By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - How far should a franchise go away from it's original formular?

People seem to be mad whenever a game has the exact same formular as it's prequel, but they also seem to be mad when a game tries to go too far away from it's core. How far should a franchise go away from it's original formular, excluding spin-offs?



Around the Network

You never know. Look at Final Fantasy, each installment always makes some crazy changes from its predecessor, yet it is widely loved by the gaming community.



Wright said:

You never know. Look at Final Fantasy, each installment always makes some crazy changes from its predecessor, yet it is widely loved by the gaming community.

Umm.... you do know that the last couple of Final Fantasy games have divided the fans further than ever before. 



 

PxlStorm said:

People seem to be mad whenever a game has the exact same formular as it's prequel, but they also seem to be mad when a game tries to go too far away from it's core. How far should a franchise go away from it's original formular, excluding spin-offs?

People usually dont.

Usually you get ALOT more hate, when you change things around in series.

 

Wright said:

You never know. Look at Final Fantasy, each installment always makes some crazy changes from its predecessor, yet it is widely loved by the gaming community.

Most of the old fans, are not that eager to embrace the Action aspects.

Change is usually not a good thing.

If you get something "right" and its a huge hit,..... stick with it until it goes stale.



As for the OP: You don't need to change the original formula drastically, but you do need to make it better or near perfection. Similar to Uncharted 1 -> Uncharted 2. However Galaxy 2 and Uncharted 3 did not feel like drastic improvement over previous entries, but both still solid games, as they used the formula correctly.

However you do get Assassin Creed 2: Revelations or Modern Warfare 3 that just abused the formula, did nothing really, and was boring as all heck, and the next line of titles pay for it, because you start abusing formula that needed more work, but you chose to phone it in and when you did try, no one cares anymore.



 

Around the Network
Acevil said:
Wright said:

You never know. Look at Final Fantasy, each installment always makes some crazy changes from its predecessor, yet it is widely loved by the gaming community.

Umm.... you do know that the last couple of Final Fantasy games have divided the fans further than ever before. 

 

Every game in the franchise has been divisive. The latest ones just deepen this factor, but as far as I can tell, everyone ended up loving them all.



Wright said:
Acevil said:

Umm.... you do know that the last couple of Final Fantasy games have divided the fans further than ever before. 

 

Every game in the franchise has been divisive. The latest ones just deepen this factor, but as far as I can tell, everyone ended up loving them all.

I think 13 actually is generally viewed as downpoint by the majority.  Honestly the people that love 13 are the ones that loved it from the start, and are vocal about it. It was also one of the poorest reviewed final fantasy in a generation where reviewers inflated everything. 



 

Acevil said:

I think 13 actually is generally viewed as downpoint by the majority.  Honestly the people that love 13 are the ones that loved it from the start, and are vocal about it. It was also one of the poorest reviewed final fantasy in a generation where reviewers inflated everything. 

 

Let's look at FF13 as a rotten apple for a second (I don't, but let's do it). Just one hated game in a franchise with more than fifteen games and counting, all of them liked or loved - ones more than others, that's for sure -, which has been gathering insane hype for its latest installment despite the rocky development time, and it sure as heck looks different than any other game in the franchise.

Final Fantasy proves that reinventing itself after every entry isn't a bad thing.



That's a really good (and timely) question. I'd say keep the basic formula and riff off that.

Take Zelda, for example (the series I know and love the best). You had the original dungeon crawler, then a side-scroller with RPG elements, then a third game with a parallel worlds mechanic, then a mix of top-down and side-scrolling, then a fully-3D world with time travel and a day-night cycle. Most recently, you've had a more linear game with a heavy focus on motion controls and a love letter to A Link to the Past with a 2D paint mechanic and online features. And Zelda (WiiU/NX) looks to be an open-world Elder Scrolls-esque experience.

But, throughout all that, the core formula remains intact: real-time combat, puzzle-solving, exploration.

That said, it boils down to the quality of the game. Doom (2016) multiplayer is most disappointing not because it plays unlike Doom but because it's just not very fun. Resident Evil 4 plays very differently from 1-Code: Veronica, but it's a masterpiece.



Depends on whether or not the formula works and continues to work.

So like, if a game has a formula that worked in the past and made everyone fap and works today and continues to make everyone fap, there is zero reason to change to formula very much because it is a working formula that people love. Such as MK, Cod, Uncharted, Halo, etc

But if there is a formula that people once jizzed on but due to people's ability to be terrible at the game or that the times have just changed and there are better standards now that the formula just doesn't turn on many people anymore... Then the formula should be changed until it works once again.



                  

PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850