Why is Square Enix dishonouring the essence of so many series?

Since its acquisition of Eidos in 2009, Square Enix has become the custodian of several cherished series. So it has gone about rebooting and revising them in recent years, with varying degrees of success. Each new game superficially appears to understand its lineage, but close inspection reveals the results of misjudged tampering.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
KinjoTakemura1494d ago

Square themselves admitted to trying to pander to "casual gamers" when making these games. Casual gamers usually like easy, uncomplicated games with horrible AI, hence the end result are games like Thief. Bland, horribly planned, unintuitive menus and user interfaces, and using the "research" of other nitwits to dictate the direction of the game's flow. Trying to please everyone in this business is never a good idea. The perfect example is xbox1 and it's current status in the gaming industry. Different people have different tastes, but when you try to mix all of those tastes into one bowl, you'll probably get a puke worthy concoction.

1494d ago
-Foxtrot1494d ago (Edited 1494d ago )

Some of there games still hold up like Hitman and Tomb Raider but at the end of the day them trying to focus on the casual/action focused audience doesn't make those games feel true to the franchise

I mean take Tomb Raider for example, good game but doesn't feel like a Tomb Raider game at all. It feels like a more open Uncharted clone at times, hell for a TOMB Raider games the tombs were optional and were easy as hell (they all looked the same). While Hitman...well I don't know about you but it didn't feel as challenging, I never got the same feel from it like Blood Money

KonsoruMasuta1494d ago (Edited 1494d ago )

As I stated in my comment below, Tomb Raider was going for an action focus before Square Enix touched it.

Legends and Underworld both had an increased focus on gunfights and action.

-Foxtrot1494d ago (Edited 1494d ago )

But they could of took things slow

When you reboot something you don't just go straight into the deep end, they should of spent the first game staying true to the series and over the course of the game, slowly turn Lara into the women she was in the original games. They just suddenly turned her character in the reboot, one minute she's this sweet, innocent girl and then BAM, she's a killing machine, after her first game she seems to quickly brush off.

I mean below you talk about Legends and Underworld but they were nothing like the reboot. Sure they were a little action focused, it's one of things not many people were fond off but the reboot is on steroids half the time. The amount of times she has one of those QTE, nearly dies moments is unreal

They should of stuck to the original Lara's origin story from the first trilogy

Lara's plane goes down in the Himalayas, her parents and fiancée die, she's the only survivor and she has to make her way through the harsh, cold snowy mountains to find safety. She apparently survived for 2 weeks before she came across a village to call home.

I could imagine ancient, secret tombs in the mountains, wild predators and maybe small groups of hunters living in the mountains.

Could of been a fantastic survival game and it might of stayed more true to the series.

boldscot1494d ago

But then we wouldn't have any gunz N splosionz, this is what the gamerz want.

KinjoTakemura1494d ago

There was nothing wrong with the original Tomb Raider story line. They should've stayed true to the Tomb Raider genre, not have her running through the jungle killing people. And let's not even talk about the pointless multiplayer, that would make an entire story on it's own. "Too many flavors mixed into a bowl gets you what?"

serratos271494d ago

Especially when playing multiplayer it felt so much like Uncharted.

Ghost_Nappa1494d ago

Yeah, hard to be concerned with laras survival when your blasting bandits in the face with an incendiary shotgun 2hrs in.

-Foxtrot1494d ago

Not to mention regenerating health

I mean the health kits would of been perfect if this was a true survival game.

KonsoruMasuta1494d ago (Edited 1494d ago )

Although I agree with Hitman and Thief, Tombs Raider was already moving in the action/ third person shooter direction before Square got their hands on it.

I'm surprised nobody remembers Legends and Underworld, which focused a lot on action. Nobody was buying the games when it was sticking to the same formula. I remember reviewers complaining about the older games being "more of the same". Sales were decreasing with each installment and the series was inching closer to death. This was one of the reasons the series went on a 5 years hiatus. If it wasn't for Square, the series would have probably died.

Keep in mind that this was once a yearly franchise.

Bluebird81494d ago

Why do gamers expect that every sequel should be as good as or better than the original release?

It's not like you expect any movie with the nummber 2 behind the title to be as good or better.

Play the good games, if you buy it based on the name alone, well what can i say? you're not the sharpest tool in the shed..

DragonKnight1494d ago

"Why do gamers expect that every sequel should be as good as or better than the original release?"

Because that's common sense. Why would you expect it to be worse than the original. It is logical to expect that if the original does well, then the sequels should build on what the original did and also do well or better, not completely reinvent itself and throw away what the original did.

"It's not like you expect any movie with the nummber 2 behind the title to be as good or better."

Literally everyone expects that, except maybe you.

"Play the good games, if you buy it based on the name alone, well what can i say? you're not the sharpest tool in the shed."

Man, your whole comment is filled with ignorance. People buy games based on the name if there have been repeated successes, or if the first game was so phenomenal you want to see how the sequel does. That's why there are 6 Gran Turismo's, 15 Final Fantasies, and innumerable Mario games. How long have you been gaming?

Pug1494d ago

Knight takes Koala..check

KinjoTakemura1493d ago

Bluebird is the typical casual gamer.

STK0261494d ago

Here's the thing, when franchises don't evolve and don't keep up with the rest of the gaming world, people and critics will say that the game is stuck in the past, more of the same and that it might be time for the franchise to be put on indefinite hiatus until it can find a way to become relevant once more. Until then, the series will suffer from declining sales, and if nothing is done, the publisher will lose money and write off the entire franchise as being dead.

On the other hand, if said franchises change their formula to be more in line with what every one else is doing, people will go and say that they have removed the soul and essence of the series, that it doesn't feel like the original game and that it should never have been made.

But, at the end of the day, what really matters to a publisher will be the sale numbers, and as far as Tomb Raider goes, the new formula has proven to be much more viable than the old one, although it still did not meet SE's stupidly high expectations. For Thief though, the game simply did not meet gamer's standards and it failed miserably. Finally, for Hitman, the last game was good, great even, but it simply wasn't enough. But let's not forget that Hitman games have been hit or miss in the past as well, the first one, Agent 47, was pretty bad, while Silent Assassin was great. Contracts was a step backwards, but Blood Money was in my opinion the best in the series.

Show all comments (21)