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.
RESIDENT EVIL (1996) Original Cast Reunion & Interview with Linda - Rebecca Chambers, Charlie Kraslavsky, Greg Smith & Eric Pirius.
A fan-made Resident Evil short film has been released, and it tells the story of one of the original game's most terrifying and iconic diary entries.
Fantastic homage to a memorable part of the original. The authenticity to the source material is outstanding and blows away all of the pathetic Hollywood adaptations that we've had to endure as fans. The addition of Chris Redfield's original actor AND (separate) voice actor is fantastic! Heck, even the CGI was pretty good given the total budget of $55k to make this.
Yeah this seemed so much more like cannon to me. I’d watch more of it if / when it’s available.
Salman From Tech4Gamers writes "Once a big deal in gaming, stealth gaming, all about sneaking around, planning, and staying cool under pressure, seems to have faded away."
"The decline of the stealth genre can be traced back to several factors. One big problem is that many games today sacrifice stealth for more action-packed scenes.
Even titles labelled as “stealth” often turn into loud shootouts soon after starting. The emphasis has shifted from sneaky strategies to just charging in and shooting, with stealth almost forgotten."
And that's what disappointed me the most about MGS4. While still a good game, it largely abandoned it's stealth roots that made the series so compelling. Since, I've gotten my stealth fix from the likes of TLOU, Hitman, and less popular tiles like Shadow Tactics.
Hmm, MGS4 had the same liberties as all prior MGS games. You could do a complete stealth no kill run in mgs4 with no issue. While also giving a large array of gameplay variations that enhanced the experience.
No MG game except Revengeance has not been able to have complete stealth runs.
@Lexreborn2
True, there were indeed non lethal runs in MGS4. Perhaps I used the wrong wording, but I was more so referring to the 'guns blazing' aspect of the gameplay. This was something that wasn't easily accomplished in the prior games of the series. One reason being that you had limited ammo. In MGS4, you had virtually all the arsenal and ammo you'd ever need early on in the game by way of Drebin points. This alone made stealth all but unnecessary, and resulted in a much easier game than previous entries. That's what the article's alluding to.
@DaReapa
You could go guns blazing even in MGS1, I know 'cause I sucked at stealth at the time and I still beat that game by simply going gung ho on the lowest difficulty and replaying multiple parts over and over 'till I eventually made it.. And it was never the case that the games simply allowed you to just play Rambo instead of a spy with no punishment, you always had a much harder time trying to be a one man army on higher difficulties than just being furtive, so it was always very much stealth first and foremost, the supposed appeal to action in MGS4 was never an issue, they added more weapons and tactics which made all out war a more viable option in some parts but not all of the game and never the ideal course of action. In fact MGS4 have, just like all other MGS games (even the open world unfinished mess that was MGS5), a score system which will rank your run and the point system, like always, favored stealth, non-lethal approaches... Not only the rank/emblem is tied to playing stealth, the game had multiple item unlocks and trophies which you could only ever get by playing it furtively... Hardly anything required you to play guns blazing.
So can we please stop making bullshit up about MGS4 already? I don't know if you were mad the game skipped your platform of choice in favor of the PS3 or if it devalued your life achievement of beating a silly game by being a little more accessible or whatever else was the issue, but it was some 15 years ago, it's time to let go of this whole they abandoned stealth bullshit, they never did that, in fact, it was the second best stealth mechanics in the entire franchise, behind only MGSV, which allowed an even more complex stealth system (and even more open combat too if you wished, because that's what the increasing technology of different generations allowed) but I would argue MGS4 still took more advantage of their stealth mechanics than MGSV ever realized (largely because of open world vs linear structure, but still...). Yes, you could play like a normal shooter action adventure, but you could even more easily had played it like one of the best stealth action games ever. If you choose not to, that's on you.
MGS 4 most certainly did not abandon its stealth roots. As someone who got pretty much every rank you could achieve in that game. I can assure you, that is not the case.
In my opinion as far as modern stealth mechanics and freedom of approach I think V is the best we’ve had so far
Interesting, I would however add that I think part of the decline in interest in many recent stealth games, Assassin’s Creed as a prime example, has been that instead of the stealth play being the fun, it’s been RPG’d as a character choice akin to playing as a mage or a thief with all the same drawbacks and things which turns many players away (upgrade grinding, obscure overly complex skill and equipment upgrade trees). One thing about MGS, Splinter Cell, early Hitman and early Assassin's Creed etc was that they were games you picked up and played with the game the feature, not supplemental to homework hidden in the pause menu.
The novelty has worn off for 'pure' stealth games. They are too tedious. I personally like a good mix.
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.