What franchises ought to do - catering to the fans or widening their appeal - is a very divisive subject among gamers. But before the argument even begins, why not at least try to assess whether or not widening a franchise’s appeal actually helps or hinder subsequent sales? Here, we have a look at the data for 5 million selling series.
Got that retro survival horror bug? Here's Chit Hot's picks for the seven best survival horror games from yesteryear.
Eternal Darkness was way ahead of its time especially for a Nintendo exclusive.
I would love to see a remake or sequel (multiplatform)
4 people love Eternal Darkness.
Quick! Jump on that remake, whoever holds the rights these days.
GameFlavor's Resident Evil First Aid Drink is making a comeback, offering high quality Resident Evil merch.
Games like Lethal Company end up scary because of their freeform nature, while Resident Evil's polish and storytelling ultimately make them rather tame in comparison. Agree or disagree?
So there appears to be lots of evidence to suggest that trying to appeal to wider audiences, dumbing down or rebooting a game, doesn't help it and yet its only happening more and more.
Yeah?
Problem is you have to consider franchise momentum. People buy a game based on the next entry and things like reboots can be used to basically reset that short term memory. Look at splinter cell. Conviction pops out and lots of old fans cry and the publisher feels it in their wallet but then what's blacklist but another reboot. People retain optimism and think it might get better. It's a reboot right so it might be better? Not really.
So really it's gonna take another few games before some crafty companies like ubisoft feel the pain of their stupidity. Other companies like crytek felt the pain in reduced sales almost immediately but still show no sign of genuine repentence.
Seriously they're all idiots.
Capcom has actually come out and said that Resident Evil 5 was their best selling game of the series. So there's definitely something to be said for that.
I'm one if the people that jumped onto RE with 4. I had always heard about the game, but never felt it was quite what I was looking for. Then I heard about 4 and gave it a shot, and freaking loved it. It's in my top 5 of all time.
But the reverse would be Mass Effect 2. Let me just say right away, I DONT care for RPGs. It takes something truly special for me to want to play one. The first I played and loved was KOTOR. So since it was Bioware I gave ME a go. I Loved the first one. The story was amazing. Exploration was fun. Combat was good enough. And I spent Hours customizing my weapons and armor to where I wanted it. Then ME2 came out and threw it all out the window. I liked ME2 as a game, but not as a sequel to ME.
"A game that everyone likes."
That's a tall order. Let's try to understand what it means first. For starters this concept would be coming from the developers table. It is more than likely it sources from the demand to make more money. They want to make a game that becomes a hit and sells alot. They are willing to apply this concept to already established franchises as well as new ones.
Realistically, it is near impossible to make everyone happy, although that is the developer's goal. Since we can rationalize that developers want mass appeal to get more money, we can then tie that to sales numbers. If we tie that to sales numbers then we can get an idea of what types of games are selling the most. If we tie the content of the highest selling games and merge that with the content of current franchises then we can start to see where video games are heading.
The biggest selling products seem to involve online, family, and friends. Because of that the main driver to invoke high sales strongly ties in with level of popularity and word of mouth. Now, the question to answer is this: Does a game become popular because it is great or does it become popular because the person who plays it is?
From my experience the best games I have ever played never really amounted to the sales these developers are shooting for. Nor have I ever seen a strong tie between great games and high sales. I do, however, know that popularity plays a really strong role in game sales, regardless of the quality of the video game. I also know that the maturity factor plays a big role. Meaning a mature title is more likely to cut off most of the audience rather than a title meant for "everyone". Why? Well because a title for everyone can still be appealing to older audiences.
I believe the developers are lost and have no clue that the video game industry is no longer about making great games based on their content. It is now a fashion statement these developers are seeking. Just look at the trends. Family, fitness, friends, service, celebraties, convienance, gimmicks, apps, mutlifunctional features, nongaming related features, etc. Anything but video games. And the franchises they got right, they decide to change that too. They will end up losing their core audience and the people they are shooting for. Why? Because those people really aren't into gaming. They are into everything else you don't understand. That's why the industry expanded this much in the first place.