Franchises that failed to "evolve"

[Menegrothx]

Kinda on topic: Is it wrong that there are some franchises that I'd prefer not to see evolve?

No. The problem is when developers, especially ones who had nothing to do with the original games, decide to change the direction of a series for no apparent reason. All the pointless stupid gimmicks in Sonic games over the years. Turning 2D games into 3D games when going from 16 bit to 32 bit systems (Earthworm Jim, Castlevania and Mega Man in 3D, going from 2D graphics to 3D graphics in adventure games etc). Bastardizing games and genres into something that's popular at the moment (ie turning Syndicate, the new XCOM and Resident Evil&Silent Hill games into shooters and so on).

Campster/Errant Signal said it best in his Tony Hawk's Pro Skater-analysis (IIRC): It's a shame that the gaming industry does not recognize nor respect mechanical perfection when it sees it. Even though it's a great game, going from classic Castlevania games to Symphony of the Night is a good example of this phenomenon.
If something isn't broken, don't try to fix it. If new mechanics are superficial and gimmicky and don't flow well with the gameplay, they're useless. He described THPS 3 as a game where adding any new element to it would be superfluous and possibly detrimental, while removing any element from the game would also harm the game, a game design equilibrium.
@Hatta

I think you just don't like 3d platformers

False. Ape Escape, Crash Bandicoot and to lesser extent Ratchet&Clank and Jak and Daxter games are my childhood favorites that I still like, and Alice, Sonic Adventure&Generations, Super Mario Galaxy and Jumping Flash games are 3D platformers that I found at an later age that I thoroughly enjoy.

The problem is that I expect the same kind of enjoyment and design out of 3D platformers that I do from 2D platformers, and that's just ain't gonna happen.

But Psychonauts had great writing, great levels, and was thankfully unafflicted with collectingitis which ruins so many 3d platformers.

Wth are you on about? The cobwebs, the figments of imagination, the sidequests etc. Sure it's no DK64, but the game was full of collecting meaningless crap that didn't feel fun nor rewarding to me the same way as getting all the boxes in a Crash Bandicoot level does
[/quote]

[ZenErik]

Waiting for the discussion about how sports games are just roster updates and never evolve according to folks that don't like sports and/or don't play the games.

While I don't play them much anymore either, they've changed a lot over the years. You just might not notice if you don't play actually play them.

[Sload Soap]

Is it too obvious to say Call of Duty?

[oxymoron]

Waiting for the discussion about how sports games are just roster updates and never evolve according to folks that don't like sports and/or don't play the games.

While I don't play them much anymore either, they've changed a lot over the years. You just might not notice if you don't play actually play them.

My brother loves sports games and slaps $65 every year. He rationalizes it by saying it has "X" number of new manager modes, "better" gameplay mechanics, and lets you play as *insert retired famous player*.

@Sload
COD might as well just slap ''2K'' at the end of their name too. Considering they're doing the same shit.

[Sload Soap]

I'm not really trying to have a dig at COD, mostly because I haven't played one through since COD:MOD2, but it does seem to reiterate rather than evolve. Obviously it works as a business plan but a change of setting doesn't mean a fresh experience.

[oxymoron]

Obviously it works as a business plan but a change of setting doesn't mean a fresh experience.

@Sload
COD might as well just slap ''2K'' at the end of their name too. Considering they're doing the same shit.

[Menegrothx]

I don't see how COD is "doing the same shit" when they have 3, soon 4 different settings for the series. Yet people don't criticize IPs like Puyo Puyo, Bomberman or the Katamari-games (just to name a few). Milking franchises dry is the problem, not necessarily the lack of evolution within subsequent titles. Though like Egoraptor said it (I'm quoting a lot of people on this thread): I've already played the original, let's see how the sequel can improve that. Some series can stay relatively same game after game and not become "stagnant", others can't. Depends on the game and on the consumers. I guess people got sick of classic Mega Man in the mid 1990s so they kind of stopped doing them, but every one loved Mega Man 9 and to lesser extent 10 because it had been such a long time since we had seen a pure Mega Man game.

[oxymoron]

I don't see how COD is "doing the same shit" when they have 3, soon 4 different settings for the series. Yet people don't criticize IPs like Puyo Puyo, Bomberman or the Katamari-games (just to name a few)

Sports games update the roster, "improve" gameplay mechanics, and add the ability to play as a famous retied player such as Larry Bird. COD in a nutshell does the same. They takes the last game and change the variables such as setting, guns, enemies. While keeping the story and characters almost identical.

[Menegrothx]

So they change the scenery, some of the tools etc while retaining the core gameplay mechanics. How does that make it different from any of thousands of others video game sequels? The stories might be rehashed, I wouldn't know because I haven't played any of the recent COD games, but I don't see how that is relevant in a game like COD where the story is poorly written and irrelevant anyways. And many other games pull the same thing, like Zelda. I don't see any one saying that every new Mario and Mega Man game is the same old shit because Bowser kidnapped the princess AGAIN or Dr Wily is being evil AGAIN. Although with Mario you could make the legitimate argument that most new Mario games are kind of uninspired and feel like rehashes (while the new game that launches the new console generation is often innovative in some way).

[Sload Soap]

I thought we were talking mostly gameplay mechanics, which is why I brought up COD. As I said, yes the setting changes, but the core gameplay and game engine has not altered since the second game, just been touched up a bit here and there. That is not evolution as far as what I understand the OP to be getting at.

And honestly, I am one of those people who feel that you need two at best versions of Bomberman (although in the B-man's favour he did try to be a 3D platform hero for a while there).