Yeah, I wouldn't consider the last 2 AC games reboots. However they are definitely in that odd grey area. You can't really call them spinoffs since they are direct sequels to AC 2. However, I wouldn't consider them pure sequels, since (looking at the series' naming conventions) that would be AC 3. I did like them from the perspective of getting more from the story. However, I also remember when Brotherhood came out and I immediately had the thought "Why can't they just release number 3?" It's a very fine line between providing useful story information and milking the series for as much money as you can get.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I suppose they could be considered spinoffs in the sense that any of the Kingdom Hearts games (besides 1 and 2) are spinoffs. They are all directly linked to the story (with some like Chain of Memories being direct sequels) but I wouldn't all them sequels.
Comment has been collapsed.
You do bring up an issue that can be confusing. There are ways to keep the heart of a game intact without destroying what made everything so great about it. DMC3 would be an example of that - improved gameplay, same awesomeness. In the case of FPS games though, keeping the gameplay exactly the same and just updating the visuals just leads to outdated mechanics. That's why people rag on Halo and MW a lot.
tldr: You have a special something that makes a game unique - keep that. That's what people enjoyed. You have the things around it that make interacting those special things fun - find out how to make them more fun and add new ways. Simple as that.
Comment has been collapsed.
138 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by Sardaukar
28 Comments - Last post 24 minutes ago by ColdOut
1,352 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by stlpaul
15,420 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by BHTrellis188
19 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by Chris76de
503 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by Wok
11 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by magicmase
652 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by Gigant250
66 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by hbarkas
28 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by scorkla
100 Comments - Last post 19 minutes ago by hbarkas
10,390 Comments - Last post 36 minutes ago by CultofPersonalitea
657 Comments - Last post 39 minutes ago by alexfirehouse
82 Comments - Last post 49 minutes ago by Microfish
I'm wondering about people's opinions on this subject. I've been seeing a lot of hate towards things like the new Fable and DMC games lately because they seem so different from the originals. People claim that they want the series to remain similar to the first one. However, then people complain that the games are the same and there's no point in buying them (look at MW3).
I understand that it's a complicated topic and there's many different circumstances but I'm hoping to gain a better understanding of the various viewpoints.
I personally welcome spinoffs with open arms. It's often a great way to expand on the in-game universe while not presenting the issue of repetitive gameplay.
As for sequels, changes are completely acceptable as long as the core concept is maintained and there's a logical reason for the changes. For example: Fable 1 and 2. Both share the same core concept of being action RPGs where you are able to make many moral choices. However, the main difference between the 2 (in my opinion) is the change to the magic system. However, if you think about the situation from a story perspective, the changes make sense. In Fable 1, you have formal training in the ways of the hero. Therefore it's reasonable that you have access to a wider range of spells. In Fable 2, you have to pick things up instinctively as you go. With this scenario it makes sense that you wouldn't necessarily know as many spells, but would be able to focus more on the ones you can learn.
Comment has been collapsed.