Which series should come to an end?

[Freedan]

Oh my God, I'm starting a thread.

So over the years, we've seen a lot of game series come along. Mario, Final Fantasy, Zelda, Metal Gear, Metroid, just to name a few.

My question is: which series (if any) do you feel should be put to rest? Has one worn out its welcome, and no longer brings anything significant to the table?

Oh, Guitar Hero, you silly beast. I think it's time you took a dirt nap.

Counting the DS titles (which were completely necessary, apparently), there are what...? 14 titles? It started on consoles in 2005. And if there was ever a case to be made for series stagnation, this is their poster child.

What does each new game bring us? A new bundle of songs. And that's pretty much it. They play more or less identically. Granted, there's fun to be had, but as each game is essentially an expansion pack, I see no reason why the new bundle of songs can't be DLC for an existing game. Why does Aerosmith need their own game? Or Metallica? Or the possibility of Red Hot Chili Peppers?

Some will say that Mario or Zelda are being milked for all they're worth as a cash cow. I say 14 games in 6 years makes GH more of a cash cow than those other series could ever be. Put the series to rest, already.

[Mantaray]

couldn't agree more on the guitar hero one. so many, who could keep up with it all?

for now, all i can think of are the dragonball z and naruto games. unless they're working to improve their stories and battle systems, we need no more there's like... 5 new ones every year. believe it.

[SoulBlazerFan]

Well, there was a change. GH 4 (Known as GH: World Tour) added the band element. That was okay... but considering Rock Band had a full year jump on them, I'd say there were a tad late to the party.

Rock Band has several titles too, only being three years old. Instead of new games, they released "Track Packs" that were little more than half the Rock Band 1 engine with some DLC strewn about. They probably broke the 10 game mark as well.

There's games won't stop until people stop buying them. Why stop making them if there's more money to be made? Plus, everyone's waiting to see which brand gets Led Zepplin- that will bring a whole new audience into it, just as they tried with the Beatles: Rock Band.

[Jason Tandro]

As much as I love the series, Zelda should come to an end. The core of the gameplay has not undergone any significant changes since the switch from 2D to 3D and the storylines, while varied in the set pieces, follow the same general mold.

But that is all moot compared to the real reason I want the series to end: SO MIYAMOTO WILL PIECE TOGETHER THE DAMN TIMELINE AND PUT THE ISSUE TO BED!

[Edit: Oh I can hear tay furiously typing a rebuttle to my ignorance. ]


On that note Final Fantasy could go on forever, but I think they're gonna have to get more creative with their names soon, because lets face it anything past Final Fantasy 15 is gonna be a little embarrasing to own.

I can hear my kid now...

"Yes I own Final Fantasy 29. I think it's the best in the series."

But the think is each Final Fantasy is so different they really are games unto their own, so spare them the hangman's noose.


And Mario is the face of video games, but i think a new generation calls for a new mascot...

[tay120n64]

Zelda doesn't need to die, and the fact that the gameplay has remained largely unchanged is one of the reasons for that. We, as gamers, need safety nets. Series we can return to when we want to know, without any doubt, that the game will be good and will play exactly how we want it to. Games like Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, and Dragon Quest accomplish this.

But yes, Guitar Hero needs to die. Sonic the Hedgehog probably needs to die too (but only after they make Sonic Adventure 3).

[Blade]

As far as I care, Pokémon could've died after 2. gen. I find every new Pokémon just plain disgusting and artificial. If you compare the designs of 1. gen and (I dunno) 3. or 4., it's horrific.

off topic: Zelda will hopefully never die, and with Skyward Sword, we'll see the last "traditional" Zelda...let's see what's next!

The worst thing that happened to the series is the whole "Timeline Issue". If you want to study a science, do it, but don't make Zelda something that it isn't. I'm quite sad that they picked up on it at one point <.< . It's a fantasy game, and => it relies on your fantasy. Over explaining everything is killing this, imo.
If you (??) enjoy beer, you simply enjoy drinking it, and don't talk about how it was produced in what way.

[SoulBlazerFan]

Actually, one I think should've ended ages ago was Lara Croft. They killed her off in the 4th game, and made roughly eight more after that. Alot of them weren't very good, and they've constantly tried to reinvent her, but were not able to. Most recently, they announced a new game (Not that arcade one, but another new main title) and have decided to take her back to her roots- as in, before she raided tombs.

She'll be a teenager, with no experience, and you're job as a player is to help her survive after a boat she is on crashes on an island. They are trying to deepen her character, and get her away from her sexpot image. I'm all for that but, what happens when this game, or the one after it, tanks? I say, end it now. They had a (Somewhat) good run. Let it be.

[tay120n64]

Actually, one I think should've ended ages ago was Lara Croft. They killed her off in the 4th game, and made roughly eight more after that. Alot of them weren't very good, and they've constantly tried to reinvent her, but were not able to. Most recently, they announced a new game (Not that arcade one, but another new main title) and have decided to take her back to her roots- as in, before she raided tombs.

She'll be a teenager, with no experience, and you're job as a player is to help her survive after a boat she is on crashes on an island. They are trying to deepen her character, and get her away from her sexpot image. I'm all for that but, what happens when this game, or the one after it, tanks? I say, end it now. They had a (Somewhat) good run. Let it be.

I don't like the idea of de-sexing a character I like because they are sexualized. I play Tomb Raider because Lara Croft has bosoms and she's a badass. Take away the bosoms and the badass and you're left with nothing.

Tomb Raider Legend was an amazing game with or without Lara, but still. I like hot chicks in my video games. A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE HOT CHICKS IN THEIR VIDEO GAMES.

Also, Ocarina of Time killed The Legend of Zelda. The Legend of Zelda will forever be dead because Ocarina of Time had to go and eff up the plot. All story complaints can be rooted back to Ocarina of Time, its ending, and its immense popularity.

EXCUSE ME WHILST I GO OFF ON A TANGENT. The biggest slice of evidence that no one cares about Zelda's story is Four Swords Adventures. FSA was developed as a prequel to A Link to the Past. It was supposed to deal with the Imprisoning War, Ganondorf's Rise, and the events leading to his acquisition of the Triforce. Instead, it completely retconned the Imprisoning War out of the canon, further convoluted the theories behind the Light Force and the Triforce, and downplayed many aspects of ALttP that were initially important. During an interview with Miyamoto about FSA, he stated that many aspects of the story were, "...changed because they conflicted with the gameplay."

WTF.

And so, Nintendo will never care about the story of Zelda, but they will continue to act like they do, and they will tell you there is Zelda-canon, but unless they feel like claiming that certain games are either A) non-canon or B) part of a different story/timeline/canon, anyone interested in piecing it together can just try to kiss their own ass in lieu of Nintendo's, because no amount of it is going to make them care.

[SoulBlazerFan]

Actually, one I think should've ended ages ago was Lara Croft. They killed her off in the 4th game, and made roughly eight more after that. Alot of them weren't very good, and they've constantly tried to reinvent her, but were not able to. Most recently, they announced a new game (Not that arcade one, but another new main title) and have decided to take her back to her roots- as in, before she raided tombs.

She'll be a teenager, with no experience, and you're job as a player is to help her survive after a boat she is on crashes on an island. They are trying to deepen her character, and get her away from her sexpot image. I'm all for that but, what happens when this game, or the one after it, tanks? I say, end it now. They had a (Somewhat) good run. Let it be.

I don't like the idea of de-sexing a character I like because they are sexualized. I play Tomb Raider because Lara Croft has bosoms and she's a badass. Take away the bosoms and the badass and you're left with nothing.

Tomb Raider Legend was an amazing game with or without Lara, but still. I like hot chicks in my video games. A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE HOT CHICKS IN THEIR VIDEO GAMES.

Also, Ocarina of Time killed The Legend of Zelda. The Legend of Zelda will forever be dead because Ocarina of Time had to go and eff up the plot. All story complaints can be rooted back to Ocarina of Time, its ending, and its immense popularity.

EXCUSE ME WHILST I GO OFF ON A TANGENT. The biggest slice of evidence that no one cares about Zelda's story is Four Swords Adventures. FSA was developed as a prequel to A Link to the Past. It was supposed to deal with the Imprisoning War, Ganondorf's Rise, and the events leading to his acquisition of the Triforce. Instead, it completely retconned the Imprisoning War out of the canon, further convoluted the theories behind the Light Force and the Triforce, and downplayed many aspects of ALttP that were initially important. During an interview with Miyamoto about FSA, he stated that many aspects of the story were, "...changed because they conflicted with the gameplay."

WTF.

And so, Nintendo will never care about the story of Zelda, but they will continue to act like they do, and they will tell you there is Zelda-canon, but unless they feel like claiming that certain games are either A) non-canon or B) part of a different story/timeline/canon, anyone interested in piecing it together can just try to kiss their own ass in lieu of Nintendo's, because no amount of it is going to make them care.

I like my over-sexualization in gaming as much as the next guy. That said, I also like story-driven games as well- if there happen to be hot digital ladies, well, I'm all for it. I do agree, changing what made the character popular IN THE FIRST PLACE is a really weak idea- it tries to bring in a new audience st the expense of the existing fanbase.

I liken it to the new Nightmare On Elm Street film. In the remake, in various interviews, the director, writer, and actor all said the same thing; the new Freddy would not crack jokes or be funny at all- just evil. Now sure, the original first film he wasn't the comical jokester he later became- but 3 and 4 made ALOT more money and for a time Robert Englund, as well as Freddy Krueger, became household names due to their popularity- and Englunds portrayal of the character as a mischevious, witty, joke cracking dream demon killer.

By eliminating what made people interested in the character in the first place eliminates what made them good to, and for, their loyal fanbases.

As far as Zelda goes: Who needs continuity when all your games make millions of dollars for the company? Who needs story when the existing fanbase and the potential new buyers are there to add dollar signs to the ever-growing Nintendo bank?

We as the consumers still buy them because of our love of what made them good in the first place, trying to live in the glory days of 8-bit (And for some of you 16 and even 32) when we must realize it's a brave new world, and gaming isn't as innocent as it once was. Go back to 1989, where the most hardcore game around would probably be something like Contra... and nowadays, we have programmers adding mini-games involving sex, the most popular games not being lovable Mario or Link but War simulators.

I will say this: Maybe let's not say kill these franchises off... instead, why not release a game and wait it out for a few years in between? That worked fine for Zelda... we had one in 86, one in 88, one in 92/93... and another in 96, with a Gameboy on in there somewhere. Now, I think in the last three years there have been at minimum at least six new Zelda titles... maybe more.

Give the franchises a break, not an end. Give other games a chance to shine, let the new ideas flow... instead of forcing a new title down a tired audiences' throat.

[EverPhoenix]

i think they should really stop making new pokemon. not new pokemon games, but new pokemon. make new games and areas with more stuff to do and a slightly different mould. as in more than just gym, gym, gym, team rocket, gym, gym, team rocket, gym, gym, elite 4. brilliant example was gen2. nostalgia. although ive briefly played gen5 and really enjoyed the mechanics, i think it would be so much better with old pokemon instead of new stuff. the new pokemon, for the most part, seem to be very... strained for creativity.

as for games like mario and zelda, they have followed a very similar mould for years, and people have loved them. they dont try to add crazy new stuff every time (although i'll admit a a lot of the mario games turn into a chore after the 3rd or 4th world until the 7th). Zelda games are great, although i would appreciate more lore in them. twilight princess got very close to a "serious" plotline (as opposed to a rough background only really alluded to in the game manual like others), which i thought was great. they need more games like that. not necessarily final fantasy-level plots and subplots, but something more to the game than saving the princess and running errands for random villagers.

guitar hero, i completely agree. they shouldnt release new games, just offer downloadable expansions to add new songs. the engine has not changed at all, and does not warrant a new full-priced game just for a new setlist of which only 5 songs people care about.

[inferiare]

What any rpg needs less of: grinding levels. What any rpg needs more of: character development and a solid story.

Oh, right. Pretty flashy graphics are nice, but not needed. It's why I love GUST titles; they use 2D sprites on nice semi-3D backgrounds and I get what I want out of the game: characters I can love or hate because of character development, and a solid story to make me cry, laugh, or feel upset toward.

And with the FF titles, they've got FFXIII: Agito and Versus coming out so their naming schemes are hopefully going to be different. What Squeenix shouldn't be doing is making a billion different remakes. They're remaking FFIV AGAIN for the PSP with The After Years as a bonus. All fine and good but god damn stop with all of them and give us something new with a good, deep storyline!

[SoulBlazerFan]

What any rpg needs less of: grinding levels. What any rpg needs more of: character development and a solid story.

Oh, right. Pretty flashy graphics are nice, but not needed. It's why I love GUST titles; they use 2D sprites on nice semi-3D backgrounds and I get what I want out of the game: characters I can love or hate because of character development, and a solid story to make me cry, laugh, or feel upset toward.

And with the FF titles, they've got FFXIII: Agito and Versus coming out so their naming schemes are hopefully going to be different. What Squeenix shouldn't be doing is making a billion different remakes. They're remaking FFIV AGAIN for the PSP with The After Years as a bonus. All fine and good but god damn stop with all of them and give us something new with a good, deep storyline!

The problem with losing grinding means the designers actually have to come up with new ways of extending the life of the game. Numerous battles with low EXP has been a staple... that's where you get your 80 hour long game... 50 of it is just grinding out to get to a point where you can beat the other 30 hours of actual gameplay.

I agree, story is absolutely essential in this day and age. You can't get away with "Hey it's adventure time" these days. Alot of the games I liked have little to no story... which might be why I fell in love with Soul Blazer... it had a story, it had running themes. It blew my mind that, not only could a game be enjoyable, but you could also get philisophical as well.

[Jason Tandro]

What any rpg needs less of: grinding levels.

As silly as it sounds, I think grinding levels in RPGs can be kinda fun, as long as the combat system is tolerable.

IE

Grinding levels in Castlevania SOTN / Star Ocean- AWESOME
Grinding levels in Kingdom Hearts- Pretty Fun!
Grinding levels in Final Fantasy XII- Enjoyable.
Grinding levels in Final Fantasy 7- Kinda boring.
Grinding levels in Final Fantasy 9- What's the point?


Basically the more restrictive the combat the less fun grinding is. The two odd exceptions are Final Fantasy 8 (where every level is only 1000 EXP so it's not like the challenge gets greater) and Wild Arms 3 (seriously, I love the combat system in that game even though it's turn-based.)

[Blade]

I greatly enjoy Chrono Trigger - No grinding, no random encounters, and a - to me quite new - refreshing combatmode...single, double and tripple attacks ftw!

EDIT: and quite some captiating emotional moments so far!

[inferiare]

Well sure. I had incentive to grind to a certain level in Persona 3, but other games it gets boring. If I get a couple levels and beat a boss I'm stuck at, great! But that's annoying when you're higher level and it's like 400k til next level.

@SBiF: that's why I like games like Ar tonelico. All three games give you a synth system, so you can stop running around for story purposes and create items. The second game also gives you a semi-optional sidequest throughout the game to capture + cure berserk reyvateils to power up the giant magical cannon of doom. Then again, my main characters were only 62-ish and the reyvateils were ridiculously leveled up through dualithnodes (the way they level up in that game) when I beat it. It's a good balance of story and leveling imo.