Jimquisition: A Game By Any Other Name

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

I think I disagree this time. Because I still remember the letdown of hearing a new Shadowrun game was coming out...and then finding out it was an multiplayer-only FPS. But that wound is healed now, all thanks to this.

But yeah...I'm of the opinion that if they want to take a series in a radically different direction (not like the difference between Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker, but more like the aforementioned Shadowrun difference), they should just make it a different franchise. Why? Well, had the 2007 Shadowun actually been popular, would I still be able to look forward to Shadowrun Returns coming in the near future? Probably not.

Disagreeing post

Games can be more than just a clever collection of gameplay mechanics and innovative settings. Games have the potentional to be worlds that we escape into, a coherent story, with not just a "player avatar" and "NPCs", but PEOPLE living their lives and having adventures, with not just settings and levels, but towns and empires and planets, with histories that we care about.

That there are fandoms, that look at games like this, is one of the most beautiful things about our community. There is nothing like staring at the screen after the credits roll, wondering what happened with our heroes after that, then hyping up the sequel where we hope to find out.

A fandom is a group of people who take a given game seriously. If you say that what they want from a franchise doesn't really matter, that as long as a random user happens to get gratification from playing a game (because it has decent controls, graphics, etc,) it's already good enough, you are saying that games shouldn't be taken seriously. That they are just utilitary tools that need to be well-crafted, with a purpose of keeping our eyes and fingers and minds busy for the moment, but not something that we should care about, identify with, or have expectations from on the long term.


I also have no faith in Team Ninja


Team Ninja is not working on the new DMC reboot its "Ninja Theory" they've worked on ps3 exclusive "Heavenly Sword" and multi-platform game "Enslaved: Odyssey to the West"

I'm disappointed in you Jim, as you seem to have skipped out on any research regarding the DMC outcry. Complaints about Dante's looks were only a part of it, but the more rabid complaints were about how the new DMC completely fucked over story and character related facts established in the previous games, completely missing the point of certain aspects of these things.

Ninja Theory's narcissistic leader didn't help either. It's no longer canon though, so I no longer have any qualms with it. I mean, I don't have any issues with games going a different direction either (in fact, I'd like it when they do), but it shouldn't fuck things up about an already established story or it should be made/seen as a spin-off. And neither of these was the case with the new DMC (until recently, as the result of the fan outcry).

I agree with the gist of Jim's critique, but I disagree with a HUGE part of it as well. How much do I disagree? Let me count the ways.

"What's in a Name?" - Jim says that names don't matter. They do. There are games out there whose names actually hold meaning to us. Not everyone will feel that way. I'm sure Jim is one of them who can distance himself from certain franchises. But for many people, names like "Star Wars", "Pearl Harbor", "The Dark Knight", "Halo", "Zelda", "9-11", "Silent Hill", "ICO", "Watchmen", "D-Day", etc. all carry with them something more than a name. Names are more than that. They contain meaning, memories, and even statements about life. When I think of "Silent Hill", I don't picture the f-bomb spewing, blood-and-guts, Pyramid Head-cameoing SH: Homecoming... I picture scenes such as Lisa's tragic fate in SH1, Angela's stairs of fire in SH2, Heather's return home in SH3, and Henry's hospital visit to Eileen in SH4. Moments filled with gut-wrenching emotion that can absolutely devastate a grown man or woman... and those feelings, those experiences, are culminated in a single name: "Silent Hill". It becomes something fondly remembered and more than just a name. So while, to Jim, a new game is just a game, and it could be called anything, people are protective of things that matter to them. It would bother me greatly to see "Shadow of the Colossus" turned into Duke Nukem-esque FPS with boobies and poop jokes, but at the same time I bet Duke Nukem fans would hate a Duke Nukem game that was a serious point-and-click adventure game all about solving mysteries and solving math puzzles.

"A Name Brings Expectations" - Fair or not, the name of a brand evokes expectations and also appeals to the aspects of the brand that fans remember most fondly. A new Batman movie would automatically evoke feelings for the caped crusader, clad in black, terrorizing the criminals of a depraved Gotham City. You wouldn't think "I'm sure it's going to be a hilarious romantic comedy" upon hearing the name Batman. Similarly, a game like "Silent Hill" has a pedigree that is insanely high, what with SH1 and SH2 considered some of the greatest horror games, and even games, of all time. Those games shattered expectations, matured the entire medium of gaming, and left a long shadow over the entire genre that many would agree has not been surpassed in over a decade of gaming. When a new game, or spin-off game, takes those very same elements that were praised for their nuance, sophistication, intelligence, and emotional impact and nullifies them with sweeping changes (such as taking a main villain, Pyramid Head, a very personal embodiment of a specific character's traumatic and repressed psyche, and making him a generic enemy in a hack-and-slash dungeon crawler).

"It's Sometimes Good to Challenge Expectations" - Sometimes. There are many great transitional games that defy gamer fears. Metroid Prime is one of the most beloved games of all time, despite turning a 2D side-scrolling shooter into a 3D first-person adventure game. Fallout 3 somehow managed to thrive, despite basically being a Fallout skin of Elder Scrolls IV. Metal Gear Solid and Street Fighter II were both so radically different and popular that people barely even remember there WERE games before those entries. But... for every success, there are at least three times as many failures. For every Metroid Prime, there is an Other M. For every Street Fighter II, there is a Street Fighter: The Movie: The Game. For every Fallout 3, there's a Syndicate. Fans have every reason to be worried. Until the game is proven to be a success, let them worry. History has not favored taking beloved franchises and retooling them into something new. There are exceptions, but they're just that: exceptions.

"Even a Good Spin Can Be Rejected" - Wind Waker is one of the best Zelda games ever made, aesthetics be damned. Almost nobody will refute that. But... the art style they chose, that radical, bold, expressive cel-shaded look that was lauded by many critics, was still ultimately far less popular than the realistic styles employed by Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess. It endured on the hand-helds for awhile, but after Wind Waker, the style reverted back to a more mature look on consoles. It wasn't bad; but fans just never got around to embracing it. Some did, of course. Many did not. Even Zelda II wasn't a bad game, but it's all but a footnote in Zelda game history now since fans didn't embrace its many changes.

The same could be said for good changes that backfired, such as Dragon Age 2's streamlined approach to combat and roleplaying. On paper, it sounded like an improvement over DA: Origins in every regard, but it was an inferior game with less likable characters, a less interesting story, bland art and graphics, inferior dungeon and world design, less player choice and customization, and little evolution of the core concepts that Dragon Age: Origins did so well. Or Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts, which is NOT a bad game at all, but nobody asked for a car-based Banjo-Kazooie game and nobody really wanted one either. It could be the best racing game ever, but it's not what fans were demanding. Which leads me to...

"Alternatives Are Great... If the Original Games Still Thrive" - Metroid Prime debuted alongside Metroid Fusion, both of which were great games with different takes on the Metroid formula. We were getting spin-off handheld Zelda games doing bold new things while the console versions appeased the hardcore players. Mario himself is king of the spin-offs, but we can count on him to deliver a proper Mario experience too.

But for many games, there are no alternatives if you were a fan of the older style. So you were a fan of the old-school Resident Evil games that were strictly survivor horror with an emphasis on puzzle-solving and exploration? Too bad. The series is chiefly an action-title now. Are you a fan of Silent Hill's fog-encroached nightmare world of isolation, psychosis, and absolutely brilliant nuance and subtlety? Too bad. The series is in Western hands that think that blood, multiplayer, gunplay, sexy nurses, and Pyramid Head cameos are the true heart of the series. Did you like the exploration, speed-running, isolation, and puzzle-solving of Super Metroid and Metroid Prime? Too bad. Other M makes you go where it wants, is nearly impossible to speed-run, throws a bunch of characters into the mix, and puts all the emphasis on story and ADD action. Did you like well-written, turn-based Final Fantasy games that thrived on exploring, airships, player customization, and player freedom? You won't find much of that here; go play Xenoblade instead.

Mainly, fans of the older games have no alternatives. The types of games they fell in love with are disappearing, homogenizing, and they simply don't have an alternative. And, well, they complain, and rightly complain, because they don't want the spirit of the OLD games to disappear.

If you're a fan of Resident Evil 2... where can you go to play a game like like that? If you're a fan of the original Syndicate,where can you find one that plays like that? If you're a fan of Dead Space 1, is it wrong to prefer isolation over constant multiplayer chatter and to let EA know this?


"A Return To Form is Often Appreciated" - For every Halo: Reach fan, there's a purist out there that swears by Halo 1's pistol. For every fan that Twisted Metal 3 pushed away, Twisted Metal: Black reclaimed. For everyone disappointed in Super Mario Sunshine's lack of platforming, there was TWO Super Mario Galaxy games to appease them... and New Super Mario Bros. for those that were more old-school that THAT. For every fan of 3D Castlevania games, there was a thriving and passionate 2D following on handhelds. Resident Evil: Revelations was the most well-received horror-themed RE game since the Gamecube remake of RE1. Devil May Cry 3 was basically an apology for DMC2 and a return to DMC1's sensibilities. Is it any surprise that the most traditional Sonic game in 20 years, Sonic Generations, is considered the best modern Sonic game? X-Com: Enemy Unknown is getting FAR better press and fan reception than the FPS XCOM. Over and over, we see games that go back to their roots, the ones gamers loved, and embracing them or improving them, and the old fans of old re-investing into the series that they were becoming jaded with due to weird tangent directions and awkward business-led spin-offs.

The games of the past had their own identities pretty much stamped in stone. Over the years, those identities have been slowly erased, either by diluting the brands, milking the franchises, or slapping on popular game titles to games that in no way, shape, or form actually benefit from doing so.

So, "What's in a Name"? An identity. A persona. An experience. An expectation. A desire. Meaning. Purpose. Fulfillment. A good name is one that can take decades to create, but can be destroyed in one single blow. It is both a games' greatest strength and strongest critic. It tells us what a game IS, what it's about, who it's for, and what we hope to glean from buying it and playing it. To misuse that name, to radically alter that name's meaning, is to either be bold in a new direction or to gamble with the integrity of your brand in the hopes that the name alone will carry your title to success.

But a good name is one that is well-earned... and carries the expectations of decades of good-will. That is not something to ignore lightly.

So, yes, a game like "Metroid: Other M" would be a very solid, if forgettable, game by any other name, but it is now part of a franchise where "good" was never good enough, whose games are often listed among the greatest of all time, and whose heroine is a staple of a strong, powerful, independent woman in gaming... so when it fails to live up, or when it flat-out fails in general, it's a far more enraging incident than if another generic shooter with generic gameplay has a generic ending with its generic characters. The more you emotional invest in a series, often because it's good, the more emotional you become when it fails to deliver.

Mass Effect 3's original ending is a prime example. In a generic game, nobody would care. But it wasn't a generic game. It was ME3. The finale of a series of games lauded with awards, praised by critics, awash in high sales, and beloved by legions of gamers who were drawn in and addicted to its lore, depth, and trend-setting, forward-thinking roleplay approaches. A bad end to a bad game is forgettable; a bad end to a great series whose name meant something to you over several years is another.

I'm disappointed in you Jim, as you seem to have skipped out on any research regarding the DMC outcry. Complaints about Dante's looks were only a part of it, but the more rabid complaints were about how the new DMC completely fucked over story and character related facts established in the previous games, completely missing the point of certain aspects of these things.

Team Ninja's narcissistic leader didn't help either. It's no longer canon though, so I no longer have any qualms with it.

Ninja Theory is the developer. They actually do good work, such as Heavenly Sword and Enslaved.

Team Ninja is the Japanese team responsible for Dead or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball, Ninja Gaiden 3, and Metroid: Other M...

... I'd rather have Ninja Theory working on it than Team Ninja.



I also have no faith in Team Ninja


Team Ninja is not working on the new DMC reboot its "Ninja Theory" they've worked on ps3 exclusive "Heavenly Sword" and multi-platform game "Enslaved: Odyssey to the West"

Seems a lot of people are making this mistake.

While I agree that game should be evaluated by it's content not by it's name
Making X-Com into just a shooter was kinda dumb idea (similar to Syndicate)
On the other hand...
X-Com as 1st person shooter with strategic and tactical elements?
Do want, do want NOW!
(Once again Syndicate could be done like that and that would be awesome)

All evidence points to the fact that it will be just another FPS.

You know what video this reminds me of? Metroid: Other M. It's not a spin-off, and it's a disgrace to everything previously established about the Metroid series.

Yeah. If Other M was a game by any other name, it would be quickly forgotten and ignored. But it wasn't just any other game. It was a Metroid game. Apart of a beloved series. And it undermined two decades worth of bold, forward-thinking ideas that Metroid pioneered and set the entire franchise back with its backward view towards its heroine, its regressed exploration and puzzle-solving, and it's maddening desire to be a movie (and a bad one) instead of a ground-breaking new entry to a universally beloved franchise.

What a waste.


Ninja Theory is the developer. They actually do good work, such as Heavenly Sword and Enslaved.

Team Ninja is the Japanese team responsible for Dead or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball, Ninja Gaiden 3, and Metroid: Other M...

... I'd rather have Ninja Theory working on it than Team Ninja

Oh crap, fixed. My apologies, I sometimes unintentionally mix up the two companies. I know, I'd rather have Ninja Theory work on it as well, as Enslaved was a pretty damn good game and a lot better than anything Team Ninja has ever done.

But again, my point still stands. I agree with what Jim's saying, but I disagree with his use of DMC, as the new one did use to mess with the other games due to it changing certain (quite important) aspects of and facts about the characters and the story.

i agree up to a point and yes a good game is still good regardless but persoanlly the issue for me is the tacking on of a game to a franchise name , where lore elements are added and shoe horned in rather than creating a new IP and letting the game stand on originality.

i get creating a new IP can be damn expensive, i get you wont have the initial sales that having an establish brand name can bring in but adding it can seriously kill a title.

Baaahaha... Spoony reference :D

Wow, Jim's not usually wrong like this. But it happens to all of us I suppose.

Jim, the reason people hate the things you've expressed isn't because "it's different therefore it sucks" (and people who DO think that way are generally an idiotic minority). It's fans who worry that their franchise is going to take a direction they don't want it taking. Or, in some worse cases, it's a completely different game that is latching onto the name of a known franchise like a leech, trying to sucker people into thinking it's the same game.

With Devil May Cry for example, the people whining about Dante being changed aren't all just saying "oh noes he looks different", but rather they're worried about what ELSE has changed, and they have every reason to be concerned. Dante's new appearance is meant to closely resemble one of the game's lead developers, as well as designed to appeal to the mainstream by introducing a "dark and mysterious and broody" look to him, akin to Edward Cullen. People aren't bitching because his hair is cut differently, they're bitching because it's NOT the same character any more, and it's NOT a change they want to see, and because they're worried what else may be changed. And it turned out to be a legit concern, as apparently his half-human nature has been removed for this reboot (which was a core part of his characterization in the original series).

The reason folks raged about the new XCOM isn't because "it's different", it's because it's clearly not XCOM. The game as originally pitched only resembles XCOM in that it featured an alien invasion. The types of aliens, the agency, even the damn GENRE was changed. It was a generic FPS for shooting aliens, nothing unique or interesting. But the developers haphazardly slap the XCOM franchise label onto it and viola, now it'll sell because it's XCOM! This is a disgusting practice that developers use to help sell half-assed garbage to the public, using a well known franchise label as a basis. And when people called them out on it, they added a few elements to the game to make it LOOK more like an XCOM title and called it a day. It's still NOT an XCOM game, they just put in the extra effort to make it look like one to help soothe the fan outrage.

People's concern about the Silent Hill game isn't just "it doesn't look that much like Silent Hill", it's that they're concerned that the same thing devs did to XCOM is being done to them here. Just because Pyramid Head shows up doesn't magically make it a Silent Hill game, there are elements to the franchise that need to be present. Elements that haven't been clearly highlighted yet. If the devs give more of an indication that the game is sticking to the Silent Hill franchise, then people would probably be less outraged.

I love how some people have ripped DMC5 apart yet said jack shit about DMC4, proberly the laziest AAA game ive ever played.

Seriously that game was lame, Dante was still hilarious as always but...

Also I liked number 2, not the way they kept trying to make Dante take himself so seriously but the bosses, those were bloody good fights.

Jim seems to address the question with a willful ignorance. People who say they'd like it more if a game had a different title aren't saying the title detracts from the game. They're saying the the game detracts from the title. It's still a potentially dumb sentiment in how it's based on having a restrictive view of what defines a given intellectual property, but being upset over newer entries missing the tone of a series is more understandable than liking something less because it happens to be based on something else you liked more, and it is possible to enjoy something, while still feeling as if it missed the intended point of the work that inspired it. It just kind of seems like Jim is twisting words to make this into an easier argument to win.

So instead of establishing a game as a new IP (which are desperately needed) developers are going out of their way to piss off the fanbase of the original series. What a clever idea.

Jim, I am disappointed. A "series" IS a series because certain things are expected of it be it style, visuals or story.

Silent Hill is a survival horror/barely able to defend self sort of series. To make some actiony dungeon crawler hack and slash fest and slap SH on the label is just insulting. Oh look, Half Life Ep. 3, only now it's a fantasy RTS that takes place in Gordan Freeman's mind. Nothing wrong with that eh, it might just be a good fantasy RTS. /facepalm

This is a brand, Silent Hill, being prostituted out like a pretty dress on a pro wrestler. Both parties would be better off without the other but corporate pimps looking to squeeze an easy buck insist on using the brand anyway and demeaning both in the process.

Hey Jim, while I would agree with you on most of the things you have said in your videos, your comments on the new DMC are a tad misguided (completely missing the point).

While yes even I have said or thought that the game would be a decent action game if it weren't called DMC and had a differently designed character that better fit the universe they had made for the game, there is in fact something in a name when it comes to any form of entertainment.

There is an expectation people will have from an established and fairly well known franchise such as Devil May Cry, and based on Ninja Theory's track record, I have realized they talk a big talk but really at the end of the day they can only imitate other games and pretend they have compelling stories to them.

In regards to the new DMC. Ninja Theory has had a PR nightmare, especially when Tameem Antonaides, someone who bears a striking resemblance to even the earliest iterations of Dante's new design. At this point, in recent conferences I heard them adding elements from not only past DMC games, but also other action games such as Bayonetta, a variant of your dodge roll can apparently do some sort of time altering effect on an enemy similar to Bayonetta's. To me it seems more like a desperate bid saying "oh please like our game! Look we have jump cancelling!"

Yes, I do see you have been trying to implement these things in your game, and from the videos in the past I have to ask why? It looks like you are doing this because the fans of the series wants those things, but the way you have set up your combat it might be harmful to the game. The jumps are floatier than in past games, the attacks don't look as smooth, and have a more meatier impact akin to God of War style games. You know, like the second game you did: Heavenly Sword.

Speaking of which, the whole concept of switching between three modes for your character was done in that game too, and when I hear your sequel gets canned and then find essentially those same mechanics in the new game you're making, I begin to suspect many a foul things from the production.

For the longest time I have considered this game to be a Heavenly Sword 2 reskin at it's core, and even now it still shows. When I hear the DMC name, I do have an essential expectation of quality and right now my expectations for Ninja Theory's take on the game are rather low. It looks like the New Dante is just using Nero's moveset with Heavenly Sword's control scheme, and to me it feels a little lazy.

I'd rather it be a new IP than one for DMC, nothing wrong would come of that anyways, it would stand out in a much more positive light for one thing instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater of a character that was iconic to many people.

In regards to the "seriousness of Dante", well he isn't that serious to begin with, and that's the joke, he was more of a hammy rogue type to me, and this new one just comes off as trying to be edgy, what with recent videos having him exchanging f-bombs with a boss. Not the final boss, but just a boss.

I felt that Ninja Theory came a little close in capturing the feeling his predecesor had but this new Dante just doesn't really cut it for me.

Will this stop me from trying the demo at least? No. But I don't have good expectations of this.

No mention of the steaming hate being poured onto the surprisingly good looking CoD:BO2 just because it is CoD? Jim, I am dissapoint

Yay Jim, way to miss the point. People hate these "spin-offs" that look nothing like the originals for a good reason. It's just simple exploitation.

If a game is called something like Devil May Cry it's only natural to expect it might actually have something to do with the other Devil May Cry games. If the game feels so alien to the point that you would consider it a different name then it's really false advertising, since some people will get the game believing it to be something it's not. The developers don't want people to judge the game by it's own merit, they want people to fork out over their money on a frickin' whim. If they actually cared about the game standing out on it's own they would give it it's own name, not another game's name with a slight tweek.

It's common sense dammit. Don't want people to associate your product with something else? DON'T NAME IT AFTER IT. If you do be excepted for people to compare your product to whatever it's named after.

What's that? You say new games don't have to be anything like old games, as long as they're "good?"

Say! How was E3 this year, Jim?

I would have thought Jim would know (and hate) the fact that publishers use the name for an existing franchise just to get people interested, because new IPs are a bit of a gamble.

I agree that people go a bit overboard with the review bombs and such though, especially before they've even tried it.

The only reason for argument I see is that a game may be developed differently but only keep the name to gather previous fans. From that, people may think its cheap, but really, if you back away from fanboyism, and look at the game, you'll be able to decide if the game is good for what it is. Summed up I guess.

Always felt bad for developers in that regard. Change a game for it's sequel, you fucked it up. Don't change it, you're just phoning it in as a cash grab.

Anyway if you think a game being different from earlier games in the series is bad fuck you, you're an idiot. Lets look at films that did the same thing:

Alien -> Aliens. Two very different movies, but both great. Whichever you prefer doesn't matter but you're wrong and stupid if you say either of those are bad.

Evil Dead 1&2 -> Army of Darkness. Same as above. Only an idiot would say Raimi ruined the franchise by making Army of Darkness.

There's also nothing wrong with rebooting a series years later and changing it. Unless you think we should still be making Batman movies the way Joel Schumacher makes Batman movies. Hate Syndicate because it's not that good, not because it's different. Same with DMC or any other game.

Im gonna drop this in No mutants allowed so wish me luck,
.......................................................................................................................................................No praying for me to survive would be better

Im gonna drop this in No mutants allowed so wish me luck,
No praying for me to survive would be better

No! Don't do it man! You have your whole life ahead of you! THEY WILL EAT YOU ALIVE!

Long time fan of both Jim and Silent Hill, here to mostly disagree.

I think Book of Memories is getting this knee-jerk reaction because anything that strays from the mood established by previous Silent Hills hasn't fared well in the series. And in a series best known for horror, mood means a lot. Everything in this title looks to dismantle that atmosphere, from the cast of hip and colorful teens, to co-op instead of isolation, to HUD numbers breaking immersion. This actually does strip the series' identity down to "Those games where you fight Pyramid Head," which is a consistency fans loathe.

BoM could turn out to be loads of fun, given the series has plenty to improve on gameplay and overall it's a pretty novel concept. But on paper it does come off as a collection of bad Silent Hill decisions that hasn't learned from its predecessors. Early SH comics actually featured a goth with a magic book and her buddies power fantasying through Silent Hill in a Mary Sue shitfest (it's good for laughs). I know it's just a surface resemblance, but given they brought back the terrible Diablo boss, it echoes the bad parts of the franchise as a whole.

Oddly I am looking forward to that Lost Planet spin-off where everything's pastel, cell-shaded anime style with comic panels and sound effects flying around a group of generic cartoon teens. It should be the worst direction ever, but using a different title does give it room to experiment with its own set of terrible cliches. Or it could just be Capcom being impossible to take seriously.

Right on, especially with Banjo Kazooie Nuts and Bolts. It's a great game. Yes whiners, I get it, you wanted more platforming. But this game never promised to be platforming. So either play it or don't play it, I don't care, but stop hating on it because it's not what you want. What it is, it did very well and is a very fun game.

Somehow I think JonTron would disagree with Jim's example of Banjo Kazooie Nuts n Bolts lol.

JonTron's a whiny bitch who spends an entire video complaining that Banjo Kazooie Nuts and Bolts sucks because it's not Banjo Threeie. Well guess what JonTron, Nuts and Bolts isn't trying to be Banjo Threeie, that's why it's called Nuts and Bolts instead of Threeie. So stop fucking whining and enjoy a great game.

I pretty much agree.
I LOVED Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light. A departure from "normal" series but it was a great little spin-off title. One which I enjoyed a lot more than the more recent Tomb Raider games. It felt like a Tomb Raider without being one in terms of perspective and in the way you play it. It kept all the little nuances that make a game feel like a Tomb Raider but in a whole new package.

Yeah, that was kind of the opposite of the examples in this video, wasn't it? They took "Tomb Raider" out of the name so people didn't automatically assume it sucks like almost all the other Tomb Raider games. But at first, I still said "Nah, it's still Tomb Raider even though they didn't put that in the title, so it probably sucks." Then it was on sale on Steam so I got it just for the hell of it and HOLY HELL THIS GAME IS AWESOME!

Im gonna drop this in No mutants allowed so wish me luck,
.......................................................................................................................................................No praying for me to survive would be better

After they eat you alive, can I have your skateboard?

In the case of the Silent Hill games.... the name has been abused so badly already that trying something new with it won't tarnish it anymore. If we get a good game out of it then I don't see it hurting anyone. Give the game a chance and if it bombs, it does so on its own merits.

DMC is a little fuzzier because the last game did pretty well all things considered (I wasn't touching it with a ten foot pole, but then the game series had already burned most of its bridges for me ages ago). So a hard reboot, on a proper console (and not a handheld) is much more likely to rub people the wrong way.

Ray Pollack:
*huge snip*

I hope you do more posts like this in the future. It means I have to type less.

Our biggest problem with DmC isn't that Dante, hell, every character and story element presented so far looks like shit. That doesn't help, but that's not the main reason.

It's that it's cutting a pretty huge branch from a tree without many branches to begin with.

It has yet to be called a spin-off. It has yet to be said that the original series will continue. It has only been called a reboot. With this in mind, along with Capcom's seemingly endless efforts to make as many poor decisions as possible, we can only assume one thing.

The original series is dead. This is the new direction.

If it were most any other series of spectacle fighters, this probably wouldn't ruffle as many feathers, but because this is Devil May Cry, it pisses fans off. This is because:

1) The original series wasn't over. There were still many loose ends, and the series still had loads of life left in it. The only reason the original series has been accused of growing stale is because Capcom half-assed Devil May Cry 4 so hard, not because the gameplay was getting tiresome.

2) This isn't your average series of spectacle fighters. This isn't like God of War, or Lords of Shadow, or Heavenly Sword, etc. This is a series known for its depth, precision, and difficulty. Hell, it fucking invented the high-complexity spectacle fighter.

Even Devil May Cry 4, half-assed though it was, still stomps the shit out of every other game this generation in its genre in terms of depth, speed, and precision. Except Bayonetta. Ninja Gaiden 2 would count if its camera wasn't so goddamn horrible.

By virtue of being so high quality, not many developers release games of its calibre. At this point, we got Platinum Games and, well, Platinum Games.

I haven't sat down and played it, but considering the framerate and the developer, I don't even need to to say without a doubt DmC will not be as precise and quick and previous DMC titles. It will not live up to the pedigree of DMC's 3 or 4. Maybe not even 1. Just seeing the demo footage and tech details makes that blatantly obvious. I'm sure it's fun, but it's not Devil May Cry, and that's why we're pissed.

It looks up to par with God of War. Trouble is, God of War is nowhere close up to par with Devil May Cry, and there are way more games with God of War-level depth than there are at the level of Devil May Cry.

Imagine if a new Street Fighter was released, one that played like Mortal Kombat, and all signs pointed to this being the new direction of the series. And for good measure, let's make the cast look like they've done shitloads of crack, coke, meth, heroin, or some combination thereof. Just for giggles. And they act all pissy and say "fuck" a lot.

Mortal Kombat's fun and all, but it isn't Street Fighter. I play Street Fighter for Street Fighter, not for Mortal Kombat Lite. So don't sell me Mortal Kombat Lite and expect me to love it because you tell me it's Street Fighter.

The only game I've actually judged by it's name is Metal Gear Solid Rising Revengeance.
Not because it's Metal Gear Solid and it's not exactly the same as the others, it's just a really stupid title.
I guess that's more of judging it's title rather than juding it by it's title.

Also, while I'm not too fond on the idea of cosplaying, I would like to go to Jim's booth dressed up as God and say "You're welcome."

I'm gonna have to say that I disagree with you here Jim, for the first time in months. I think the name *IS* important, people buy games and sequels because of what they've grown to love and gotten used to. If publishers want to produce the same thing because people like it, then that's their prerogative. If you are going to take a franchise in a completely different direction, for god's sake, why do they have to lean on the success of other games then? Just give it a totally different freaking name! Open the door for more creativity! Don't just milk the success of previous titles. For example: imagine Red Dead Redemption being called GTA 5: Western Vices or some shit. That would just be ridiculous. But they took it in a completely different direction, making a solid, awesome game that stood on its own.

Having said that, I still do judge games on their own merits, to be fair. I don't like the direction Resident Evil is taking, I wish there was more survival horror around, but I still think RE5 is a fantastic game. And I'll be buying RE6 without hesitation (haven't played and won't comment on Raccoon City). The new Dante just looks crap though, regardless of what people say. And I still wished Fallout 3 wasn't and FPS, but that's still an absolute cracker despite the bugs. I just think it'd be easier sometimes, especially on fan backlash, to just start a new franchise once in a decade, y'know?

Gonna pull you up on Fallout 3 there Jimbo because this is somewhere where I repeatedly disagree with you.

Though I disagree with the No Mutant's Allowed version of events that requires all people to hate Fallout3 just because, there are two BIG reasons to be disappointed with Fallout 3.

1) Isometric RPGs looked like they were never going to be made again and there are plenty of people, such as myself, who miss them. It wasn't that Fallout 3 weren't going to be exactly like it's predecessors but dropping that style in favour of what initially looked like another generic FPS was a bit of a kick in the nuts.

Look at the similar outrage levelled at the FPS XCom, it looked like was just going to make Bioshock with Xcom slapped over the top, this would be a good game perhaps, but it's not the Xcom we want after 15 years of no Xcom. Look at the bland nothing that resulted from EA's pasting of Syndicate's artifice over the top of a dull shooter.

2) Fallout3's story is retarded. There isn't a single quest or world element in that game that makes any sense.

And the linear railroading of many of the quests completely jettisoned Fallout and Fallout 2's approach of having multiple endings for each quest. These had real choices that actually made sense instead of the usual Fable/Bioshock/Bethesda "pat the puppy"/"kick the puppy" options.

This is something that returned somewhat when Obsidian did New Vegas but for a while it looked like the Fallout Universe I knew and loved was dead in spirit as well as delivery.

That said I think that it's generally agreed that F3 is a good game. It's just a terrible Fallout game. And the sad thing is that New Vegas is a great Fallout Game, just bugged to shit so nobody actually liked it.

Now all the kiddies want Fallout games with dumb Bethesda stories that make no sense. (Seriously Bethesda: I love your worlds but your in game narratives are at best dull and at worst mentally disabled.)

No, I don't buy it.

Don't some game series have a consistent tone even if the individual games are different? Wasn't Silent Hill about being alone in a dangerous, mysterious place with little means to defend yourself? Wasn't Devil May Cry about gleeful style-over-substance silliness?

Then why should it not be annoying when a new game uses the name but throws away the feel of the previous games? Aren't they just trotting out the property for brand-recognition reasons, regardless of how sloppy it comes off? It would work better if it were a new IP!

I get what jim is saying but


I cannot forgive Banjo kazooie nuts and bolts

]JonTron's a whiny bitch who spends an entire video complaining that Banjo Kazooie Nuts and Bolts sucks because it's not Banjo Threeie. Well guess what JonTron, Nuts and Bolts isn't trying to be Banjo Threeie, that's why it's called Nuts and Bolts instead of Threeie. So stop fucking whining and enjoy a great game.


he's just a guy doing a video for entertianment purposes...no need to be agressive

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here