I don't like agree with Jim on this issue. Especially on DMC. The main character in that game is no longer Dante, the game is developed by a different developer, it's DMC in name only. While a name doesn't directly make a game worse (or better), players (especially fans of the series) will play the game with certain expectations, if you change those key elements of a series, it will reduce the enjoyment of the players. I'm a big Gran Turismo fan, if GT6 is a arcade Mario Kart style game, I will flip out. But I'm perfectly happy playing Mario Kart.

6 minutes Jim. Six minutes of talking about spin-offs and not a single mention of Mario? The guy is a shinning example of Spin-offs done with care. Most of the spin-offs have nothing to do with the "main" series other than having the same characters appear in each one. Super Mario 3 plays nothing like Super Smash Bros. Paper Mario plays nothing like Mario Kart. Have our video game mascots play on a video game board game? Heaven forbid such a thing should ever happen. >_>

Having video game developers make a spin-off game enjoyable? Imagine that....

Just cause I want to :P

Star Wars Battlefront: God, a Star Wars game that barely has anything to do with Star Wars other than playing as some recognizable characters.

Super Puzzle Fighter: Such a disgrace of a game. Has nothing to do with Street Fighter other than recognizable visuals in the background.

Super Mario 64: What did they do to you Mario? You are not longer a 2D sprite but a barely recognizable polygon in a 3D world. It'll never work, I want my 2D sprite world back!

Final Fantasy 9: Such stupid looking characters that don't even look realistic like FF7 or FF8. Not even interested. (Not a spin-off, so sue me :P)

Street Fighter vs X-men: A spin-off game that has Street Fighter characters fighting the X-men? Can that even work?

I have no empirical evidence to back up this claim, but here's my anecdotal opinion on the matter. More often than not, when a game "spins off" an existing series, particularly a popular one, it's because the new game is shit.

Using the Silent Hill game as a potential example: Imagine they're 90% through the development process of Random Dungeon Crawler 13, a game completely and totally unrelated to Silent hill. At this point, they realize their game is crap... but have gone to far and invested to much to quit. Some one gets the bright idea to slap the Silent Hill name on it, and presto you've sold an extra million copies to the SH faithful.

This doesn't mean that spin offs are automatically garbage, just a higher percentage. We'll see.

Well if some of these games are good enough to stand on their own why don't they have their own name or title?

Gamers complain because if a game is labeled with a name they recognize they expect a product they recognize with that name. Using a familiar name to sell a different/new game is seen as a clear bait and switch which is dishonest and preys on less informed gamers.

It is true that some of these games are good but the fact that developers and publishers are to lazy to make up an original title for them makes me to lazy to care about the game. Spin-offs and necro-resurrections of an IP just seem like a cheap cash in of the original title.

The only exception I can see is when its a major overhaul of an IP like in the case of the fallout series.

Trishbot:
For every fan of 3D Castlevania games, there was a thriving and passionate 2D following on handhelds.

Actually it seems that Mercury Steam has taken over the entire franchise, so there´s only big grimdark and epic installments in the franchise, and it seems to be the grim future for the series.

But yeah, i agree with most of what you wrote, it´s mostly about availability.
But there´s also some expectations when playing a game in a series, you could make a Killzone game with cellshaded graphics, and it could still be a killzone game if the art style was done right. The problem is that a lot of new "sequels" and "spin-offs" ditch everything that defined the original series and instead they only hold a very vague resemblence to the source material.

MrBaskerville:

Trishbot:
For every fan of 3D Castlevania games, there was a thriving and passionate 2D following on handhelds.

Actually it seems that Mercury Steam has taken over the entire franchise, so there´s only big grimdark and epic installments in the franchise, and it seems to be the grim future for the series.

Hence my use of the past-tense.

... There USED to be an alternative. There really isn't anymore. That's my problem, and what Jim is missing. Spin-off as many games as you like, but when the core game's essence and original appeal flat-out no longer exists, there's a problem.

Was a bit fast there, read it wrong^^. Then we agree!

I can think of a game that was ruined by its name: Shadowrun for the 360 and PC.

Why? Because it was ****ing depressing. The first, and only, modern Shadowrun game and it is just an average multiplayer FPS with counter strike structure. It does absolutely nothing with the name, has no bearing on the style and has nothing to show for itself.

Does the game stand on its own without the name? Honestly, yeah. But for Shadowrun, it was embarrassing.

I agree to some exent that brand name shouldn't affect my feelings on a game, but there is a huge flaw to that argument: WE AREN'T UNFEELING ROBOTS and this causes the following conflicts:
a) Names and words are used to identify certain qualities: When I hear Lord of the Rings I think of elves and orcs, when I hear the word shit I think about Dragon Age 2 and poop.
b) New products in an old brand CAN cheapen the old products: Many people after playing Mass Effect couldn't replay the old ones, because they recognized the old products with the unsavory aspects of the new ones. This reminds me of he main reason why Bill Watterson was opposed to Calvin and Hobbes merch, he didn't want his comic strip associated with banal, corporative items. Fans don't want their favorite franchises to be associated with corporate greed or terrible quality.
c) New products represent change, both good and bad: For many Dragon Age 2 represents the new face of the franchise, which many of the original fans dislike and would rather have it go away.
d) New products don't satiate the need for certain experiences: While Silent Hill is having its roguelike stuff, nobody is making the classic Silent Hill that the fans would have.

I actually did a video a while back about book of memories, and now...I agree and disagree.

See, back then, I hadn't seen any hands on previews. I had seen a trailer, and it didn't look that good, especially with one of the devs desperately trying to reasure fans. I was incredibly surprised when I saw people saying it was pretty damn good. No harm, no foul, right? Well...not so much. If they wanted to make a dungeon crawler, why silent hill? Could they not have made a new horror universe not so reliant on isolation and psychology? Maybe they could have based it on existing work, HP lovecraft, hammer horror, hell, clive barker's probably up for more videogame work, and as awful as jericho turned out, he usually has pretty good ideas for monsters, enviroments, and stories. Hell, I could even see this kind of game being easy to tie in with "supernatural" effectively, playing as a team of hunters eliminating all manner of beasties.

Point is, it's rather obvious the game has been made as a silent hill game because the name sells. There are spin offs that fit with the main franchise, halo wars was a logical step to RTS' (and it did it a damn fine job of giving an RTS console controls that work, I'm honestly surprised we haven't had more people copy it) banjo kazooie nuts and bolts fit with the franchise's style and playfulness, but silent hill being made into a co op dungeon crawler? I don't see it.

I'm all for spin offs and franchises trying different genres, but what I don't like to see is a franchise being squeezed into a genre that doesn't fit. It wouldn't stop me enjoying a game (I like doom 3 although it's completely not what doom's supposed to be about) but crucially, it could stop me buying a game in the first place, simply because it gives off an impression, that at best, the people on control don't really know what they're doing, and at worst, it's a work to sell a game by attaching a well known name onto it.

ex275w:

c) New products represent change, both good and bad: For many Dragon Age 2 represents the new face of the franchise, which many of the original fans dislike and would rather have it go away.
d) New products don't satiate the need for certain experiences: While Silent Hill is having its roguelike stuff, nobody is making the classic Silent Hill that the fans would have.

On that last point, silent hill downpour is actually pretty damn good. The monster design is a little lacklustre, and the combat's pretty damn bad, but they actually seem on the right track to regaining what made silent hill terrifying in the first place.

MonkeyPunch:
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.

Also, I haven't quite understood the rage of having Dante's hair brown. (nor really the decision to change it unless there's an important and telling story arc which explains/justifies it) because the game is obviously still going to be typical DMC game.

Syndicate on the other hand was stupid. With no plans to resurrect the original franchise, it couldn't be called a spin-off and bar the odd weapons the FPS only used the name of the original to lure people to it. It used no game mechanics or ideas from the original game. It used nothing from the old game to it's advantage.
If it had been called something else, no one would have been the wiser about it's "origins". They turned that franchise in to something massively run-on-the-mill and average. The reasons for it being glaringly obvious and I'm sort of happy it didn't really work well for them. (except for the dev studio lay-offs. That sucked). I'm glad they didn't get the message: Take old games name. Turn it into a typical FPS because "that's what sells". Mindless FPS buying sheep will buy. Profit.
Now that was weak.

I completely agree and to depict a good version of new games with old IP are the X-com games coming out. I was massively disappointed when I heard about X-com being a shooter since I wanted the tactical combat of the first X-com. However, when I watched the gameplay footage and found out the back story I didn't mind as much (Homefront destroyed any faith in I had in game footage and Dev hype). The game appears to have a good story (we'll see once it's released) but more importantly it has a solid reason for the change. Also, the Dev's acknowledge that people want a version of the old game so they are in the process of making one which ties into the shooter version. This is the best use of IP change I can think of.

did he just really say "if you are one of the persons who disapproves of something because its got a name you dont like, you are like a nazi"?

someone get that guy a history book.......

You are tearing me apart Jim.

I get so angry when a developer takes a perfectly good concept and butchers it in the name of change and improvement (which generally translates to appealing to a wider crowd) when all they are making is a totally different game with the old franchise name on it and this is one of the reasons why i get so pissed off when developers like this cry for their artistic integrity.

A good(bad)example would be Castlevania Judgement.

A wise man once said: "Don't stick your dick in a puding. It might be a delicious puding and you can spend your time explaining it but nobody will eat it because you stuck your dick in it"

I maybe remembering that wrong

The whole things rediculous, I bet half the people complaining don't even have a PS Vita.

I know that, because anyone with a PS Vita is just plain fucking glad that someone is making a game for it. The game looks pretty good to me, will definitely be buying it, because there are very few options, and that game looks like a fairly decent option.

Captcha: moot point (how ironic :P)

I want to take this opportunity to talk about Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts.

A WHOLE lot of people have been railing the game because it barely has any platforming elements in it compared to the first two.

This, my friends, is a very stupid argument. Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts was bad, or actually some of it was bad because it had no identity of its own, hardly had any cool worlds, and had some annoying quests.

But that's not really what I'm trying to make a point of. What I'm really trying to get across is that N&B should not be played as a true platformer. It wasn't made for that. And here is what really makes me angry. People just LOVE to overlook the fact that the core of the gameplay, the vehicle creation, was VERY well done and opened up millions of possibilities. When it comes to the N&B vehicle creation, you get out what you put in. Most people, it seems, don't want to take the time to make something truly awesome. And that really blows because the vehicle creation has so much potential.

In the end, BK: N&B is a game with a completely awesome core and crap surrounding the outside of it. Most people can't get past that crap layer and, thus, dismiss it as a complete failure.

Bvenged:

- I just don't get people ragging on about changing franchises; I'm all for evolution and innovation unless it's for the worse *cough* Command and Conquer 4 *cough*. Otherwise we'll just have the same bloody games over and over again with no real change. What's the fucking point in Halo 4 if it's just going to be Halo 3, or 2? What's the point in TESV if it's an overlay of Oblivion?

Same here. I'm really looking forward to Skyrim kart, not to mention Command and conquer kinect.

I'm making a platforming game, it's called Super Mario Bro and The Tentacle Monster. It involves you as the Mario brothers getting brutally sodomized by a tentacle monster every time they fall in a hole or are hit while small. Also, Mario and Luigi are not red and green Italian plumbers, they're ex gay porn stars, fat ones, with hairy backsides and big beards wearing assless chaps and pasties. It's totally the same Mario Brothers we grew up with.

What Jim seems to ignore with DMC is.. this isn't claimed to be a spin off with new characters and new gameplay. It's the same game with the same character just the developer said "Nah, Dante is all gay and japanese, so we're gonna make him into eurotrash cause we think that's better. Screw you nerds." Has Dante done and said dumb crap before? Yeah, and? Because he has, it's okay to just totally rewrite a character that's existed for a decade just cause you can? It's not even an issue of "okay he's grown/changed as a character," or something as simple as shitty writing like with Metroid Other M; it's some new guy who we've never seen before walking in the door and stealing his name-tag. If you want to make a new character or a spin of or something, just do it. No one (okay, not no one, but far fewer) would have given a shit if DMC:DMC wanted to explore a different aspect of that universe, game styles, etc, and did it without Dante. But instead they just changed the character and said "Yep it's the same guy!"

Really, if we just say "I don't care, as long as it's good," how much longer until Sonic or Mario or Kirby are re-written as power-armor-wearing space-marine Dudebros trundling through a first person shooter and talking about their dicks the entire time?

If so many people hadn't spoken up about the decision to turn the Xcom series into a FPS, set in the cold war era, we probably wouldn't be waiting for a squad based Xcom game, being developed by Firaxis.

Point being, there's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of changing and evolving a franchise, with the aim of improving it but I'd draw the line where developers decide to create a vastly different game, that's unrecognizable from the original series and slap the name of said series on it. By then, you're not catering to the original fan base, at all, but instead capitalizing on a known IP, in order to push a product.

Also, Fallout 3 keeps being brought up as an example of a game that was universally hated by the fans of the franchise, during its development. Where exactly did those haters come from? I monitored the development of that game and was never aware of any harsh criticism. I was among the many who was looking forward to see it released, precisely because I could tell that Bethesda was being faithful to the source material.

I think Jim is running out of straw men to beat up, this one is a stretch.

Fans aren't pissed about names being re-used. They are pissed at blatant marketing bullshit which uses the names of the games they love to trivially increase the sales of half ass titles(Syndicate, XCOM FPS). A name comes with expectations and if the developers/publishers aren't even trying to meet those expectations then they do deserve the ire of the internet.

And besides there has been plenty of name reuse that worked great because it was a spinoff rather than a sequel or a reboot. XCOM Interceptor was a mediocre game but certainly worthy of the name. Ultima Underworld and Worlds of Ultima were great uses of the Ultima universe. But if Origin had named Ultima Underworld as Ultima 7 there would have been fan backlash and rightly so. Mega Man Legends was another good use of the name and idea to produce something original.

tl;dr

Using the name of an existing series is fine if it isn't an obvious marketing ploy.

What's interesting to me about this discussion is that it basically boils down to the lore's genesis. If the lore for a new video game draws from an old game, people will inevitably compare the two. However, if the lore instead draws from a movie, such as the Star Wars universe, it receives no such comparison, and the game gets judged on its standalone merit. No one compares Dark Forces (Star Wars FPS) to Rebellion (Star Wars 4x strategy) because they are not comparable. They are completely different genres.

Yet, people did compare Halo Wars (RTS) to the original Halo games (FPS). Why? There is no functional difference between using Halo lore vs. Star Wars lore, except that the former was originally a video game. This is the case with all game-lore-based genre shifts. Fallout shifted from 3rd-person story rpg to 1st-person quest-driven shooter with rpg elements. If Fallout 3 had, instead, been called something completely different and drawn from different lore, say Road Warrior universe, no one would complain that it lacked some elements of Fallout 2 because no one would compare them.

This, of course, breaks down when one considers the psychological expectations which result from using numbered sequels. The mind associates numbers with the standard pattern of increase which comes from years of counting. Thus, when we see XGame 2, we immediately make assumptions about how it had better improve upon XGame 1, or it doesn't deserve to be a sequel. In this case, complaints due to genre shifts are somewhat justified. If I watched Batman Begins and Dark Knight, and know that the Dark Knight Rises is the third in the trilogy, I would be justifiably upset if it turned out to be a romantic comedy starring Meg Ryan.

Yet, there are examples of successful genre-shifts in sequels as well. Take the Alien series for example. The first movie was a sci-fi suspense horror/slasher flick in a similar vein to The Thing. However, Aliens (the sequel) was an action shoot-em-up much like The Expendables. Despite this shift, both movies are widely considered to be great.

A similar shift happened in the original Star Wars trilogy where the first was a confidence-boosting coming of age movie, the second a suspenseful drama, and the third an action-thriller with teddy bears.

I disagree with this.

I'm a fan of the Hitman series, and before I saw a level walkthrough at E3 this year I was worried it was going to turn into an action heavy game with little to no stealth elements (it's marketed that way but it's like blood money where you have the option of going guns blazing but the emphasis is on stealth).

Stealth is the main draw of the hitman series, and while they could make a good action game and call it the next hitman (not a spin-off mind you), it would be such a jarring reversal of expectations that I probably wouldn't enjoy it as much if it were called something else. There are no real Hitman clones out there and it would very disappointing if they didn't even try to make the game I wanted and got a sale from me off the Hitman name which they had now tarnished (not because stealth games are inherently superior to action games though).

I might get over though and enjoy this hypothetical hitman game, but I wouldn't be disappointed and have to adjust expectations if it weren't called hitman.

I strongly disagree with you Jim.

The reason for that is, that I think making a spin-off does not give give you carte blanche to do anything you want to. Even if it is a spin-off, all that it means is, that it is not a part of the main series and possibly non canon, but still a part of the setting and some settings simply do not support certain genres.

For example, you could never convince me that an Street Fighter rts could work, because the setting simply doesn't have what an rts needs, that being some kind of different factions in conflict with one another on a big scale.
As a positive example where a spin-off works is Halo as an rts (Halo: Wars). The reason why it fits is that from the fps titles in the series, we know of this huge galactic conflict between these two civilisations, so a game taking place on a bigger scale like an rts makes sense.

On Silent Hill:
The reason why this spin-off doesn't work is that Silent Hill has always been about suspense and horror and the monsters you encounter were representations of the protagonists psychological issues. What makes them work as a horror game is their atmosphere and the gameplay reinforcing that atmosphere, such as managing limited resources and fighting monsters being more of a liability than advantageous. But in a dungeon crawler, to advance in the game you have to deliberately get into fights with many monsters and doing so rewards you with loot and experience. These two things, avoiding fights because they are dangerous and drain your resources and fighting monsters to get stronger, are diametrically opposed.
This undermines a fundamental aspect of what defines Silent Hill. If they had made a point and click adventure game instead, I would be more open to it, because the psychological and horror aspects are compatible with the core game mechanics.

This is same principle also applies to Syndicate.
The core of Syndicate was controlling a group of faceless and nameless agents to ensure the dominance of one of the many faceless megacorporations in the world. The setting itself is just generic cyberpunk.
Turning it into an fps simply doesn't work because it was defined by it's gameplay. If you take that away and turn it into a shooter, you just get generic cyberpunk shooter and not 'Syndicate', because Syndicate doesn't have anything else that makes it what it is.

You see, I'd somewhat disagree. Silent Hill: Book Of Memories I'm very wary of because it's a Silent Hill game and everything past Silent Hill 4 has been mediocre at best. My biggest problem with Book Of Memories is it doesn't have the same feel, but I can get over it with no problem. However, the new Devil May Cry game? I'm not sure besides the core mechanic and core story what's connecting it to the original Devil May Cry games. If you're going to shove a name onto your series because you're connecting it some how, then fantastic. However, if you're putting the Devil May Cry name onto a game that seems to have a few cosmetic similarities and by just changing the name of the characters you can pretty much turn it into a new game, then this is what's called a cash-cow.

I kinda agree with Jim's point that a game, a spin-off especially, shouldn't color people's expectations about a game. I honestly expect direct sequels of games to at least follow a format similar to that of its predecessor, and most franchises (Mario, Halo, CoD (sadly), Zelda, etc.) tend to do that, while spin-offs tend to be an experimentation or a kind of different take on the franchise, either with a different world or a different genre.

And sometimes it works. I honestly thought Halo Wars did pretty well and, while it may have been a shallow RTS, it was still an enjoyable play and there's still some iota of strategy with rushing and micromanagement with the 360 control. It's not Starcraft, obviously, but for what it was, it was pretty good, and I enjoyed it. I don't care for Silent Hill or DMC, so I don't care for the two games that Jim brought up, but from what I saw:

1) Book of Memories looks exactly like the definition spin-off: It takes the universe of the franchise but puts it under a different light, genre, or alternate reality, in this case being a genre. I don't get people's thoughts of a series being 'colored' by a spin-off, though. Did we honestly think Mario Party was going to forever change the core Mario franchise by inserting a minigame every five seconds in the main games?

2) I don't get the hate for the new DMC games. Sure, it's probably because I didn't play them and I don't care for art design all that much, but the protagonist in that game looked to be doing as wild and ridiculous of antics as the original Dante, so it's probably the art design and some fan reaction I wouldn't get because I'm not a fan. I won't judge; I'll just say that, from my perspective, it seems silly.

The only times when innovation leads to betrayal is when they deliberately change mechanics in the franchise's core games. Syndicate, for instance, radically switched genres when it showed no signs of being a spin-off, but to be fair, it was again EA, and I doubt anyone would've bought the game either as it turned out to be (mediocre FPS) or how it was before, since our market is pretty narrow-minded. As to the last point, while I was never a fan of the Dead Space games, Dead Space 3 gives me a bit of a bitter feeling because that's a franchise being deliberately tailored by marketing rather than the original intention of the game designers. Dead Space wasn't the best horror game ever, but I wouldn't want to see all of the charm that made it somewhat unique before sucked out of it. Even if the game was still good, it'll still feel wrong.

You know, I agreed with this, but then I saw a commercial for a certain video game.

If a game called 'Darksiders 2: Death Lives' doesn't suck, then I will die of shock. For cripes sake. What part of that name tells you that there is a chance that game will be anything but terrible.

Perfect example of this (though not a game the principal still applies):

Alien was a claustrophobic horror suspense film, but then along came Aliens approaching the exact same universe but in a totally different way and IT WAS AWESOME! It was perfect. It was an eternal classic. It was the original from which all tropes are wrought.

And it completely broke the rule that sequels had to follow the same tone as the prequel.

reminds me of all the people "Crash bandicoot sucks now because its not Naughty Dog!"

I played Ceysis 2 and didn't think it was as good as the first one. Crysis 3 looks a lot like Crysis 2, but my attitude is to wait till after it's out know for sure. Who knows, maybe it will be better then the first, only one way to fine out.

making changes to a game is one thing, and spin offs are fine if the main game persists.
but the disturbing trend of digging up long dead franchises(x-com,syndicate,ext) and stitching them together with an fps just doesn't make any sense.
God forbid they make a new IP.

It feels along the same lines as: "we know how much you loved your old dog, so we dug it up and stapled it to the move poster for the new twilight move clone, now don't you want to go see it?"

Another great example of games bucking their heritage and being awesome is Lara Croft: Guardian of Light. Taking what was a series all about third person exploring that had lately just become exploiting Lara's sexuality, GoL decided "You know what, screw it. Let's not play up Lara's cup size, and let's make it a top down, twin stick shooter-platformer."

And it was FUCKING AWESOME.

The counterpoint to this video is the concept of "In Name Only". There have been more than a few games (and other things) that were connected to a more popular series by only it's name. It's a cheap marketing tactic, but a tactic that works... sometimes.

Thank you for standing up for Banjo-Kazooie: N&B. IT'S LEGOS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

A game I've wanted since I was 6 years old and dreamt of a block perepheral that plugged into the NES and somehow detected the other blocks connected to it to use in-game.