Diminutive Diatribes: The Power of Polish and Cunning of Commitment

            I don't want to go into a whole brain hurty discussion this week, so let's keep it simple.  I love Warhammer 40K: Space Marine.   I probably should NOT love Warhammer 40K: Space Marine.  I probably should not love Splatterhouse on the PS3.  I probably shouldn't care for a LOT of games.  And yet, I do.  Why?

Dear lord, I love this game.  So committed to being in the 40K universe and so polished besides.  This is how you do a Space Marine.

            Because these games are not only polished(okay, Splatterhouse has some technical glitches, but gameplay wise they are all super polished) but also because they are committed to what they are.  Warhammer 40K is committed to being a love letter to the 40k lore.  It is committed to being a celebration of the beauty and the horror of war and carnage.  It is so dedicated to these elements, that many other parts of the game that would be easy to complain about are actually overlooked.  In that same vein, Splatterhouse is a loving remake of the original.  It isn't a watered down T for Teen game with some cute throwaway references to the original Splatterhouse, it is full on remake.  Blood, guts, carnage, style over substance, heavy metal infused game.  In my opinion, this will actually help a game stand out and achieve a level of appreciation, even if they are lacking in other regards.

Say what you want about the game, look at this visceral detail and tell me they weren't committed to making a game called "Splatterhouse."

            Warhammer 40K: Space Marine is a third person shooter that is about space marines shooting aliens in a post-apocalyptic future world.  Sound familiar?  It should, because it's been ripped off and used by countless other more uninteresting games, like Turok, Haze, Syndicate, or any other titles.  These games failed largely because they were generic and uninspired...they didn't commit full way into their source material or into what they were trying to create, instead trying to have it both ways in many aspects to try and get as many buyers as possible.  Turok, for example, first appeared on the N64 and featured not only interesting alien species, but also dinosaurs being hunted by a Native American.  Was it stupid?  I'd say so, it featured you shooting a T-rex with a magic bow and arrow, however it was so committed to its lore, mythos, and purpose, and so polished besides, that it didn't matter if it was stupid.  it was still fun.  In the "remake" you are on an alien planet, blowing up human mercenaries and some dinosaurs as a grizzled space marine with guns...yeah, which one would you rather play?  It was trying to be a modern military shooter, like Call of Duty, but at the same time trying to cull members of the original fanbase.  It wasn't committed to the idea and it wasn't very polished besides.

Probably done this before, but...Better 1?

 

Or Better 2?  Cyborg Dinosaur vs alien gun wielding Turok...or regular Turok kicking a raptor.  Which one seems more committed to the stupid, but awesome premise?

            To me, that's kind of what makes all the difference.  Whether or not you like a game, whether or not it sold well, I think this is what makes a game, from an objective standard, pretty amazing.  Prey is a good example of this.  It features a story about Alien abduction, body horror, and the heritage of Native American mysticism.  It was at times stupid, as we have our hero slipping into a spirit world to attack the soul of an alien with spirit arrows before shooting it with guns, but it didn't wimp out...it featured tragedy and body horror, a conflicted hero, and super polished gameplay...and it was pretty amazing because of it.  And, let's not even look at some of the more unknown or so bad it's good games, let's look at critically acclaimed, successful titles, like, say...Kirby.  On the surface, it seems pretty dumb.  You are a pink puffball on an alien world who can eat enemies to absorb their powers.  Your arch enemy is a giant penguin wielding a hammer and your rival is as word wielding, bat caped swordsman.  Say all that out loud and try to say it's not dumb...but it's the commitment to the premise and how well polished it is that has made the series so endearing.  Kirby is a laid back, kid friendly experience that isn't especially dumbed down.  The mechanics are solid and polished and the commitment to the idea of this little puffball is what makes it work.  That's the truth for a lot of games.  Things as old as say, Bucky O'Hare for the NES to as recently as Bioshock Infinite.  While I may not have liked Infinite, it was committed to the idea of a story based around hyper time, it was committed to Bioshock-esque gameplay that was highly polished, and it went all in.

This rule of polish and commitment goes back to the NES era too.  How do you ground/make a game about a green, alien rabbit fighting toads more 'accessible?'  You don't need to...run with it.  Commit to the craziness.

            I'm not sure this principal can be applied to every game.  Some games seem bound and determined to be mediocre, like tie-in games, such as the Battleship movie game or the Amazing Spiderman...though, I'd like to believe that if you commit to the idea wholeheartedly and give it enough time and polish, it will turn out worthwhile.  The Puppeteer, for example, is a game about a puppet whose head was stolen and whose entire world is in a puppet show, which he can change using a pair of magic scissors.  Sony went into this whole heartedly, committing to the idea and polishing it to a mirror sheen and even if it sounds or looks silly, it's still a great game.

Some games, I just don't know if you can polish or commit to it enough to save it.  Battleship...mediocre movie, mediocre/terrible game.

            That also brings up another good question, though.  Can a game go too far with its commitment?  I don't want to say yes, because some developers would use that as a crutch to only do the work necessary to get a game made for a deadline rather than giving it the love, respect, and care it deserved, but...let's just say, I believe it's a delicate balance.  Splatterhouse, I wish we had more of.  Largely because the game ended on a cliffhanger, but also because it was a game that not only paid homage to the original, but also paid homage to horror tropes of the past...and I'd have liked to see a few more of those.  A monster from the black lagoon, a spectre from the after life, a laboratory full of experimental nightmares...it would have been great.  However, Warhammer 40K: Space Marine?  I want a sequel, certainly, but the game itself was perfectly well paced and contained all it needed to.  Rather than trying to balance multiple worlds and campaings, it was set all on a single planet, with just enough of the monsters from the Warhammer 40K universe to satiate fans.  References were made to other races, like Tau, Eldar, and Tyrannid, but it focused on the Orks and the Chaos soldiers.  It featured a complete story, about a planet under siege and saved by the Ultramarines, and while it may have ended on something of a downer, it was still satisfying.

I want polish and commitment, but I don't think you need to throw everything and the kitchen sink.  It's a balancing act.

 

Slight spoilers, but I for one am glad we did NOT have a daemon prince in this game...because...really...we didn't need it.  Woulda been cool, sure, but the game had enough and was so well put together and paced that it was unnecessary.

            To me, this is what makes a game fun and interesting...if it's committed to the world it's built and polished enough so as to be fun.  Any kind of game can be made, even something like a re-imagining of Dante's Inferno or a dating sim game with giant robots...if you commit and make a polished experience, then it will be fun and worthwhile, even if not everyone likes it.

Sakura Wars...dating sim mech fighting game.  And yet, it worked for me because it was so committed to the anime-esque insanity.

            This is something I'd like others to remember and take to heart.  If a game has passion, even if you don't like it, at least try to recognize that.  Whether or not it rips off gameplay or whatever, if it's fun, polished, and committed to it's story, world or whatever, then acknowledge it.  And for the developers, put passion into your work.  Even if a premise is stupid, don't compromise it for the sake of profit or because you think people won't be able to accept it.  Look at Katamary Damacy, after all...nothing like it on earth, and yet it's become a phenomenon.

I guess the best way to put it is, go hard or go home.  Katamary Damacy was polished and committed to the premise...and it worked.  It worked amazingly well.

            All that being said, forget what I said about how I SHOULDN'T like Splatterhouse or Warhammer 40K: Space Marine.  I like the lore of both games, the story, I like the commitment they put in, and they're both polished enough to be fun.  So...screw being ashamed, screw the idea of guilty pleasures...I like what I like and I like those two games.  There's nothing wrong with that at all.

I love this game.  Not ashamed.  It gripped me and dragged me into it's world...and I loved it, all the way.

            Also, just a short afterword here.  Once or twice in May, I will be unable to make my usual weekly quota, either because I have company, so I won't have the time/energy/focus to write, or because I will be going to a convention to sell wares of mine, for the sake of making some much needed cash.  What am I selling?  Why PERLERS OF COURSE!!!  You can see my back log, here.  Just want people to know, because I will be making an update telling them, but...I like giving advance notice.  I hope to get at least one more creator spotlight in before I have to take my days off, whenever they might be.

What's in a name? Go for something original!

            One pervading practice in the game's industry that really ticks me off is naming schemes.  Names that have numbers which discount sequels, side stories or the like, names that are meant to be a reboot for a series, despite it having a dozen previous entries, names of games completely unrelated to a series...the list goes on.  My big question is, why?  What's in a name?  If the game is something original, go for something original.  If the game is part of a series, make sure it has its proper place either chronologically or spiritually.  Don't use a name just to sell game.  Just don't. 

Chronologically confused?  Blame terrible naming conventions!

            Because if you try to sell a game using a name and that game isn't worthy of the name, all the fans you'll win with the name will hate your game.

            There are dozens of good examples for this practice.  While DMC was meant to be a reboot of Devil May Cry, it probably would have faired better with Devil May Cry fans if it wasn't given that name.  While the tone of the game is darker than the original series and the character a bit more petulant and angsty, the gameplay is solid and enjoyable.  The level design and aesthetic are unique and the story, while a bit topical, has some interesting nuances.  However, many people who grew up with the silver haired devil killer, Dante, and his brother, Vergil, cried foul of the game for its drastic tonal and character shift.  If the game had been called something different like "Purgatory" or "Angels and Demons" then fans of Devil May Cry would probably have loved the game as a wholly separate entity from their beloved series. 

Top is Devil May Cry 4, bottom is DMC.  Notice the similarities and difference.

These games both look fun, both look like they play similarly...so did you really need to alienate Devil May Cry fans with the new look when they'd probably love the game if it was named something differently?

            Name value is not brand loyalty like it was before the internet.  Before the rise of the internet, people had to rely on names to sell games.  Final Fantasy sold because it was Final Fantasy.  Now, Final Fantasy doesn't sell, not because of drastic changes to the name, but because fans no longer have to rely on the name to see the gameplay.  They have the internet.  They can choose for themselves.  And with the rise of games which blatantly gouge the players for money, like Final Fantasy: All the Bravest or three Final Fantasy 13 games which don't feel like Final Fantasy games at all, they tend to be more angered by the use of the name than prone to buy into it.  When fans of a series see that series bastardized, they are less likely to invest in it because it is not what they want and it actively insults, in their minds, the accomplishments of previous entries.  Bringing it back to Devil May Cray, the game DMC was already receiving a ton of press for its visuals, combat, and because it was being created by Ninja Theory.  It didn't need the Devil May Cry name to sell units.  If anything, the name hurt sales.

This looks like a fun take on old school Final Fantasy.  But the name isn't enough...fans are smarter than that.  When they learned this game was full of price gouging pay to play mechanics, they realized this was anything BUT Final Fantasy.

            And despite how utterly simple this kind of logic is, many people fail to realize that original IP CAN survive and that it doesn't need to cling to other titles.  An example:  Bioshock could have called itself System Shock 3, since it was clearly a spiritual sequel, but it was different enough that they went with a different name for a different premise, preserving the System Shock series for fans while introducing a new game to the public.  It worked.  Bioshock is getting ready to release a third game in its series this year, with no signs of stopping yet.  Darksiders also received critical success even though it was an original IP.  It may have borrowed heavily from the Legend of Zelda and a few other games, but it wasn't called "The Legend of War."  You do not need to use someone else's name to sell a game.  Bayonetta wasn't called Devil May Cry 5, even though it could have been since the combat and mythology were very similar and it's director made the first Devil May Cry.  And Bayonetta was a critical darling, making a huge splash with Devil May Cry fans because of how fun and insane the game was despite it not involving their favorite devil killer.  You don't need to piggyback success from other games if you have a solid product.

Darksiders was an original IP with an original name that made enough money to have a sequel.  Original IP CAN survive!

            More than just original IP having the power to survive though, game companies need to be aware of fan backlash.  The game Turok is a perfect example.  People were hoping to sell a bland, generic shooter, where the player is a space marine on a planet of pirates and dinosaurs using the name Turok, because it had had a successful comic run and was a cult classic on the Nintendo 64.  People balked at Turok, panning it and refusing to buy the game.  The original Turok featured a time traveling Native American who fought off dinosaurs with alien weaponry, spiritual powers, and who dealt with aliens and it became a cult classic, even earning a sequel on the N64.  But the Turok game released in 2009?  That game was as bland and cookie cutter as they come and earned the ire of Turok fans for dashing their hopes of a true sequel.

Compare for yourself.  This is Turok 2008.  Can you tell this apart from any other generic shooter on the market?

This is Turok: Dinosaur Hunter.  Cyborg dinosaurs.  Now can you understand why fans hated the 2008 game?

            Hope is one of the cogs of the game industry that keeps it moving forward.  Players hope for sequels or ports, or re-releases of their favorite games.  So much so that they write in, phone in, petition, and go out of their way for game companies to notice that they have interest.  There is a surge of hope every time there is a chance for a Mother game to be released abroad, but it has yet to be realized.  The Mother fanbase is very loyal and devoted to the Mother/Earthbound series.  Now, imagine if an RPG that was just a bland fantasy fare took on the Mother name, which grounded itself in contemporary society with offbeat humor and a strange story?  The fans would go nuts, boycotting the game and crying foul against the company that made it.  So...why is it that game companies keep using names that will more than likely hurt their products?

The Earthbound/Mother series.  If another game took the name and tried to pass it off as a sequel and it didn't look or play VERY similarly to this one, the fans would boycott it en mass.  If they didn't just burn it, that is.

            Well, there are a number of reasons, though none of them are very good.  The first is the design by committee rule.  This is where a game is created strictly by the books, an uninspired, generic, waste of space that never attempts to challenge the player's thinking processes or their skill as a gamer.  Design by committee is not as uncommon as it needs to be and it even goes down to a name.  The committee has to decide what name will sell, even if they know their game is utterly generic.  If it's a movie licensed game, they use the movie's name, so fans of the movie know to pick it up, even if they may not enjoy the game once they've purchased it.  Otherwise, the committee may look at the rights they currently own and which games might fit into the mold, regardless of their original forms.  Syndicate was originally a tactical espionage RPG set in the far future, however it was re-released as a generic first-person shooter with only tangential connections to the original.  A committee looked at what properties they owned, slapped it on their game, and put a thin coat of paint on the surface to disguise it as that property.

This is Syndicate

This game is NAMED Syndicate, but is just another generic design by committee shooter.  Fans were pissed.

            Another good reason is the ability to hide a game's flaws from the public.  In the internet age, nothing is secret.  However, some developers have managed to keep the darker parts of their games' pasts out of the spotlight and give off an image of confidence and polish.  An excellent example of this is Aliens: Colonial Marines.  This game was released to abysmal scores by most, citing numerous graphical glitches, terrible AI and story, and a lack of focus on the Aliens license.  This was due to numerous delays, issues, and developer Gearbox having to start from scratch after a developer they outsourced it to threw out much of their work.   But, by creating an impressive E3 demo, they were able to pull off the illusion of everything being alright.  The demo showcased the Aliens using flanking maneuvers, their environments, and even climbing on the walls or hiding in vents to get people, showing off dynamic AI.  There were also several powerful character moments, where the player jovially flips off one of his marine comrades who is checking on him to see if he's alive.  And what got fans most excited was the ability to use a number of weapons, like the smart gun and power loader, from the Aliens movie.  However, few of these promised features made it into the actual game, and those that did were horribly butchered.  However, because of the illusion of a good game, the name was actually able to move some units before the truth was leaked.  Perhaps not enough units, but in cases like this, some is better than none.

This is the Aliens: Colonial Marines demo.  Yeah, that flame thrower power loader?  Doesn't exist in the real game.  This was just made to hide the poor production of the real thing.

            Press seems to be the biggest reason for these name decisions.  How do we take an utterly generic game and make it stand out, both on the internet and in gaming culture?  Give it a name people will recognize!  This logic is horribly flawed and usually results in fan backlash, like with Turok, however some companies don't care.  Some games are so play by numbers, uninspired, or just plain bad that they need the press to get people to even know their game exists.  This is how shovelware can sometimes reach some success on the market.  A company knows their game is bad, but they have to push it out to try and recoup some of their money, so they use a license they already own to drum up press and some people will be convinced by the media blitz to purchase the game.  Or they will just be morbidly curious as to how butchered their beloved franchise can be.  For some games and some companies, any press, even if they cry foul of the name of your game, is worthwhile.

            One of the saddest reasons for these naming schemes are corporate ignorance or mandate.  Often times, corporations seem to take an almost child-like glee in showing how out of touch they are with their consumers.  Capcom's continual use of on disc DLC or EA's online pass systems are proof of that.  So, some games may be given a name from a series or called a reboot simply because their corporate overlords say that's how it has to be.  They don't take into account the fan reaction, or if they do they don't care, thinking the games will sell well regardless.  This is why, in my opinion, all the decision making at a corporation, at least one involved in game development, should offer final say on certain decisions to the developers actually working on the product.  Maybe the corporation shouldn't create another bland Syndicate or Turok and, instead, just let the developers name their game something unique.  Even if it's bad or uninspired, it at least no longer has to compare to the standards of much better games before it.  By the standards of an original IP, maybe it won't seem as bad and can actually have a chance, rather than being dead on arrival.

Capcom: Pissing fans off with corporate BS since 2007

            There are other, more minor reasons, but they all fall into the same lines.  Before we wrap up, however, I just want to encourage gamers and developers to use their brains when thinking about the names of video games.  Not just sequels either.  When it comes to sequels, reboots, remakes, or what have you, use the resources available to you and do research before you plonk down $60.  Maybe wait a week until after a game is released and check out videos of it online to get an idea for story and gameplay or read a review.  Use your brain.  That also extends to general naming schemes in games as well.  What we haven't talked about are some of the esoteric or bland names in video games.  Fracture, Bullet Storm, Quantum Theory, Sina Mora, Nier, and so many others use names that ultimately tell little to nothing about their game beyond a broad, general idea.  Fracture, you can move earth or break stuff, possibly?  Bullet Storm, you shoot bullets?  Quantum theory...physics?  Sina Mora...I don't even know.  Nier...I know it's the protagonist's name but that tells me nothing about the game.

I love Suikoden.  It's a fantastic RPG series.  But look at that name...does it tell you ANYTHING about the game at all?  Names need to excite, not confuse players.  It needs to make them WANT to play.

            Look, naming is not as difficult as you might think.  If you're not going to use an already existing series, then think about what your story has involved in it, what you want fans to know about it and the best way to convey that to them in the minimal amount of effort.  Shin Megami Tensei Devil Summoner 2 Raidou Kuzunoha vs King Abbadon?  That's a bit too long.  It gives a lot of information, but really, Devil Summoner 2 would have said all it needed.  You summon demons to fight for you and this is the sequel.  Try to get across a feel for your game with the title as well as certain character details.  For example, the three games from Operation Rainfall: Xenoblade Chronicles, The Last Story, Pandora's Tower.  Think about what those names tell you.  Xenoblade Chronicles.  It's a story that has become something of a legend that has spiritual ties to previous games from the Xeno series and you wield a powerful sword.  The Last Story: This game focuses heavily on story and it is of such importance that it is the last one, meaning the last tale of a dying man, the last tale of a dying world, or the final chapter in someone's life.  This kind of title is beautifully ambiguous, allowing the imagination to sell the game for you.  Finally, Pandora's Tower.  This immediately invokes images of a forbidden tower which you are tasked to explore, drawing parallels to the Greek myth of Pandora's box with the fairy tale implication of towers as places of imprisonment that need to be surmounted by heroes.  All of those titles only use two words but the imagination of gamers sells them on only a premise.  Even a simple, ambiguous title can be pretty effective.  Halo, for example.  Religious warriors?  Death and rebirth?  God?  Halo may be a pretty bland fare, featuring space marines fighting a religious cult of aliens, but the title invokes a number of images in one's mind that the uninitiated might be taken in by.  And the game actually delivers on some of those images, which makes the title appropriate and not just deceptive.

The name is a bit too on the nose...sure it tells us what the game is about, but needs to leave more to the imagination

These game names set the imagination on fire with possibility.  THIS is how naming games should be

            These kinds of rules go for subtitles to games as well.  Numerous sequelized properties use subtitles to differentiate or whet the appetites of gamers.  Some can be spot on, but with a bit of dramatic flair.  Dragon Quest 5: Hand of the Heavenly Bride.  Immediately we know what we're getting.  A Dragon Quest game and all that entails, but now we know something about the story.  It will prominently feature marriage, perhaps not the player's but marriage in general, it will deal with destiny or heavenly powers, and it will involve the groom of said bride.  Titles like that set the imagination on fire.  Or how about Dead Rising 2: Off the Record.  Again, you know what you're getting.  Zombie killing whacky/serious fun.  But the title indicates that it is non canon, meaning it is a different take on what is already known.  This can easily sell certain players.

Even with established game series, a good subtitle is worth a lot.  Sentinels of the Starry Skies.  That gets me pumped for what's to come.

            My point is this.  Game developers.  Corporations.  Use your brains.  If you're creating a game, think about what the name you want to give it will mean and try to tailor it to so that it captures the imaginations of gamers.  A name of a character or a name of a species...if it doesn't have flair to it, it can be the death knell of a new property.  Don't try to put an already established name on something bland or unrelated.  Gamers will notice and they will be angry.  Do not use a game's name to entice players, then hide the fact that your product is garbage.  This will only erode a gamer's faith in your company and make them less likely to support you.  And finally, don't just slap any old name onto a game.  If a game is a movie license or a sequel, I know that sometimes there's no other option, but for an original IP...every original IP tries to do something with what they've got.  So think about what you're trying to do, the mood, the feelings, the desires you're trying to get across, and incorporate that into your naming.  It will make a difference.

            Gamers, this one also goes out to you.  Recognize what a game's name might mean.  The good ones which set your imagination ablaze and the bland ones which you forget almost as soon as you read them.  And use your resources.  The internet, word of mouth, your own eyes...don't buy into a game just because of a name.  It's fine to take an interest in a game because of the name, but it needs more than just the name supporting it.

            Games industry, put thought into what you name your games.  If it's original, give it something suiting the mood and style of the game.  If it's a sequel, a subtitle that tells us what to expect might be nice.  And if it's bland and uninspired, own up to it at least and try to make it work for you.  Don't use someone else's good name to sell a shoddy product.

            In the end, what's in a name?  Quite a lot, it would seem.

Ignorance is Idiocy. AKA, Use it or Lose it

Well, crap, it's been over a month since my last post.  Life has basically given me a swift kick to the nether regions in this absence, but, hey, I'm back with more insight into the wonderful world of video gaming.  Enjoy.

Ignorance is Idiocy.  AKA, Use it or Lose it

            In the current era of console and even PC gaming, there is little that holds more power than a sequel.  Sequels are signs of success and comfort for many gamers, as they bring back stories and game concepts that enraptured players from the start.  Sequels are not free money...however, they almost always have an audience, no matter how small.  They do not need to prove themselves in the same way that original property does.  A Bioshock sequel, no matter how poor, has a greater audience by far than an original property which uses the same concepts, even if it is superior.  However, in this era of sequels, there is a disturbing trend.

My thoughts exactly.

            Halo.  Call of Duty.  Far Cry.  All of these games are, in their own right, very well made and with a specific audience in mind.  They cater to gamers who enjoy war games and in sequels offer them more of the same.  They have proven themselves.  However, countless other games mimic and copy the successes of these titles, but without even a modicum of the same originality, polish, or passion.  In fact, as sequels keep going into larger and larger numbers, many gamers collectively grown because there is stagnation.  They do not bring back great gameplay or tell epic stories, it is merely more of the same.  A game such as Fracture or Turok copy from the Halo formula in hopes of cashing in on its success, but ultimately glut the market.  Ironically, however, this glut is not, in and of itself, the trend I was speaking of.  What I refer to is the tendency to ignore one's own property in favor of chasing after someone else's.

Damn right

            Let us return to my previous example.  The original Turok: Dinosaur Hunter was a Nintendo 64 game about a time traveling and dimension hopping Native American warrior, equipped with outlandish weaponry fighting aliens and dinosaurs with everything from probes that bored into enemy skulls to magic tribal arrows fired from a regular bow.  The newer version of Turok rips off countless things from Halo, such as regenerating health, guidance markers, character archetypes, etc. It makes Turok a space marine, removes his interesting character traits, and gives him samey, boring weapons.  It is essentially, a clone trying to cash in on a previous game's fans.  No different from the atrocious Golden Axe: Beast Rider game for the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 or the mediocre Altered Beast game for the PS2.  They take the original game's concept and completely alter it to fall more in line with modern trends, hoping that name value alone will sell titles, ultimately creating a generic experience with a thin veneer of the original coating the property.

Believe it or not, this is the good one.  This is the FUN one.

            And that is really the biggest shame of all.  Turok: Dinosaur Hunter was not a smash hit, however it garnered a cult following and earned a sequel on the Nintendo 64.  However, many of the fans probably felt betrayed by this new game, which used name value only to try and sell its property.  This is one of the bigger problems in the game industry.  Ignorance.  Many companies either forget what made their titles superb and beloved in the first place in favor of following modern trends.  Or worse, game companies forget that they even own said properties and leave loyal fans who are willing to pay money out in the cold.

Say it ain't so!

            There are a number of examples for this.  So many it is actually quite depressing.  Capcom is perhaps the most egregious offender.  Capcom is often known as the house that Megaman built.  However, when Keiji Inafune left the company, so to did much of its love for the blue bomber.  Megaman has been around for over two decades, yet lies almost completely forgotten of late.  The main series, Megaman X, Megaman Zero, and the countless spin offs are things of the past.  New Megaman games are practically nonexistent past 2010.  There was talk of Megaman Legends receiving the third game which fans had craved for almost a decade, however it was canceled at the last moment.  Capcom is letting the franchise that built them die.

Capcom...with all due respect...are you out of your damn mind?!

            To be fair, if a franchise has outlived itself or grown stagnant or had a satisfactory conclusion, it may be fair to allow it to rest.  The Shadow Hearts series created a nice little timeline for itself and ended with a satisfying conclusion, having only  one spin off that was mostly inoffensive tacked on at the end.  However, Megaman fans still cry out for sequels.  And Capcom ignores them.  It is not only Megaman, however.  Breath of Fire, a staple RPG series from the SNES era into the Playstation 2 era has withered and disappeared, last seen as a poor PSP port of the third game in a series of five.  Other series get drowned before they have a chance to flourish.  The Okami series had room for sequels, but after just one it seems a lost cause to hope for more.  The same can be said of Viewtiful Joe.  This habit of abandoning the properties that make game companies money is baffling to me.  There are fans.  Megaman has fans.  Breath of Fire has fans.  Viewtiful Joe has fans.  Yet save for cameos, these series remain dormant.  To release a game with one of these names would guarantee at least a few thousand sales, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, which is more than many original properties can guarantee.  So, why not revive them?  Gargoyle's Quest was a series which only lasted for three games, but which disappeared after the SNES era.  Why not bring it back?  Fans remember.  And fans are loyal.  Not to companies, often enough.  Capcom has proven to be quite ruthless with on disc and frivolous DLC releases, lock out procedures, and policies meant to enrage their own customers, but fans are loyal to games.  If you make them, they will come.

It's been almost 18 years since Firebrand's last solo game.  Isn't it time for a comeback?

            However, like developers following modern trends, game companies seem bound and determined lately to forget what made them so successful to begin with.  While not as apparently blind as Capcom, Konami has let Castlevania rot, of late.  Castlevania has always been popular in its 2-d iterations, yet there has not been a 2-d release for years, unless you count the storyless, rehashed multiplayer fair that is Harmony of Despair.  Instead, the closest thing we get is a "reboot" called Castlevania: Lords of Shadows, which is more interested in stealing ideas from God of War and Shadow of the Colossus than rewarding the loyalty of fans.  True, it had unique ideas and was a fine game in its own right, but it is following the trend of cramming what sells into any game with fan recognition.  And this is a terrible idea.  Betraying fans means losing potential sales in the long run.  Sales in the long run are everything for game companies.  Short term sales are needed to keep it afloat at the moment, but to have any longevity, game companies need to think in the long term.

Remember when you made games like this, Konami?  Fun, colorful, insane games?

            Perhaps worse than sequels which betray the concept of the original, however, are sequels that only aim to tease the fans, rather than placate them.  Franchises often build up a large shared universe, with rules that must be followed.  Even the disconnected Final Fantasy series has many elements in common, such as the character Cid, summoned beasts like Bahamut, and monsters such as Tonberries, Behemoths, and Ahrimans.  However, trying to copy these elements into a bastardized version of a game may only enrage fans rather than placate them.  They ask the question "Why isn't this in the world or in the style that I know and love?"  And when that question is asked, the game is already lost, no matter how fine a product.  Suikoden Tierkreis is a fine example of this.  It is not a bad game on its own merits and stays true to some of the styles of the Suikoden series, however it is set in an alternate universe.  There are none of the alliances or relationships, none of the recurring characters or elements, and no continuing story from previous games.  This is almost like a slap in the face to fans of the series, who wait patiently for a new iteration to a favorite series of theirs only to be rewarded with something that looks similar, plays similar, but isn't what they want.  It is akin to trying to buy a Halo game but coming out with Turok.  All the elements are there, but it is still lacking.  This plays into ignorance of what made the game in the series enjoyable to begin with.

What don't I see here...ah, right, Tierkreis.  Take the hint, Konami.

            In that same vein, I must reluctantly point out that Square Enix has followed a similar pathway.  Final Fantasy has seldom been a sequelized property.  Each new game has additional numbers beside it, but each is its own story.  The games have evolved with the times, keeping a strong story, music, and gameplay that the fans have recognized.  However, Square, after its merger with Enix, ignored all that and started fresh.  Final Fantasy 11 and onwards have followed the gameplay of MMORPGs and while financial success has followed, it has been with even more bloated development costs, critical pandering, and the scorn of long time fans.  If you wanted to make a new game series, why not make a new game series, rather than enrage fans?  The point I wish to make to all game companies is to ignore your properties, either what made them good to begin with or to ignore them entirely, is rank stupidity. 

Go back in time ten years.  Would ANYONE have thought this was a Final Fantasy game back then?

            Many games have fans slavering for a sequel.  The Legacy of Kain series, which Square now owns, ended after five games with several plot lines unresolved and a canceled game to follow.  If fans were shown that they still matter with a collection or a finale, then it would doubtless be at the very least a modest success.  However, the time for sequels and franchises passes quickly.  Legacy of Kain as a series was released in the 1990s and held power into the early 2000s, but has been dormant a long time.  Many of the voice actors who provided the performances that made it so memorable are either dead or growing too old to wait for a sequel.  The same is true of any franchise.  There are still many who yearn for Megaman, for the old Final Fantasy games, for Gargoyle's Quest, Breath of Fire, and Suikoden.  However, these gamers are getting older.  They are doggedly staying loyal to old favorites or they are moving on with their lives.  If Capcom, Konami, and many others do not move soon, they risk losing the power their franchises once had.  In twenty years time, the name Megaman may be worth less than nothing, when in the 1980s, it sold games without a second thought.

Time is running out for this Legacy, sadly.

            Many game companies have horded rights to franchises or sequels through acquisitions.  Through mergers, seizures, and purchases, many of these companies have a large library of names that they simply ignore.  And some defunct companies, like Quintet, have great titles that are fondly remembered whose rights could be bought for a pittance.  However, if these rights are shelved and sat upon, waiting for their value to appreciate, then eventually...they will stop being worth anything at all.  An Action Comics #1 is worth a great deal these days...but only to those who are willing to pay for it.  If the companies wait too long, people will give up hope on a Megaman 3...or build one themselves.  And then where will Capcom be?  They will have lost fans and by extension, lost sales.  Worse, they will be hated by their fans for not being more faithful to them, the people who pay their bills.

Hording rights is like hording comics.  They're only worth a crap if someone actually wants to pay for them.  Wait too long and eventually...no one will care.

           In the world of game development, modern trends can be useful.  Showing what is possible and what is profitable, they can be a great way for smaller companies to follow the big boys while still making something that is theirs, something special and enjoyable.  However, ignoring past successes just to chase modern trends is utter folly.  When it comes to game franchises, names, and sequels, you need to either use it...or lose it.