2 was much better received than ME1, despite the focus on combat rather than the story, whereas ME3 was criticized  by many (ending aside) for having what was described as an uncompelling story.

If a bar is set then the continuation of that game (or franchise) should meet or exceed its predecessor. 


but if a game is good, say like lords of shadow then it shouldnt be jugde because GAME PLAY MECHANICS aren't what they use to be.


Judging off nostalgia is stupid, but judging off a standard is fair imho.
<message edited by xXxSeTTriPxXx on Friday, April 26, 2013 5:34 PM>
moegooner88

  • Total Posts : 2046
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 12/6/2009
  • Location: Alexandria, Egypt
  • Status: offline
Re:Should franchise based VGs be judged solely, or according to their predecesso - Friday, April 26, 2013 7:34 PM ( #10 )
xXxSeTTriPxXx


moegooner88


My question here is should franchise based video games, such as MGS4, Mass Effect 3, and Final Fantasy XIII; mainly the ones which deviated from the normal route/ design set by their predecessors, be compared to the previous entries or should they be judged solely. The reason I am asking this, is because I couldn't help but notice that many people, pointed out that such games are great games on their own, but not a great MGS/FF game. Also, should this go both ways, for instance ME2 was much better received than ME1, despite the focus on combat rather than the story, whereas ME3 was criticized  by many (ending aside) for having what was described as an uncompelling story.

If a bar is set then the continuation of that game (or franchise) should meet or exceed its predecessor. 


but if a game is good, say like lords of shadow then it shouldnt be jugde because GAME PLAY MECHANICS aren't what they use to be.


Judging off nostalgia is stupid, but judging off a standard is fair imho.



Castlevania Lords of Shadow is a great example, If I recall correctly, Jim Sterling's review of the game was based on nostalgic memories, I never played a Castlevania game before LOS, and it ended up being one of my fav games this gen. I think the best way to judge a game following the reboot of a series, is by comparing the opinion of a long time fan, as well as that of a beginner to the series, if the game ended up being compelling to both, then imho the reboot should be regarded as a success.
Dr Pepper

  • Total Posts : 1385
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 5/19/2007
  • Location: A magical cave in Albion
  • Status: offline
Re:Should franchise based VGs be judged solely, or according to their predecesso - Friday, April 26, 2013 9:51 PM ( #11 )
moegooner88
My question here is should franchise based video games, such as MGS4, Mass Effect 3, and Final Fantasy XIII; mainly the ones which deviated from the normal route/ design set by their predecessors, be compared to the previous entries or should they be judged solely. The reason I am asking this, is because I couldn't help but notice that many people, pointed out that such games are great games on their own, but not a great MGS/FF game. Also, should this go both ways, for instance ME2 was much better received than ME1, despite the focus on combat rather than the story, whereas ME3 was criticized by many (ending aside) for having what was described as an uncompelling story.
  Some strange opinions on Mass Effect, considering the first one had a ton of combat (just missing the amount of polish the 2nd and 3rd game had), the second game had a ton of focus on story (the specific side quests devoted to each major crew member) and who described the 3rd game for having an "uncompelling" story? There were multiple parts in the game that were more powerful (story wise) than the two previous titles. I'm not saying these are your opinions, but some odd points of view.   As for the original topic, there should definitely be comparisons between sequels in a franchise, at the very least to inform people on what has been changed, improved, worsened, etc. so that the consumer/fan can be informed. It's important to point out when a franchise has changed so much that it's no longer the idea/concept people got so invested/interested in in the first place.
Kenshin_BATT0USAI

  • Total Posts : 10857
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 5/4/2007
  • Status: offline
Re:Should franchise based VGs be judged solely, or according to their predecesso - Saturday, April 27, 2013 12:59 AM ( #12 )
It's dependant IMO.

I think games like Assassin's Creed should be judged based on the improvements of prior entries and it's own merits. Whereas I think games in the Mario series should be judged separately because of how different each one is.
Formerly Known as Hellbringer. PSN: KenshinBATT0USAI 3DS: 2895-6892-5663 Steam: Vashlion
WildArmed

  • Total Posts : 10162
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 4/7/2008
  • Location: Windy City
  • Status: offline
Re:Should franchise based VGs be judged solely, or according to their predecesso - Saturday, April 27, 2013 11:37 AM ( #13 )
Depends.

When you have FF-type games, they shouldn't be judged from their prequels. They are completely unrelated. They might as well be given different names. 

Games like uncharted, tomb raider, bioshock -- yes. Metal Gear Solid - Yes. 

Though I understand some sequels are experiments -- see Uncharted Card game. And obviously they should not be judged w/ respect to sequels.


Now, I don't believe in judging a game on what's missing.

"No multiplayer - negative points" or "No co-op - negative points"
Unless co-op really made sense in the type of game it is i guess (for example borderlands is a heavy co-op game).

Ofc, story, important gameplay elements being removed (ME1 to ME2) are valid critics imo.

So basically, it's up to the author's discretion. I shouldn't have to define what is a valid comparison and what isn't. It's their job to tell me what and why if it's valid or not. 


Jump to:

Current active users
There are 0 members and 2 guests.
Icon Legend and Permission
  • New Messages
  • No New Messages
  • Hot Topic w/ New Messages
  • Hot Topic w/o New Messages
  • Locked w/ New Messages
  • Locked w/o New Messages
  • Read Message
  • Post New Thread
  • Reply to message
  • Post New Poll
  • Submit Vote
  • Post reward post
  • Delete my own posts
  • Delete my own threads
  • Rate post

© 2000-2009 ASPPlayground.NET Forum Version 3.6