Correction: At 35:05 the header for the conclusion of the video instead has the text for the previous chapter, and unfortunately the tools on TH-cam wouldn't allow me to do anything other than blur it out, so I will leave it as is.
i think the reason ppl think orgins and odydess are bad assin creeds game a in something like final fantasy the name does not sitguest anything other than it being a fantasy based game plent of games can fall into when we think of assins we as ppl think of selth ans shadowing enimey to kill them in something like odyessy one of the games i loved it really hard to say with the rpg mechics that is seath based game and not a rpg based game that where i think the arugment boils down more to was we expect when we see in the tital is not waht the games have become tho i am not going to say it a bad thing it jsut different i liked obydess but i perfered to think of them as a game in the rpg set in the assins creed world less so as a assin creed game thinks are like eso are a mmo in elder scroll world less to do with there singal palyer version inless a game later states so
i think we should insade of think of ac obyess of a rpg games based in the assasin creed unverise that uses the bigger name that nameing it somethign random so ppl can reconzie the game world and pick it up we should evaulate each game on how much we like palying that type of game form that stuio if you dont like odyess mabye inless something like mirage comes out dont buy assassins creed you jsut some like the rpgs assassins creeds it okay not to like a gnera or a styal of games i dont like shooters but i still love palying hord zombi modes we need to eevaute less on the name and more on the gnera it trying to do the name is only for lore and setting eso is a good exaple of a mmo at it heart that has elder scrolls lore set in elder scroll world names are more set dressing less about mehcis
I think the problem with AC and DMC lie in what you mentioned with disrespecting what came before. I've started disliking AC because they dropped everything they had up to AC3 to start making games that went nowhere with the overarching narrative. I liked desmond, they built up the character for 5 games then killed him off to free Juno so I really wanted to know what happened with Juno. I was waiting and playing each game to find out what's next with her. She made these small cameos up to Syndicate I think, then she disappeared. After playing Odyssey I decided to Google it and as it turns out she was killed in a comic book. Imagine if after Infinity War Thanos just disappeared and Endgame was just about random heroes no one knows resurrecting everyone with no mention of Thanos and afterwards you found out he was killed off in She-Hulk's 3rd episode. It just sucked. The gameplay changing is not what made me feel like it's not AC anymore. There's much more to elaborate on but that's the short of my opinion.
I think it's worth mentioning in relation to God of War: One of the big reasons I think that worked out so well as a shakeup to the games is that effectively God of War 1,2,3 Told their whole story. The games were effectively done. Most people didn't expect it to go anywhere else. So when they popped up with new God of War, it was in a completely new place and a different period in the protag's life to support the radical change in mechanics. I think that made it a lot easier to swallow. The series seemed "done", and so the change in the formulae was a new start in nearly every way anyway, instead of an expected next entry just being radically different.
oh yea, thats a very good point. god of war is probably the best franchise rebot i have ever seen. as for Ubisoft, they refused to end the AC franchise back with AC3, which lead to that awful desmond saga conclusion and the convoluted modern day plot that they tried to fix with origins. had they not fired the original creator of the franchise, and taken a GOW approach to the series, i think assassins creed would be in a much better spot right now, maybe ubisoft as a whole aswell.
I don't think applied to Assassin's Creed though, there were 9 games before Origin so the franchise was really overdone, but Odyssey came in and some older fans still upset about the departure from the franchise formula. I think people take it better with the new God of War is because of how many God of War clones has been made in the past decade which accelerate the genre's fatigue, while stealth game like Assassin's Creed getting more niche as time goes by.
The change was welcomed by fans because a good portion of the fanbase experienced serious burnout with the usual hack and slash mechanics around the time Ascension came out. I never missed out on a single God of War game up to GOWIII. After GOWIII finished the Greek saga I couldn't get myself to care about another prequel with the same old GOW gameplay and this was the case for many people.
Honestly I believe that's why there isn't more outrage at the gameplay change of LAD, because the kiryu saga is over in mainline entries, and a new protag with a gameplay shift is a lot easier to swallow, because it feels like it's telling a new story with ties to the old one, rather than a continuation
Remember, Devil May Cry was originally supposed to be RE4. They realized the change was too much, but that the idea was solid, so they created a new IP and arguably created a new sub-genre of action games.
And that is where all the nuance comes in at the end of the day. Some games have 100% been better off as new IPs, while others have thrived by transforming existing ones. On the other hand, some games have failed by making unpopular changes. The situation is complex and definitely different on a case by case basis.
@@sosaysjay IIRC, Assassin's Creed was originally a spin-off Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, called Prince of Persia: Assassins. It was rejected but was later made as a new IP instead.
@@spongebobfan78 Croc started as a Yoshi game, Resident Evil started as a remake of Sweet Home,Dementuim The Ward started as a Silent Hill game,Vagrant Story was retroactively made into a Final Fantasy spinoff,Tales of Arise started as a new IP,Star Ocean started as a sequel to Tales of Phantasia,Perfect Dark started as a sequel to Goldeneye,Starfox Adventures started as a new IP Dinosaur Planet and Xenoblade Chronicles started as Monado The Beginning of The World.
@@ChelaximIf anything, Xenoblade is the opposite of what you’re talking about: “Monado Beginning of the World” is a completely new IP, while “Xenoblade” establishes a connection between itself and previous Tetsuya Takahashi work, those being Xenogears and Xenosaga (though technically being a different IP)
Hands down. Making a new IP is a big gamble. Using a pre-existing one works as marketing, "more of this franchise people have liked for years" Bethesda could have easily done fallout space considering how similar starfield is to fallout 4 Rockstar could have made GTA wild west in place of red dead. But they're their own franchises and I strongly believe that's worth the risk. Especially since it prevents other franchises from "going bad".
What really hurts about Zelda, though, is that despite it being a very successful series pretty much nobody really tries to do its dungeon-based gameplay like Nintendo did. Some games, like Okami or Tunic, manage to hit on the Zelda gameplay loop for overworld exploration, or "helping the people of the world" sidequest structures just like zelda. But there ain't nobody trying to do Stone Tower Temples, or Snowpeak Mansions, or Ancient Cisterns, or Eagle's Towers, or even the much-dreaded Water Temples (which are frankly not that bad, go play Oracle of Ages to see what a truly hard water-manipulating dungeon looks like), you have to dig deep to find stuff like Oceanhorn or Pandora's Tower...
@@BitchChill You're comparing across different eras; BotW is roughly as popular as OoT was in context. There were literally 25% less people on the planet, on top of the fact that gaming was much less accessible to the masses 25 years ago. Nothing from that era except handheld games or massively successful PSX games could break the 10 million barrier, and nobody would ever argue that Final Fantasy wasn't mainstream just because it sold 10 million while Red Dead Redemption sold 50 million two decades later.
I definitely think a lot of the resentment with changing franchises comes from losing things that those franchises did uniquely well. Like I really enjoy BOTW/TOTK, but at the same time I'm a huge fan of specifically the puzzle box style dungeons from earlier Zelda games and no other franchise has ever really replicated them. If Zelda continues on its new path then that's a kind of content I might never see again, which is sad no matter how much I like the new formula Zelda in particular is also more awkward because of the absurdly long gaps between games. It's only been like 3 games since the last fully "traditional" Zelda game but those 3 games have been over the course of 12 years
and nintendo makes it harder and harder to play old games, though zelda gets is a little easy being on the NSO service... but that service is also fundamentally flawed. its a ton of money to emulate old games with a small library and its just renting since you can't play them offline. hard to justify for a lot of people. I'm fortunate, I can hook up my nes, N64, Gamecube, or wii whenever and play an older game (not to mention my handhelds), but that's a luxury many don't have.
I feel you. I'll add that classic Zelda not only has game design unique to itself, but also a particular, striking feeling. Only way I can describe it is 'Zelda feel' and it's why those classics are so replayable. I look forward to playing through the forest temple and spirit temple in OoT for different reasons, yet both capture a sensation that other games cannot replicate. For me, I was only intrigued with BotW for the first twenty five hours of gameplay. Slogged through every shrine anyway and now I can't go back to it. Bought ToTK because I heard so many good things about it but dislike it even more than BotW for its wasted potential and price tag. Neither game gets the real Zelda design or 'feel' whatsoever. If they keep making BotW clones, I'm clocking out of the franchise for good. It's a direction that apparently a lot of people like, but it's a total betrayal of the classics. I mean, I don't even want to finish TotK because of how horribly it retcons everything in the established timeline. For now, I'm back to playing Elden Ring.
@@Vivi_9 You can call it innovation if you want. I call it a betrayal. It abandoned the core tenants that made the Zelda games that came before (clever dungeons, decent sidequests, a coherent, deep story). But whatevs, I'm not here to argue, I made my point.
@@Megacaillou it's cool I'm not here to argue either and I respect your opinion, I am very happy with the direction Zelda has gone recently and am confident they won't just churn out BotW clones forever
What bothers me is that the changes to a series are typically seen as an "evolution" as if the older mechanics are objectively outdated and needed to be thrown away. A lot of these newer games just feel completely different to me not necessarily better.
and people seem to think change is automatically "good" and if you don't like change you are "baaad". if I like a thing I don't want what makes it my favorite thing to be changed just for the sake of change. let's say there's a pizza place that has a great pizza, one day the marketing guys say "we need to attract the chocolate cake fans, let's sell only chocolate cake but keep the pizzeria name". now they don't sell anymore what you liked in the first place, but if you complain, there's always somebody that says "change is good, you wanted it to be stuck and not evolve?" or "you don't like chocolate cake?". that's not the point.
The same old mechanics in every game gets really stale after a while, especially if you are talking about franchises with like 10 or more entries. There is a point where every new game just starts to look like a reskin of the same old game. Ideally when it comes to gameplay mechanics a game franchise strikes a balance between innovation and maintaining its core identity, but the problem is that people disagree on what really makes up a "core identity" and to what extent change can happen before it is compromised. So no matter what the developers do, a long-running franchise will always develop a group of critics and detractors over time. To take the pizza example from @Pelger here above, people may want to eat pizza, but they don't want to eat the exact same pizza every single day. So the pizza place has to innovate and come up with new types of pizza every now and then. But the problem is that some people aren't going to like these new types of pizza, and after several years of the pizza place coming up with new ingredients the new pizzas stray farther and farther from the original Margherita. At some point, people are going to start declaring that once you put pineapple on a pizza, it is no longer a pizza. The problem is that what ingredients are acceptable on a pizza is different for different people. Some people love pineapple pizza and would like to see more pizzas like this, other people ardently hate the very idea of pineapple on pizza. Driven by profits, the pizza place is likely going to go with whatever the biggest group wants. But this has the negative side-effect of leaving the people who like the old pizza Margherita-based varieties feeling left behind, since the pizza place is now no longer making new pizza varieties based on Margherita since they are too busy working on new varieties with pineapple. Eventually, after years of innovation, the pizza place may even start making more radical innovations like selling chocolate cake-flavored pizzas. Again, some will say that a pizza that tastes like chocolate cake is not a pizza at all but rather a chocolate cake. To others however, it is very much still a pizza and they will love it. Again, the pizza place is driven by profits and will pursue the type of pizza preferred by the biggest group. There is one consolation for the fans of the old pizza Margherita though. The pizza place does actually still sell that original pizza. You can go back to the pizza place and eat it every day, and it will always taste exactly the same as it did on the first day the pizza place opened up. They are just not making any more new varieties based on that pizza. There will be no more changes, it is just the exact same pizza every single day, which as mentioned, gets stale. So it is with video games. You can always replay the old video games, but they are always the exact same which gets stale after a while. All people want change. And that is the root of the problem since different people always have different opinions on what mechanics are important to them and want different degrees of change. And that inevitably leads to a divided fanbase as some feel left behind when the devs stop making games based on the mechanics that they loved, while to others that mechanic wasn't as important and they prefer the new mechanics that were introduced in the newer games.
In some cases though, they are too divisive. Here in BotW and TotK, they made the world really open and non-linear, but at the expense of the quality of the dungeons. Similarly with Yakuza and Final Fantasy, they changed gameplay styles, so the audience who loved the old gameplay styles are essentially left behind.
@@Allustar I stuck with the Yakuza serirs but I'll admit it was super hard to enjoy Final Fantasy after 10, and 13 outright sucked and was a waste of money. Ironically Yakuza turned into old school final fantasy lol
In regards to Yakuza, another big reason as to why most fans aren't that upset by the switch to turn-based RPG gameplay is because of the fact that RGG (the studio behind the series) is also making the Judgement series which is a spin-off of the Yakuza games that retains the beat-em-up gameplay so because of that the main series no longer being beat-em-ups is a much easier pill to swallow when RGG is still making a concurrent series with beat-em-up gameplay.
The problem is those are not games about fighting, those are games about helping people in an open-world city environment with a combat system to fill in-between, and when the "in-between" starts to require you to grind and spend time you wanted to spend playing this social system game, it feels frustrating. The fact they don't understand it is not good at all, and what they really did was make the main game unbalanced and unplayable and its spinoffs playable.
@@MacMan2152 personally I liked how Yakuza 7's RPG systems actually incentivize you to engage with substories in order to stay at a decently high level, with that said there's a lot of room for a improvement with its battle system but I do think Yakuza 7 has a lot of neat ideas and is a fine foundation for future games with that said I understand that there are a lot of people who don't care about the series' side-content and just want to go through the main story, but considering the fact that RGG has been making it clear that they'll continue to make games with beat-em-up combat alongside the new turnbased games I really don't see what the problem is, it seems like a win-win situation to me
@@devforfun5618"Yakuza: Like a Dragon" is just the western name to Yakuza 7 -- or, how the game is called in Japan, "Like a Dragon 7". Sega realized fans were open to the original Japanese title of the series, so they dropped the "Yakuza" and went with "Like a Dragon" for the series in the west too (see: LAD Ishin, LAD Gaiden, and LAD 8)
The Final Fantasy example is also worth talking about because it has multiple spin-offs explicitly trying to capture the game elements the main series left behind for fans who miss them- *Bravely Default* is all-but-explicitly a FF spin-off, and I have a hard time seeing *Octopath Traveler* as anything else either, both of which have been successful enough to spawn numbered sequels. People who don't like the actual gameplay of modern FF games (very much including me) are still being catered to by Square Enix: Just not in the main, numbered titles.
Except octopath has a very different structure than ff with it's 8 distinct stories set up and bravely default 2 was garbage. Dragon quest and like a dragon are basically the only mainstream trafitional turn based nowadays, aside from maybe indies.
more expy or homage but to those spin off titles like tactics and such they had a way to gain other audience's without ruining their core brand and now have wasted that chance more and more as they try to turn it to a third person action game cause broad appeal
@@marcusclark1339the last traditional game was 20 years ago, they have been moving towards action since 12. So it’s kinda weird seeing ppl complaining about something almost a 1/4 century later
@@guilhermecardoso2365 I'm sorry, did you just list Octopath 2 and Bravely Default 2, two of biggest turn-based rpgs of the last few years, and then say they don't count because you don't like them? I don't have any interest in the Yakuza games, but I'm not about to claim that Like a Dragon isn't apart of the Turn-Based RPG genre. And it breaks from the 'traditional' model *way* more than either of the games you discounted.
@parkerdixon-word6295 i did like OT 2 a lot actually, one of the best games this year. It's just not what i would call a traditional RPG like the original ff games. BD2 was complete trash with the awful boss design counter bullshit and ugly visuals and bland story. I also played like a dragon, and all the yakuza games before it and i love it, very excited for the sequel.
The point of "it never worked, but it promised something no one else has even attempted" hit me so hard. I keep coming back to the AC games because social stealth is such a perfect fit to the themes and ideas of the series. They may be skilled warriors, but the point of who they are is that tyrants stopped seeing their subjects as people, and that will be their downfall. And where the hell else will I find a series that moves so well, that asks you to blend and to pay attention instead of to move silently?
The problem for me is that when a franchise changes that much and it's successful, it basically spells the end of the old type of gameplay. I love the Zelda series - there are very few games in the franchise I don't enjoy, and BotW and TotK are among the ones I do. But I also love Link's Awakening, and yet the 3D era seems to have made the 2D gameplay an afterthought. It makes me a little sad to think that I may never get to play another like it, but the 3D Zeldas have historically had enough similar elements that I have enjoyed them as well. But now with BotW and TotK, it seems that even that may be a thing of the past. Again, I like both of these games - I sunk over 500 hours into BotW according to my Switch, and I'm not going to pretend like I've ever played any other Zelda game that much. But it didn't feel like "Zelda". So when I say "BotW is a great game, but not a great Zelda game" what I'm really saying is "this game is super fun and I love it, but I'm going to be really sad if I never get to experience a game in the old school Zelda formula again". I will fully admit that there's a decent chance I would have never played BotW if it hadn't been labeled a Zelda game, and that would have been my loss. I am glad I didn't miss out on playing it. But I'll never stop wishing that those of us who enjoy the old formula will someday be able to experience it again. Because as fun as BotW and TotK are, it's just not the same kind of fun.
This is exactly how I feel about Fromsoftware in recent years. Despite the fact that the *core* gameplay mechanics haven't changed much at all since Demon's Souls, the game design PHILOSOPHY has been drastically altered since the release of Bloodborne. The pacing of combat, the designs of enemy encounters, online multiplayer functionality. Gameplay styles that were strong in Dark Souls and Demons have been disincentivized over gameplay styles of Bloodborne and Sekiro. The interesting environmental elements of the games bosses have been dropped in favor of bland flat arena's "for the players convenience" so they can instead focus on the Boss' over-the-top and elaborate attack strings and nano second punish windows. Souls bosses used to challenge pre concieved notions of what a boss fight could be, an otherwise normal wolf with a giant sword in its teeth wouldn't gain a massive Anime Desperation Power Up when on its last sliver of HP... it would crawl pitifully and buckle under the injuries it sustained. And this wouldn't be that big of an issue... if the last classic souls game wasn't over TEN YEARS AGO and we hadn't had four back to back games that essentially played identically to eachother at their general optimal level. I liked Bloodborne, I thought it was a very refreshing game for the time, but that doesn't mean I want it to replace the old style completely!
I agree. The new games provide a lot to complement the series. I feel like the shrines were a detriment though and the dungeons didn’t have enough emphasis.
@@sasaki999pro It's funny, while I fundamentally agree with what your saying, for quite a while I had a similar thought process about Souls games as a whole. In that I liked them but was upset as a fan of older FromSoft games that this direction of games would be all they'll ever do as a company now. Luckily now a new Armored Core is finally on the way though.
@@TekTheNinja even funnier is armored core actually had the same generational disconnect between fans, it was right between the transition from 3 to 4 where fans became split because the series pacing went from slower weighted mecha combat, to FAST high octane, and this put alot of legacy fans off. Same things actually happened to similar franchises outside of FromSoftware like Monster Hunter too. I dont mind these things existing, I LIKE EM, but one Niche's success is anothers downfall and this *"FEAST OR FAMINE"* nature of genre fulfillment SUCKS.
I will never understand how these companies, deeply afraid of creating new IP, dont look at the Warhammer franchise (and now, the League of Legends franchise) and go "hey, maybe a diversity of game types that tell different kinds of stories might be a creative and lucrative means of keeping our pocket books lined while also preventing us from doing the scary, artsy thing of making new stuff"
LOL only has the MOBA and the card game (ignoring the show obviously since it isn't a game) so I wouldn't really agree on it being a good example. Maybe something like SMT and Fate with all of their spin-offs.
@@thegamerfe8751 The Ruined King is a turn based LoL game, Convergence is the recent LoL action platformer, they have that fighting game coming out sometime this year, Hextech Mayhem is a Rhythm game. Would agree that SMT/Persona are the same vein, however, League at this rate is diversifying their portfolio with a range of gameplay styles. SMT spinoffs are largely the same style of game (yes, they also have rhythm, warriors and visual novels, but like...most of the games have deeply similar gameplay styles)
Because the time and money it makes to make a new intellectual property, essentially means they have to wait until the next Generation consoles. From a business point of view. It's not worth it.
"Change is only as bad as the game it ends up creating" is a good way of putting it. I think the only thing that bothers me is how indie devs are trying to recreate the "old magic" of games formerly made by well-funded studios to mixed success. Not that I don't like what they're doing or don't appreciate what they're trying to do, but whenever well-established franchises end up exploring new formats, often they leave behind a void that others struggle to fill. This doesn't just happen when the franchises are turned around, however; it also happens when a development studio is shut down, and the genre of games they had been innovating on gets left behind. If a games company has been pioneering a certain category of game for a long time with no good competitor (meaning no other such company has endeavored to challenge their take on the category), what makes it frustrating to see changes is that no one else will be able to match the level of quality and creativity needed to make their games. Again, there are exceptions to this, but they're rare and often continue to face the challenge of inadequate competition. So once the indie dev makes their love-letter to the category of game, this can feel like the final nail in the coffin rather than a continuation of an old legacy. TL;DR, there's nothing inherently wrong with successful new things, so long as the old things aren't abandoned altogether, which they in many cases have been.
A good way to imagine this is if Bethesda shut down tommorow. Indie devs can create all the love letters to the genre they want but no indie dev will be able to recapture the unique charm and qualities of a Bethesda game.
I find this a real weird statement. Why does it bother you that there are people at least trying to fill the void you have? "HOW DARE THEY TRY!!!" or "HOW DARE THEY FAIL!!" That's just such a weird way to look at it. Besides the old games aren't gone. You can still play them as much as you want.
@@DrTheRich I'm not against it as a concept. I just think they're less equipped to provide the same experience, partly because of the context. In my view, it's like trying to argue Undertale as a successor to Earthbound, just because the latter inspired the former. I agree that if it was as simple as going back to the old games, I wouldn't have as much reason to complain. But many older games I like have become inaccessible, thanks in no small part to the atrociously ineffective scene of games preservation. An industry solely focused on change in order to attain mass appeal is unlikely to show sufficient respect to the archivists. In such cases, the pool isn't getting wider or deeper; it's getting filled so a different one can take its place.
Agreed. Jay can argue subjectivity all he wants, but in the end, as the replies in comment thread and many others have said, making new IPs based on wanting radical changes to an existing one *more often than not* results in something new, creative, and innovative. Alternatively, sticking to the formulas of original IPs is a constraint that developers can creatively work around. Limitations _can_ breed creativity after all. The problem is that too many game companies either don't want to take risks or when they do, they take too far. What is the determinant? The answer is simple, A UNITED MAJORITY. A fandom devided unto itself cannot stand, and its better to have a game that includes all the positives of the last devisive entry in which most people agree on. And from what many can see, Assassin's Creed is no longer itself. Not all change is good. And a good change is one that improves upon the identity of the game, NOT what causes the identity crisis.
What I hate about AC Origins and Odyssey is the fact that stealth kills aren't always one hit kill. It boils my blood to cuttsomeone's throat just for the sucker to scream and alert everyone. They totally butchered the stealth.
That is one of the biggest reasons I lost all interest. The world was also so huge and empty that it was tedious and boring to me (I get it, it's a literal desert). At least if I could assassinate people I may have finished it, but you basically just, can't assassinate people 90% of the time.
@@SanAndreas24 it isn't. you still need to perform Critical Assassinations, which requires you to get a particular upgrade in the skill tree. and even then that move takes up a bar of Adrenaline that you might not even have in that moment. the only way for a basic assassination to kill an enemy is if you max out the Stealth stat, but this basically leaves you far too weak to handle the story moments that are an all out brawl and it only works on basic grunts. trying to perform it on a brute sized enemy will only take out half his health.
Another consideration is a games place in the overall gaming landscape. If you don't like 1 FPS, throw a dart at a steam list and try a different one. There are no AAA Zelda dungeon-likes that I know of so those kinds of fans are the most hurt by a change. Its a similar problem to elder scrolls. There isn't anyone else of caliber making those kinds of games, so Bethesda not making one for however many years now is a rough spot to be in if those are your favorite games. The more unique the gameplay the more a change is gonna feel like a slap to fans left with no alternatives.
Agreed. My main feeling of disappointment with BOTW and TOTK is that, since they will likely be the formula future games are based on, and that formula is inherently anti-dungeon (in my opinion) we will never get a new traditional dungeon again, unless some other series picks up the formula.
@@mustacheman529Honestly, I think they could strike a good balance between traditional and modern if they axe the shrines and make heart containers a reward for exploring around Hyrule. The shrines have puzzles and concepts that should be integrated into a dungeon, not found out somewhere in the middle of nowhere with basically some upgrade point as a reward.
If you want a game that has some fairly in-depth dungeons (with the caveat that it is also much more story-focused and has an MMO-style levelling system), might I recommend CrossCode?
@@wesleycarlton7936 crosscode is indeed a great game. While I wouldn't call it exactly Zelda-like, the unique mechanics and puzzles of the game are interesting and fun, and do scratch the same itch.
Yes a franchise can change too much, it's just finding the exact line that's the trick and you know you've crossed that line when you've split the fanbase. And make no mistake the point of a franchise is to make use of its fanbase, you want it to grow but not split. Here's an example of how to handle change and experimentation the right way in a long running franchise. Monster Hunter, which has 5 mainline games (MH1 thru World), 2 more experimental but still very traditional MH games (MHGU and Rise), which are hardcore 3rd person action games and a spinoff series that's a completely different genre (Stories 1+2), which are classic turn based JRPGs. Now if Capcom had tried to make MH Stories a mainline game, there'd have been open rebellion and hate for them in the MH fanbase. But since they were introduced as a spin off, they were warmly embraced by MH fans.
That line is definitely tough to balance. While I think a vast majority would reject MH Stories if it was marketed as a mainline game, at the same time there are several people in this very comment section citing Monster Hunter World as a game that they feel betrayed by. In their eyes, the mainline games have alienated them, even if to some others MH World feels like a very natural evolution of the existing mechanics.
I am VERY guilty of saying the whole "good game bad zelda" thing about Breath of the Wild, and now Tears of the Kingdom. I admit that. If the sentiment is common, then I truly believe there is a deeper point to be made there, but I think I just ain't smart enough to figure it out past that simple statement. All I mean when I say it, is that there's something about the old Zelda games that isn't here in the new ones, and I feel alienated by it. With TotK I'm coming to accept I don't really know what made the series appeal to me before, and I'm better off just moving on or replaying older ones than getting bitter about the new ones. If anything, it's helped me look for new games and books I never would've tried before. I just can't help be sad that I feel like a series I loved moved on without me. Not just the series, but the community too. But, I don't really hold it against them either.
I feel similarly. I don't mind when a series innovates and changes. However, it saddens me when a genre-defining series switches to a new genre, leaving the old one behind. I played TotK and BotW and enjoyed them both. But I also enjoy the classic Zelda format and it seems like Nintendo has no interest in making that genre of game anymore. I'd compare it to my favorite pizza place deciding to make tacos instead. I like tacos but it's a bummer that there's nowhere in the neighborhood to go for a good pizza anymore.
Think what you're looking for is elaborate puzzles like the temples in every game pre BoTW Because very few are making those in games, they were uniquely nintendo
My main gripe with New AC has always been that I already play Rpgs and I didn't need one of my favourite series to take in those game philosophies and (imo of course) over extend the playtime and locking of intrinsic game mechanics. Tying assassinations to level in Orgins for example was the worst of those changes everything I was interested in trying out to give the game a fair shake. But I feel that point specifically ties into the formula point you made here obviously the ability for that instant takedown with few exceptions was intrinsic to my version of AC. But it's a change I could be totally fine with if the stealth mechanics of AC were stronger but they has never been a stealth system in AC beyond what I consider the basics with a bit of flair once in a while. Frankly I think if the series changes things up again that should be what they add. I wouldn't mind a game like Origins/Osyssey where it has certain level locked things if the other options were half as fun. Can't assainate that guy in your way cause your level is too low? No problem you have ways to get around that which are also fun and interesting. That is what's missing in these newer games for me. The things they do are just new but not just as or more fun than what was already present for me and so I end up missing what an evolution on that formula coulda been
For the many things AC Valhalla did wrong, one of the things I think it did really, really well was that it still let you insta-assassinate targets above your level - you just had to hit a QTE at the right time (and you also had to have the skill...), and when Ubisoft inevitably throws another RPG-style Assassin's Creed game out there I think that's how they should handle stealth takedowns - maybe not in the exact same way as Valhalla, because after a certain point I found timing the QTE was way too easy even on "major" enemies, but you should always have some way to instantly take down enemies even if their arbitrary numbers are bigger than your arbitrary numbers.
This is a perfect summation of my feelings for FF16. There are many excellent ARPGs out there. But that's not what I want in a FF. Just like AC has abandoned many of the specific gameplay aspects that made people love the series, FF has done the same thing. Sadly, gaming has become too homogenized and these franchises abandon what made them unique in the first place.
Thank you so much for the beautifully expressed, balanced point of view. I'm tired of being fed the idea of polar opposites in every aspect of life, but even more so in games where I seek escapism and fun. Your channel is such a gem and I can't wait to hear more from you :)
Never had any experience with the AC Series, but the split fanbase feels very similar to the Fire Emblem fanbase, where a lot of the older fans don't like new direction the series went on the 3DS/Switch era, but the newer games sold so well that it pretty much created a new generation of strategy game players and developers
I’m one of the older players… I hate the waifu sim bond bs, I hate how weaboo everything looks. I refuse to buy the new game because of it. I read that it’s also the most combat oriented and strategic one of the series which is what I’m all about. I have principles though, so I won’t buy it. I’ve been playing them since sacred stones was released on the gba.
@@jaimeruiz7837 When you said "I hate how weaboo everything looks" can you elaborate? Although I never played an FE game based on stuff I already know about them instead of being pixel 2d games they're now 3D and it isn't specifically animey imo. And reminder that "weaboo" and animey artstyle are literally all Japanese creations and FE is a Japanese series made by Japanese people published by a Japanese company.
@@thegamerfe8751 I don’t need your fuck8ng reminder when I’ve been playing these games from the first ever Western FE game back dur8ng the GBA era, and reading manga since the early 90s. The older games were influenced by European painters to get that feeling of knights and more modern American comic style. They were doing it before it was popular, and then mangaka started short handing everything to lower the time it took to produce panels. People enjoyed that stuff and as such started influencing more and more things. Now it’s all cutesty bs with all the crazy hair colors, and big round eyes and shit. Power of friendship and blah blah. All this dating sim nonsense and developing bonds with your fellow soldiers. Cringe.
@thegamerfe8751 consider the character designs for two games that dropped sequentially - Radiant Dawn and Awakening. There was a remake of the original FE in between, but it was still maintaining the older art style. In Radiant Dawn, while clearly still having manga/anime-esque features, the characters are more "normal" looking, be they a Laguz with animal features or a human with pink hair. They all have closer to real designs about them, and that carries on back to Shadow Dragon. Even Shadows of Valencia - another remake of a classic title, released between Fates and Three Houses- has this. Then, from Awakening onward, the character designs start to (generally) become more brightly colored and anime. When I say that, I mean it in terms of the characters look like they stepped out of a bad shounen anime. Compare the support cast from any game Awakening onward that isn't a remake to Radiant Dawn and earlier and there's a consistent difference in terms of the kind of coloring used, not mention the pure absurdity that the armor designs became. I still can't look at half the cavalier/armor knight designs since the 3ds era without rolling my eyes about how bad it looks.
@@thegamerfe8751 i started playing fire emblem since the gba too and the waifu thing is real. im very averse to the recent overdesign/fem boy trend in anime so the new games are visually unappealing to me. fire emblem characters used to look like actual people not shonen characters basically the game got jiggle boob physics and a dating sim, when the reason we loved the franchise was because of the medieval fantasy turn based strategy. the trifecta of ruin would be if they added mechas, and reginn is basically 90% mecha but at least shes confined to heroes.... for now like someone else said using elder scrolls, part of the reason long time fans like us dont like this amount of change is because we have no other games to turn to if these games change too much. the best move would be to keep a core series and use spinoffs to move the franchise into different genres, like they did with warriors. the waifu dating sim should be in a spinoff not taking up space in the mainline games
I feel like final fantasy was a poor example for this discussion because for a very long time part of the branding was a lack of sequels so each game was kind of its own thing so big changes didn't matter much and it was actually more bits of world building that linked the games. Like moogles, chocobos, or summons. Other games try to hard to force the core story of their ip into new areas it doesn't really fit, which makes it awkward or weird and leads to more fan splits based on taste. So in a way, the faxt that ff almost always presented unique unrelated stories made it comfortable to throw in different systems and mechanics and have fans give them a chance on their own merits instead of always comparing the games. FF is the entire produce section where as assassins creed feels more like just the apples.
Final Fantasy is unique in that sense: its identity is half the themes they share and half the mechanics that remain (and also stuff like chocobos and FFV Gilgamesh and a Cid). No other franchise is linked in these two ways which means Final Fantasy has an unusually strong identity despite all its changes. No other franchise has maintained either save possibly Zelda/Kirby/Mario, so when other franchises change up stuff it is effectively a new franchise because they never had a strong identity to begin with
I think the biggest series that definitely falls into this category at least in the shooter genre is Halo. Once bungie left it just all changed. And the fanbase could not have split any harder
There has never been a video game franchise where the basic concept of SPRINTING has been such a contentiously debated topic of game design conversation.
It didn't even split the fanbase. Halo fans are just terminally disappointed by 343's output. The split is that some of them find some fun in them, and some don't, but everyone knows that 343 Halo isn't the real deal. An ultimate example of a franchise that should've been allowed to die with some dignity.
@@Lilbee730 I mean there is definitely a split between newer people that enjoyed halo 4 and 5 and the older fans that grew up on CE-Reach. Granted having grown up with the bungie games, I loved the way Halo 5 felt to play and if 343 wanted to double down on that style of gameplay and have that be their version of Halo for a whole new generation i wouldnt have complained. I wouldnt say their halo isnt the real deal though at least in terms of gameplay. I think everyone could agree that Infinite was the perfect balance between bungies formula and 343, but everything surrounding that gameplay was hot ass and it really should’ve been delayed another year or 2 even. As for Halo 5 I view it as a new take on halo, to me regardless of thrusters, aiming down sights, sprinting and sliding, the game still felt like halo at its core to me. I think the only game that comes closest to not feeling halo like is probably 4 with its loadouts and kill streaks but even then, in non loadout modes the bones of halo are still there. tbh outside of the “core” halo gameplay which all these games share (shields, emphasis on nades and melees, guns that all fill a unique role, emphasis on power positions and power weapons, etc) no halo game is like another, 2 feels different than the first game, 3 I’ll say feels the closest to another halo, that being H2, and even then it still plays differently, it’s more slower paced and way less competitive, Halo Reach introduced a bunch of stuff that played nothing like CE-3, and so on and so forth. Halo isnt like cod where it’s legit just the exact same game. Each game had its own unique feel and flow yk. That being said when it comes to 343’s games it’s usually the lack of content that hurts them the most and mismanagement. And some of that is MS fault too: like for example 343 knew that the master chief collection needed more time to be developed and they wanted more time, but Microsoft essentially told them no. (Obviously I’m paraphrasing but that’s basically what went down)
@@jackpark2736 In a better timeline Halo Should've been shelved and Microsoft should've been kissing Bungie's ASS to make Destiny an Xbox exclusive instead of trying to pigeonhole them to single franchise. Then they wouldn't have to deal with activision meddling in their creative vision and they probably could have actually given the game a good story on launch. All parties would have been better off.
Different games in a francise can be good for entirely different reasons. I like the early AC games because of the story and the clash of assassins and templars, but I like the new games because I also like Witcher-like RPGs.
I firmly believe the sweet spot for AC right now would be to take the gameplay mechanics of the more recent games and mix them with the grounded feeling of earlier AC, focusing the story on Assassins. I think AC Origins is basically the perfect Assassin's Creed game because of this
I know there's a lot of fans who get mad at old fans complaining, but long time consumers of a product are often taken for granted when companies search for ways to expand the fanbase. Fans don't like to be taken for granted in pursuit of non fans or future fans. This isn't exclusive to games. And i think people sort of ignore that lots of gamers only play specific types of games. If you like one genre and not another, nothing will ever make them enjoy their favorite franchise changing play styles. I know a lot of fans are annoying with their conplaints, that's fair. But it's also possible for new fans of a franchise to devalue long term fans as well.
The issue with old fans and their complaints is that those fans either haven’t played the franchise in years or themselves have complained about how the series has stagnated. There’s no rhyme or reason. They hate it cause it’s the same and hate cause it’s different. The final fantasy opinion from above for example complaining the Final Fantasy is “becoming” dmc when 14 is an mmo, 15 is barely action adventure, and 16 is just combat focused and nothing like a dmc/bayonetta action game. Final Fantasy doesn’t have to be turn-based random encounters for all time. Pokemon fans in particular are the worst at this. I have never seen a fanbase hate their franchise, and any minuscule change to it, as much as they do. The thing about IPs is that they can go in whatever direction the owners want to take it, but because old fans refuse to move on they instead complain about how all games are the same. It’s the weirdest behavior
@Andre_Pi^ umm the old final fantasies weren't stagnant. Turn based jrpgs had a lot of room for potential. There is a reason, I can't play new jrpg final fantasies and that happens to be something I would thoroughly enjoy and pay extra to experience. I'm being sarcastic when I call it devil may cry, but it looks like that's what they want it to be. They have been very excited to point out the fact that one of the devs from dmc is working on the combat. The thing about ips is that when you have 10 entries that are the same genre and then you throw out 6 that are a different one it defeats the purpose behind naming video games or using sequential naming sequences. The games are not final fantasy so why are they not calling it something different as to dileniate the differences in the games... besides the simple fact that they can take advantage of the way people respond to the brand? Yea they can do what they want but I can also complain about it and make it known that I would like to play actual jrpgs with modern updates WITHOUT new fans telling me that the games we have held up for 30 years as masterpieces aren't worth making anymore and that I need to get with what they like or die. Consume product get excited for next product. It's still a joke
@@asdfghjkllkjhgfdsa8725 No one said turn based was stagnant and I’m not a new fan either. What I’m saying is that old fans often fall into the categories of complaining about how their series needs change because the same thing over and over is boring (and then later complain about change) or they want a series to stay the same despite not playing it in a decade (hyperbole). My issue are these fans that will whine no matter what and proceed to cause drama around a game they weren’t going to buy to begin with. Sequels don’t have to remain in the same exact genre or style until they end. The purpose of sequels is to put them in the same world with similar themes. Case in point: Crash bandicoot. Those games have gone through constant change and never once do people feel the need to act like other crash games aren’t crash. Final fantasy XVI absolutely could’ve been turn base and even random encounter, but they simply decided not to go that route. I can understand this argument for the Assassin’s Creed games to an extent. They managed to change both the world and the mechanics to an extent that would give the argument some basis to stand on, but Final Fantasy has done everything from Crystal Chronicles, to tactics, to dissidia, to rhythm games, to gacha mobile games. FF X-XV I would even say range wildly in their differences. The funniest thing about all of this is that if there’s a Final Fantasy XVII and it’s a tactical RPG I’m certain no one would claim that it isn’t a final fantasy despite the numbered titles never being tRPG.
When it comes to zelda, all the traditional zelda games are some of my favorites games ever. But even i can admit, the formula was getting incredibly stale. It doesnt make them bad games, they are fabulous, but after literally three decades, massive changes were needed. Botw and totk arent perfect, but they have given some od the best ah ha moments ove had in games in a long time, which to me, is part of what zelda always was to me growing up.
I don't think the challenge is what matters to much for totk dungeons. Idc if it's easy as long as it's fun. Totk is a lot fun and I'm enjoying it far more then botw. The building stuff is great. My main issue with totk is the repetitiveness. Shrines are forgettable, koroks are back, and the dungeons are a bit of a let down. There look and music and bosses are great but the main objectives inside are boring. Also the side quests are mostly fetch quests, some of them are pretty neat but most are "go get me certain number of something" which is lame. Totk is fun but I think there's issues that people just overlook. The older zeldas games never get boring for me but botw did for me. Totk is definitely a lot more enjoyable tho then botw and skyward sword, but I still prefer oot, twilight, and windwaker imo. Sry I talk a lot lol.
@Vector702 yeah I think that botw and totk being more open and because of all the other open world games have made me bored of them to. Some of my favorite games are more linear like dark souls, dmc, and older zelda title's. I think if there wasn't so many open world games they'd be better. Uibsoft comes to mind, they make so many. Totk kinda less boring because of the creativity. I think the building part of the game carrys it heavly tho. And pls pls do not get me started on the changes to the lore TwT
I was hoping for TotK to fuse a bit more of classic Zelda into the mix. I like having the dungeons provide items that open up new routes and allow us to advance the stories of the people around us, and I hate that my progress feels so...floompy? Like, when you got the hookshot or clawshot, you knew your world had just gotten bigger. When you defeated a boss, you knew you were that much closer to victory. The shrines and koroks just didn't have that same satisfaction for me, and the divine beasts honestly weren't much more than a couple of shrines taped together. In this hero's journey, there's too much journey and too little hero, for me.
@@nickbecerra9580 Well I feel it's unfair to act like Doom didn't have major horror elements before 3. The atmosphere and enemies were much more oppressive and you much less an unstoppable force, that's just something that one comic established, which 2016 adopted. I definitely felt dread playing doom 1 for the first time! This perception that Doom 3 wasn't *a* natural evolution of the series at that time is rather recent and in part caused by all the source ports we play today warping the original experience (which is fine).
@@ProtoKrok I guess the modern Doom did sort of influence my prescription of the original ones. While I did use GZDoom, I pretty much just used it for mouse look and the little visual tweaks, I never touched Brutal Doom as it alters the original experience way too much in my opinion. I will say though that while some levels are oppressive, the music completely controls that feeling for me. The original soundtrack is just as blood pumping as the Mick Gordon’s with tracks like e1m1 or e1m9, some of which served as inspiration to him. Just look at Doom 64 or Doom PS1’s sound in comparison, way scarier. Dark Halls is a good example of some of the slower and more mysterious tracks, Doom has a good mix. The series did evolve like you were getting at tho. Just look at the evolution of the cover art, in the original the appeal came from the Doomguy being in a completely fucked situation and wondering how he (and later you the player) will survive, in the newer 2 game well, it’s still fucked but the tables have turned.
Yeah! I wish doom 3 wasn't considered the black sheep of the family. It really isn't a world away from what the originals were doing, and they could totally evoke a sense of dread too. Time retconned those into being "fast run and gun kill everything" games when I don't think they were that. Goes to show that what people think a franchise is, is often more powerful than what it actually is.
I've got to admit that I've never enjoyed an asscreed game, played a fair few because they're always given away on PC with various hardware upgrades over the years. Just not my cup of tea. That hasn't stopped me from enjoying analysis videos of the different entries in the series. You're doing great work over here.
@@robertbeisert3315 I suggest you go play Sea Of Thieves, it did have a rough launch but now it's in a good state. Though it is clear the AC series isn't for you.
re 6 is one of the best examples of this in my opinion. it has my favorite third person shooter combat system ever, but since those mechanics don't have a place in a re game, it is considered bad. It is very understandable when people say they don't like it, but i have a hard time neglecting the game completely thanks to it's endlessly fun combat.
The traditional fans may not like it, but RE6 still sold like hot cakes, so there clearly a market for it. They definitely could bring back the mechanic, but they should do it in spin off games to not affect the expectation of the main series.
@@meh.96 that would be absolutely awesome. maybe if capcom could use these mechanics in some new IP that resembles more of a stylish action game, the entire combat design for re 6 would make more sense, in that context.
I think identity is less about gameplay and more about the spirit behind the game. For example, many would consider everything after AC Brotherhood/Revelation to be bad AC, not because they are "bad game" but because they killed Ezio and the overall plot of AC just to milk the franchise. AC was a narrative driven game about the conflict between assassin and templar with the promise of closure in future installment.
ปีที่แล้ว +2
A have an argument for the AC games which I think will fall under the "changes don't necessarily mean the game needs a new title" and also the "making a game with heart" arguments, but I still think is valid in this instance: There are a LOT of open world RPG combat/gear games. But there's only 1 franchise which has open world, detailed parkour system, "blade in the crowd", 3rd person style gameplay. I've never seen any other game/franchise offer what the original AC games tried to offer, and it really feels like Ubi chose to only chase trends and chose to not iterate, better and optimize the only things that made it unique after Unity (and even before to a degree). So, I really don't think that the AC games is a case where the changes were warranted. It's like a potencial that's never been fulfilled.
My biggest problems with Assassins Creed Odyssey and Assassins Creed Valhalla is how these games support the idea of being an assassin. Being an assassin feels secondary to being a spartan or a viking. Where in older assassin creed games you were rewarded for being able to sneak up on someone and kill them in one hit, in Vallhalla and Odyssey it feels more like just another damage output and pulls me out of the experience of what an assassin is like. With the enemies able to more easily find you, trying to hide is often only useful to try and recover your own hp rather then getting an actual advantage over the enemies. Feels more like a chore to be an actual assassin in those games. Where it feels better to play like a true assassin in odyssey because the gameplay and all the mechanics are all built around that experience first. While in valhalla all the mechanics are built around the experience of being a viking. In both odyssey and valhalla being an assassin comes secondary to what is the actual main selling point of the games which for odssey in a spartan experience and in valhalla in a viking experience. Where as in the final fantasy series, each game is a self contained story. So they are able to change up the gameplay between each game. But beyond that they still manage to keep the aspect of it being a new world to explore with several fantasy elements that we all expect from final fantasy. As I play through the first final fantasy games I have noticed how the level system changes, the story changes and feels completed, while also feeling that sense of wonder and excitement from going through a new fantasy world. The main selling point of final fantasy is the fantasy aspect. With each game feeling like a completed story there is no need to make the next one continue off where the previous one left off. But the main focus off the series never feels like it takes a back seat to some new mechanic. With god of war the original series the story felt complete. So this not only feels like a continuation of a great story but the start of a brand new set of adventures one is about to partake in. And in the beggining of the game it starts differently and in a completely different area signifying a brand new start to the series. So accepting the change in pace is far easier for both of these reasons. And even though they did change part of the combat system, it still feels like a hack and slash, but more of a methodical one then a button masher. Then as we play through the story of god of war 2018 we can see growth in kratos as a chracter making us enjoy the story further.
@@noirekuroraigami2270Hell, they could've kept it in the AC franchise but make it distinct from the other games. Like a sub series like Chronicles or Tales of the Creed.
The problem is with balance. If assassinations were on hit kills, the other classes would be pretty much worthless. Sure it would be weird to call it Assassin’s Creed, but it would make the RPG elements weaker. And this is the huge problem with these games, because the mechanics do not mesh well with what the fanbase wants
Tbh AC4 can be critiqued the same way AC Odyssey and AC Valhalla can... Whereas in the Open-world being an Assasin is only secondary to being something else. And with Combat being so damn easy, stealth doesnt even feel as rewarding anyways. Where AC4 differs is the mainline quest/story that it presents. Where the mission structure is very AC-like but also very flawed in their own ways(tailing missions), as well as the narrative being of that of a Pirate who learns to get over his greed and becomes an Assassin by his own volition.
I think another good collaborator of this sense of identity for a franchise is an overarching theme/plot/character that glues the franchise throughout those changes. My "When did AC die?" always goes back to Desmond. I really liked AC4, but that was my first "But is it really AC?". Game mechanics were similar enough to AC3, with deeper naval options that I thought were great and Edward was one of the best main characters, but I hated everything that was going on in the present, which to me was that glue connecting AC2 to AC1 and AC3 to Revelations. If there was no Desmond, I can see myself either disliking AC2 as an AC (even though AC2 is one of my favorites) or taking AC's identity as somewhat disconnected Assassins though history, prioritizing theme over plot/character. But after 5 games under the idea that Desmond was the big common factor, AC4 felt underwhelming in that regard, and I started losing interest in the franchise. When the next couple games felt boring I stopped buying it all together. I feel like if GoW came out with no Kratos, it would've had that same feeling of not belonging to the franchise, because after the initial trilogy, he was the identity of GoW. I also feel like RE and FF have more leeway because they focused on theme from the get go, having different characters and plots ever since their first sequel. Granted that could cause an overattachment to gameplay loop, but I think the video explores that angle really well.
You bring up a good point; a very good one. After Assassin's Creed 3, the AC series slowly became very disjointed. Cohesion was barely there with AC 4 - Syndicate, then was completely lost with Origins - Odyssey; with that cohesion lost, and more aspects of the gameplay changed up, the franchise became more and more divisive with the fanbase, with it's identity being all over the place now.
It helps (that at least for Final Fantasy) not only are there consistent fantasy themes, but consistent battle mechanics as well. There is almost always a black mage-like character, a white mage-like character, spells like Aero and Osmose and Gravity and Flare, three tiers of magic, summons like Ifrit and Shiva and Odin, possibly the Gilgamesh from FFV around to battle, blue mage spells to absorb like Lv 2 Death or something like that, and many more. This way, Final Fantasy can tell many different stories while being obviously a Final Fantasy game.
@@iantaakalla8180 on that note, because the magic system is relatively consistent they can completely overhaul the gameplay without feeling like the combat dynamics have strayed too far from what's expected of a FF. On the other hand, one of the big turnoff points I remember from RE5 were zombies shooting bazookas. When you lose the ground for your magic system, keeping similar gameplay is not enough to maintain consistency.
Tbf if AC2 introduced another character other than Desmond, I don't really see my self disliking it unless that character is somehow badly done. Obviously I'd have thoughts and questions on what happened to Desmond, but I wouldn't attribute the identity of AC to Desmond himself at that point. Cause arguably, AC still didn't necessarily have an established identity in terms of the MC up until Brotherhood imo. They could've changed present MCs every game after AC1, and that in and of itself would've become a defining identity of the game. I think spending as much of the time that we did with Desmond and then moving on to AC4 is what causes some fans to question; "Is this really AC?".
Loved your video man! This topic is really nuanced, but i wholeheartedly agree. First off, I think change is scary in videogames (and a lot of mediums in general) because it takes so long to get a new product, so, if said product ends up being bad or not pleasing you, it feels like a "wasted" wait. Contrast that with, for example, comics, where you have tons of titles, and a monthly publication, a lot of times something displeasing you can still be substituted by something that you like, or even be ignored for a few months before the writer changes. Another point I wanted to make is that I've become less scared of changes the more my personal life has changed. Like, I don't judge "casual player" catered games anymore because, as I've started working in an exhausting job with weekend shifts, I've become somewhat of a casual player myself. Like, after a long Sunday shift, sometimes I can't wrap my brain around the nuances and intricacies of DMC V's combat, so, sometimes, the dumbed down DMC is perfect for me, because, to be quite honest, I do become kinda dumb in these moments hahahahaha
I believe that a game can change drastically, but the core them tend to need to stay intact and move slowly through each game. Like looking at resident evil as an example, the first game was a solo horror adventure, the 2nd was a horror adventure but with a little more action, the third was an action game that kept its horror mechanics and the 4th was a action game with horror themes, 5 removes the last of the horror, and all if those games are considered true RE games. It zelda where every game is different but they keep the core themes. Some games change everything over one sequel and keep nothing of the original. Thats when you get this issue
You do a really great job of being impartial and understanding of both sides while not being afraid to provide your own opinion in a respectful way. Very rare these days, especially online, and especially in the world of video game discourse.
"What would the world of gaming look like if change always meant you needed to create a new IP?" Well, my man, we'd have new franchises! And it doesn't have to hurt innovation at all. Don't let the irony be lost that Devil May Cry was originally going to be a Resident Evil or that Assassin's Creed was originally going to be a Prince of Persia. I think new IPs being born from old IPs is healthier for the industry, and preferable to series after series of divided fanbases. But what a great discussion. "It's a good game but bad ____ game" is criticism I use all the time, so I think this is an excellent topic to examine further. I immediately thought of Resident Evil, and you were way ahead of me. God of War 2018, Splinter Cell Conviction, Hitman Absolution, check, check and check. This essay is well covered and well thought out. There are certainly games that pull it off. Similar to Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid is another series that can retain a sense of identity even though gameplay-wise, most MGS titles are very different from each other. But on the topic of chasing trends, I can't help wishing you mentioned Tomb Raider altering its identity to have more action and set pieces like Uncharted, itself a Tomb Raider derivative. I can be a bit of a traditionalist, moreso these days precisely because it feels like different IPs are losing what made them unique, to become more homogenized. When a lot of games all play alike, one can thirst for something that stands out. Assassin's Creed was that for me. That's why I think it's important to differentiate when a franchise changes it's mechanics, to when it completely changes genres. If someone doesn't like rpgs, and plays Assassin's Creed to get away from rpgs, they're going to have a problem with AC becoming an rpg. There's no reconciling this. But because rpgs are popular with most people, most people won't have a problem with the change. How many times have we heard "I didn't care about Assassins Creed before, but I like it now." The idea that the thing you loved can't be appreciated by others unless it changes itself is a lot to take in. And it's unfortunate to see a series turn their back on one audience to court another. And be validated. It's a lot to think about. But ultimately there is no 'right' or 'wrong,' just a matter of preference. Great video 👍
Thank you for the thought out response. I did have a whole section on Metal Gear but I ended up cutting it for time, but perhaps it would have been good to write about Tomb Raider. This is more of a personal thing, but I didn't really like the new Tomb Raider games, but not because they were different or too much like Uncharted. In reality, I saw that initial trailer for Tomb Raider 2013 and thought that it was swinging hard toward being more like the games Naughty Dog puts out, but I was surprised that it really felt like its own thing. Unfortunately, I just didn't like that thing. I didn't like how they handled the open structure, the combat mechanics felt inconsistent, and basic movement didn't pass the "feel test" for me. I didn't play the series as thoroughly as I have some others; I have only played the first three and the most recent trilogy. But my problem wasn't that it lost its identity, because while it clearly shifted a lot from fighting zombie centaurs while doing backflips in TR1, I felt like it still set itself apart from the rest of the industry. I just didn't think they stuck the landing.
Amazing video! I think a reason some people dont vibe with Zelda BotW or FF16 is because of the fear to lose certain gameplay elements and mechanics. Very few other games do turn-based-combat as well as FF or dungeons as well as Zelda (or at all). Especially not triple A titles, which is what most are familiar with.
I agree that you definitely don’t want to fall into the trap of hating something just because it is different. I might be a bit guilty of this with BOTW but I did make an effort to hunt down anything Zelda-esque and came up short in the end, and that was on top of deconstructed it’s very flawed open world design. But I’m in the minority on BOTW, and it’s difficult to not be dismayed over the fact that it’s not something I can force myself to enjoy. While the failure to adapt resides with me, the net result is the same: the experience isn’t enjoyable. The successful ones cause even more alarm because it means we will most likely see the new trends continue (ironically, we might see a time when Zelda’s open world becomes “stagnant”). I do, however, still think there is a way to innovate while retaining the essence. Metroid Prime is different than Super Metroid but it understands the importance of ambience, isolation, and item based progression. BOTW very clearly is not interested in the importance of labyrinth dungeons and varied thematic ones at that. The shrines and divine beasts were designed to fit what the designers felt was a more suitable companion to the open world, and perhaps it was. But the game that would have replaced those things with a few thematic and challenging dungeons might have been well received too.
I love basically all the 3D Zelda games. Windwaker the least cuz of the map design and sailing. BoTW was immensely different, and I'm happy I ended up on the side that loves it. That being said, I understand why you couldn't get to enjoy it. But I'd almost suggest looking into tears of the kingdom. It brings back a loooot of old nostalgic things from the more traditional games, albeit still in the end like BoTW but with some different powers, more heavily themed dungeons and a lot heavier emphasis on the story.
@@Verchiel_ Tears improves upon BotW greatly, but despite the theming of the dungeons in that game it still really lacks compelling puzzles or even level design. Most of BotW's and TotK's best puzzles are oddly found in shrines as opposed to finding them in Divine Beasts or Dungeons. They seem to be really caught up with the scale and size of these dungeons rather than the actual quality of the content within them that a lot of the space found within these dungeons are barely used. Incredibly high ceilings that could've made for more floor levels, and vast open spaces with not many enemies or even a puzzle. They already had a pretty good template for great dungeon design in BotW, Hyrule Castle itself, and an even better template for tackling non-linear dungeons with A Link Between Worlds. I think they really hit it out of the park with TotK and addressed some of the issues with Breath of the Wild, I just hope they have better puzzles for the dungeons in the next game.
@@Kaliospectre yea I entirely agree. It's definitely missing that sense of commitment going into a densely packed dungeon with minibosses and key items and just a more linear catered progression. I've only done two dungeons so far and I'm already seeing a kind of disappointed trend between them, that being just. Turning on 5 or so mechanisms to trigger boss
Yeah I'm never gonna accept the current style of 3d Zelda. And I've accepted I don't gotta be, I'm chilling as long as I always got the older titles and they at least keep the spirit going in 2d. In general I'm not into the current open world craze much at all. Ultimately it always seems like they made a large scope world just to say they have a large scope world and provide "freedom" but it usually just feels like there's nothing to do. Maybe I'm just a simple brain, but I like the more structured goal set up from outside the genre. Even old school arcadey games, absolutley adore those, even more so in this current climate of the industry. This "say it's open world and they'll buy it" phase of the industry just is not quite my tempo.
@@MagillanicaLouM That's very understandable. I too enjoy linear style of games a lot, especially since story driven (FPS) 20-30 hour games are a comfort genre of mine. Saying a lot of games these days are open world for the sakes of being mass appeal is fair, but BoTW/ToTK are widely agreed to be actually great examples of open world done right, even if not for everyone.
The ac case is kinda more complicated .Origins was an rpg,but still had the feeling of an ac, it was a change that was necessary to keep the series alive .I enjoyed odyssey ,but the player doesnt even have the hidden blade(which one could say is a mascot for the series),also forcing players to farm xp to be able to progress the main story was really frustrating .
Bro odyssey is a prequel. Makes sense as to why there’s no hidden blade. Atleast there’s a bunch of cool animations instead of repeating the same one over and over again over 10 games.
It doesn't have a hidden blade, but you have a blade that does the exact same thing, and looks pretty similar in usage. I really never found it to be a big deal, and with the xp grinding thing, I've always found that weird. I was constantly overlevelled in Odyssey, and I didn't do a ton of side content, just.. some of it. Do people not get distracted and do a bit of side stuff in AC games or something?
I know the argument. I've made it for Zelda breath of the wild. The argument boils down to: It's a very competent game, perhaps even fun, but it does not capture the essence of the series it's spawned from. It's a more common argument, the more distinct the franchise gameplay is for the gaming landscape. I think it's fair to make the argument. For Zelda, breath of the wild, for example. "it's a well crafted open world game, but it fails to capture the variety of challenges and locations, and the strong sense of progression from previous titles." That is what people are saying that a game is good, but not a good [it's franchise] game. The problem is, most people fail to articulate this well, and on top of that fail to realise how subjective "capturing the essence of a franchise" is.
Fantastic video as always. This reminded me of Ace Combat 3; that game went significantly above and beyond what was expected of the series, pretty much a reset from AC1 and 2 that were essentially just Top Gun homages; and retained none of the identity that the series had established before. That game ended up selling strongly but much less than the previous games, only barely managing to beat 2 and not even coming close 1's sales. The same game now is now pretty much treated as a masterpiece that was simply way, way too ahead of its time.
I feel like BOTW and TOTK feel alienating because they feel like they exclude old parts of the formula when they don't need to. Dungeon items are just adored, even if you have to make them less useful for puzzle solving in the open world, I feel like most players would be totally happy with botw's world and then OOT dungeons, the difference in design would be a very welcome change of pace. As well IMO, dungeon items would better feel like link rebuilding his arsensal which would best fit stories of a Link who lost everything. It really just would feel better if you had both.
with FF I've just come to accept it isn't for me anymore, which is a bummer because id consider games like 4, 6 and 9 to be some of my favorites out there, but but there's plenty of people happy with the series' currently direction so I can't really complain. Sometimes I just wish a bit if FF's titanic budget went to SE's other games, because when you look at say... anything from the mana series, or even bravely or octopath they always feel like games that needed just a little more attention put to them and SE definitely has the resources to do so.
I can definitely see where you are coming from there. I think Square Enix especially has been plagued by a lot of bad business decisions over the past decade and the FFXIV money has been keeping them afloat, so it can definitely feel like other franchises get neglected in favor of FF.
I just judge the game for what it is. I love the og AC games, but I despise Syndicate and love Origins. I'm excited for Mirage's return to the old style, but I'm also stoked for Codename Red's vast RPG adventure. Excellent video, keep up the good work Jay.
Why do you dislike Syndicate though? After 2 and Brotherhood, Syndicate made me try AC again and get back into the franchise. Victorian London as setting just was super appealing to me, personally. It was definitely less Assassin's Creed-y but not a bad game imo.
@@catburglar82 London was a dull, boring and ugly setting where no major historical event occurs. The story is the most shallow and uninteresting in the entire series. Assassins decide to free London from the Templars and succeed easily with no consequences. I also don't care for the tone of the story as it feels more like a parody of AC. Jacob and Evie are the 2 least likeable protagonist and underdeveloped protagonists. The switching between them didn't work because I couldn't get attached to one before switching to the other. The have no real motivation, nothing interesting happens to them and they don't change throughout the story. Also Crawford Starrick was a laughably goofy villain and Henry Green was nothing but a liability. The rope launcher completely broke the parkour. I understand it's because the buildings were so far apart, then maybe they shouldn't have set it in London then. The combat is way too clunky and drawn out. Sure it can be flashy, but it often breaks the flow and it takes an eternity to kill someone. Stealth just doesn't work. I get noticed, with or without the hood. The game was just an absolute, boring slog that didn't bring anything new to the franchise.
@@sm4carnageihope Huh, I get your points. Probably helped that I had like zero expectations with that game when I played it. If anything, at least Syndicate is better than Valhalla lol
Assassin’s Creed is a weird example because it would be very straightforward for Ubisoft to let AC remain in its current state as RPG’s submerged in a historical setting and also reviving the Prince of Persia games built around parkour elements and an engaging, linear story.
Yeah, mix of both would be the best. My least favorite parts of Origins and Odyssey (I skipped Valhalla) was boring riding on horse through empty landscape, but I like its new combat (except for stealth) and RPG elements. RPG in dense city built around parkour and stealth would be likely my favorite AC.
Amazing video. You really helped me consolidate a lot of the thoughts i had around assassin's creed. You are great at being nuanced and showing each side of the debate, which is very rare nowadays. And the use of other games to illustrate your point was great. You are very well spoken, and your ability to break down complex ideas in a way that is easy to understand is superb. Been watching all of your content and loving it, you truly are a master of the video essay. Often times i simply have a video essay playing in the background as I play a game but yours are engaging enough that I find them taking my full attention. Looking forward to all of the content you'll be making going forward :D
As someone who grew up with the original “Legend of Zelda”, I felt that “Breath of the Wild” was a return to form for the series. It felt the closest to the original in the sense of: “Go anywhere, do anything” that the original had.
As someone who grew up with the Ocarina of Time formula and have heard a lot about the OG Zelda formula. Even if I still adore the OoT Zelda formula I still think that BotW even if it's imperfect (lack of ennemies, weapon system who can be much better, dungeons, bosses who are so empty identity wise and too easy etc...) I think that the game really captures well the idea of freedom and the feeling of immersion that was originally planned in the beginning. I am definitely not saying that the others game aren't but I feel like the linearity of it was a problem and limits the feeling of freedom that the franchise was supposed to offer. So that's why I just can't understand the opinion of "BotW is a good game but a bad Zelda game" honestly.
@@theblackmoonrising You completely misunderstood "BoTW is a good game but a bad Zelda game", it's not about freedom, hell you can't make the case that it was ever about freedom, you could go anywhere in the first two games but only if your standards of freedom are going from the middle of a sandbox to its edge because all non beginner areas are locked. BoTW is considered a bad Zelda game because of its lack of dungeons and puzzles, it essentially is just your usual action RPG without the Zelda uniqueness (I'm oversimplifying, obviously BoTW is its own unique action RPG but I was comparing it to previous Zelda games).
@@thegamerfe8751 Yes I was quite wrong. It's not really the notion of freedom it's about but more the feeling of adventure and exploration, at least for me. But again I don't understand where BotW is not ticking these boxes precisely (and that also applies to the old opuses). For Dungeons it is already something that I had mentioned but yes I am clearly not saying that Dungeons in this game are not a problem, far from it. The shrines are a good idea but still a bit inconsistent but the Dungeons themselves clearly need more and at least as complex as what we were used to. I hope the problem has been fixed in TotK even if good I don't have the game yet. And concerning BotW being a basic RPG well I want to say that Zelda is not a series of games foreign to RPGs ( Zelda II was literally an action-RPG and then we didn't even keep the formula, we kept certain elements like magic for example)
@@theblackmoonrising I didn't say that BoTW didn't have freedom and exploration, I said that the Zelda series before it wasn't really about that. It tick those boxes, I never said it didn't. And no you misunderstood me what that last sentence of yours, what I meant is that BoTW leaned more to the action RPG side than the dungeons and puzzles side.
I have thought long about it and came to the conclusion that for me, the main difference is the mode of interaction with the game, like, how it fits into your life and what skills are required and such. For example, an AC game for me is a fundamentally laid-back casual experience where you basically win every single fight using glorified QTEs, where you can make your own fun by building stacks of dead guards or aimlessly jumping across the roofs, where your character just gets linearly stronger as the game progresses, and where the only challenge comes from your own desire to 100% optional goals or other self-imposed challenges. This is, like, 20-ish hours of pure fun and satisfying gameplay that you can spend two hours at a time after work while listening to a podcast, smoking a pipe, and occasionally laughing at all the over-the-top conspiracy theories. Origins/Odyssey, however, just don't fit that template - there's suddenly this new challenging combat system which requires some degree of concentration; there is suddenly non-linear levelling and gear system which requires me to put some thought into the game and actually make some choices; there's suddenly a fair bit of grinding going on, so by playing two hours every evening you can spend several days without a single new plot beat. The new games just don't fit in my mindset when playing AC, so I, like, just stopped playing them. Plus, there were no more over-the-top conspiracy theories! The same thing but in reverse goes for the Hitman franchise: when I play these games I expect this open-ended intricate systemic puzzle box where I can walk in circles around my apartment for half an hour thinking about how to approach a certain objective to then sit down and execute it perfectly. So when Absolution comes out and instead of this it requires me to have a good aim and a decent reaction speed I just immediately lose interest because that's not what I wanted from it. What's worse, both of these niches I just mentioned were at the time quite unique, so it felt really bad when it seemed like they were gone for good - sure, after some time the alternatives did pop up, but at that moment I was genuinely distressed by this change in direction.
There's no challenge in Odessey if you grind the cult of cosmos you can become overpowered with full set of legendaries and the game becomes a walk in the park. The combat is basically button mashing with god powers. It's a grindy tedious game
One important element not touched on here for me is replacements. A series near and dear to my heart, monster hunter, had a very large change in it's 5th generation. To me however, it felt like "a great game, but not a great monster hunter game". They changed the core of the combat system to be flashier and faster and have much less emphasis on being extremely precise and positioning well to avoid attacks. A change carried over from world into rise and arguably taken even further in that direction. One of the reasons this hurts me so much, is because there is no other game that offers what monster hunter did. There simply isn't another monster hunting game with a focus on methodical but extremely precise combat. Contrast that with final fantasy and I can think of half a dozen turn based medieval fantasy games I've played in the last year that have been fantastic. That makes it bother me far less when final fantasy stops offering that.
A lot of very good points in this video, but one thing I feel it misses out on is the flipside of the point about creating new IPs; sure, if companies created new IPs every time devs got too creative we wouldn't have gotten RE4, but if they never did we wouldn't have gotten the original Assassin's Creed, a game which was created entirely because Ubisoft thought Patrice Desilets' idea for Prince of Persia: Assassins strayed too far from the PoP series identity by making the player character someone other than the Prince. Perhaps PoP: Assassins would have reinvigorated the franchise, but the decision to turn it into something new instead certainly didn't stifle any creativity, it gave the devs room to make even more creative decisions unshackled to any expectations for the franchise they started with, resulting in a whole new expansive franchise that so many of us dearly love. So yes, we can miss out on great entries in existing franchises if every innovation ends up as a new IP, but we can also miss out on great things if innovation is confined to existing IPs; we shouldn't take it as all-or-nothing.
While I don’t discuss it too much here, I think that is in many ways the point of the video. A lot of people do see this as a black and white situation, when in reality, we have had great games that branch off from their franchises, great games that became new IPs, bad games that made low effort changes, and so on and so forth. Assassin’s Creed is an especially interesting case because due to the common opinion that Ubisoft has become a greedier and less consumer friendly company in the last two decades, many would have preferred if Prince of Persia had continued to live rather than Assassin’s Creed be created. The idea of a new IP essentially killing the old is a whole separate issue I didn’t even get into, although perhaps I would have been straying too far from the original premise at that point. But yes, you are very right, we cannot consider the impact of radical change in the industry without acknowledging the great titles that became new IPs after starting out within familiar franchises.
'Fear of change' isn't always the reason. Sometimes the changes are just dumb. I say the recent 'AC games are halfway decent games but aren't good AC games' all the time. Mostly because being AC games holds them back. Change isn't necessarily bad, nor is it necessarily good. I guess it comes down to the fact that most of the time these changes ARE based on money and 'appealing to a wider audience', which most people who gave them money prior don't like.
One word: expectations. Even if we keep them at the low level we have some. If game changes it might not change in the direction we wanted. I fully agree that if there is a quality behind the change as well as something new and refreshing people are more willing to accept the change. I wonder why you focused on RE:4 only if I recall correctly changes made in 5 and 6 were even more controversial. EDIT: sorry I was writing the comment half into the video.
With regards to AC: Odyssey - it was originally meant to be named “Odyssey: an assassin’s creed adventure”. As a spin off, but it was dropped and put in as a main line game.
Do you have sources for this? I have seen this before, but only from a mock up poster made using art from the Gwent card game from Patrice Dufrense, one of the many artists who worked at Ubisoft. Seeing as how the game came out only one year after Origins it is unlikely it would have had much time to exist as a different product, especially since it carries over a majority of its core gameplay from Origins.
@@sosaysjay Although with regards to AC Origins, it clearly derives from the "Osiris" IP that was cancelled by Ubisoft in the mid 2010's. And I believe this furthermore adds to the feeling that the last 4 games have been "forced" into the AC franchise rather than being genuinely thought for it, contrarily to RE4 or BotW. I would have no issue with a "Empire" franchise that would present similar gameplay and be set in Egypt, Greece, Persia, Rome and whatnot. And it's to a pint were it feels like the last games are restricted by the AC canva and cannot do their own thing, which ends up annoying the devs and the fanbase altogether and no one is satisfied (cf. your video on Valhalla).
My personal take on this is that more series should embrace the concept of sub-series and either use subtitles or clear hints whenever they wanna deviate from any perceived formula. For example I'm convinced that what DmC did truly wrong wasn't the risks it took or changes it made but rather choosing a bad title and having a confusing marketing, they should have simply called it "Devil May Cry: [insert subtitle here]" instead of the awkward "DmC: Devil May Cry" we got and marketed it as it's own new take on the established franchise. After all the game wasn't great but it was definitely good yet it got a terrible reputation as if it was a complete trainwreck. Then there's also the cases of series where the fanbase just fragments to the point that nobody can agree on what the games should be, which is what happened to Sonic, causing perfectly fine games to be deemed bad and actually bad games being defended as if they were misunderstood gems. And then they complain when Sonic Team has no clue of what to do with a mountain of confusing and often contradictory feedback.
As a fan of old and new style games of Assassins Creed, the only thing I really want the upcoming games to improve is the traversal/parkour system and reduce the service based "Season Pass" style DLCs that are actually part of the main game. If the devs want to go big in open world, thats fine. However, they will have to put in even more effort to balance the map size with a good parkour traversal system to win most of the fans.
I have over 4 playthrough of AC Odyssey, To me is more than a evolution of the series but a welcome new formula that could be used to recreate not just Ancient Greece but countless other old societies that we only have descriptions in ancient texts. Mirage is a step back to the old tired formula that almost killed AC in the first time. I Hope the AC in Japan will follow the RPG formula
I got into FF by playing XV, it wasn’t the best but since then I’ve gone back and played all the other games except a few pixel remasters, for me what defines FF is its story, its party members and summons and I think a huge part of that is because I played this series backwards and I noticed it’s not until you get to FFX, which came out in 2001 do you finally get a true turn based FF. so turn based combat never defined the series for me, and party members I think is extremely important but again you look at XV, which I think they handled pretty well tbh it’s still party members just different, if XVI is anything like that with better writing I can’t wait to spend time will Jill And Cidolfus, overall I’m excited for XVI because it’s innovation but based on the cores of what makes final fantasy a final fantasy, it’s like crisis core no one complains about that game… yeah it’s different but it’s story summons and supporting cast is why it’s a final fantasy. (Btw my favourite FF games is X, XII & VI
Interesting because that’s not what makes Final Fantasy what it is for me. I personally love the Job System which tends to be with games with weaker stories. I’m assuming you haven’t played FFIII or FFV (which has the best difficulty balance of the PRs) because those games don’t have amazing stories, but they have awesome mechanics. I honestly think that deep mechanics are a huge part of Final Fantasy, because most of the games have interesting mechanics that set them apart from each other like Materia, Jobs, Espers, Drawing, Limit Breaks, ATB and whatever FFII was doing.
It's a hard situation to grasp because at what point does the franchise's identity change too much to tolerate? Change isn't automatically a bad thing since there are cases where refusing to change or evolve has brought harm to the series (Pokémon ironically being a good example of this). Then you have cases like Paper Mario where it changed for the worse and there's no alternates that quite scratch the void it left behind: not even the Mario & Luigi series as that's gone too due to declining sales and quality.
It's always wild to me to hear people describe Zelda post-Breath of the Breath as "less Zelda", because part of the reason I struggled to get into the 3D Zelda games I tried earlier (Ocarina, Wind Waker, Skyward Sword) is because I couldn't buy into those games' senses of exploration and discovery that felt like the core of Zelda to me. Those games tended to slowly handhold me through everything, whereas I took a lot more to the 2D games as they trusted that the player could get lost during the early hours of the game. Breath of the Wild negated most of that issue, but I still struggled to get into it because I disliked how everything led to a shrine that tended to be a lot simpler than the dungeons in previous Zeldas. Tears of the Kingdom feels like how I had always heard huge Zelda fans describe playing whatever their favorite game in the series felt; just hundreds of mini-"aha" moments and the feeling that you're discovering new stuff all the time, or that you're constantly choosing your own goals to follow that the game doesn't have to directly guide you to with an open world quest marker. It has hooked me so much that I now desperately want to go back and play the long list of all the Zelda games I've never finished (or, hell, even started)
@@Leee275 I feel like they explained their position quite well. They do not like being handheld and feel like the 3D Zeldas are on too much of a guided path compared to the 2D ones. And Tears of the Kingdom is by far the most open ended game in the series when it comes to giving you options to handle any given scenario.
@@sosaysjay Yes I get what their point was even if I don't agree with it, what I was trying to say was that if someone doesn't like the majority of games in a series/subseries, then it comes as a surprise to me that they were even interested in getting the most recent entry of a series they were never even a fan of. They even said they struggled getting into Botw and Totk is the sequel to it. It's simply odd to me.
@@Leee275 That is understandable. But Zelda has a wide catalogue of fantastic 2D games, and one could easily get into the series through those and have a pretty limited history with the 3D games while still very much being fans.
*I'll tell you the answer right here:* if the game has gone a while without getting an entry, the fans are gonna be mad if a new one is different. If the game is so old that there's basically no fans left for the game, and it gets a new game, people will enjoy the game. If the game has had steady releases, each being slightly different from the last, the fans the series get will be used to change. If the game has had steady releases, each being basically the same, and then suddenly a new game comes out that's different; then they're gonna have a bad reaction. Then there's things like quality of life and bug fixes that basically every fanbase likes. Simple as.
Sometimes they do rename a game when it changes too much: Devil May Cry started as a Resident Evil, Assassin's Creed started as a Prince of Persia. But known IP are easier to market.
Incredible video! Good thing you didn't mention Sonic games, or else this video would've had double the time, considering how much the franchise has tried different things with wildly varying results and fan reception over the years.
1. Fantastic video. Truly appreciated. 2. With that in mind, the other side of the argument must also be made: What does "being a [redacted] game" even mean? We use term "rogue-like" to literally describe games like Rogue. We call games a Metroidvania for games similar to Metroid and Castlevania. I could go on and on. Warhammer 40k: Boltgun released recently. it is a fantastic "boomer shooter" - an homage to 90's FPS games like Quake and Doom. Is it a Warhammer 40k game simply becasue it uses the IP, or are 40k games only allowed to be derivatives of the tabletop miniatures game? If such a line exists, where does it blur? If Games Workshop were to publish a game with pre-painted miniatures in blind boosters that were designed for a tactical table top game that used square or hexagonal grid maps for a faster paced and accessible experience, would it be right or wrong to use the expression "It's a Good Game, but a Bad [REDACTED] Game" becasue it is in some ways similar to, but wholly isn't the classic Warhammer experience? What if Games Workshop were to take another step and claim that this new game were to be considered the next edition of Warhammer 40k? Where are the lines drawn between being innovative and truly being "a Good Game, but a Bad [REDACTED] Game"?
Great video. I apreciate the amount of thinking that goes into all your videos and the balanced and unbiased aproach in wich you present both sides of the argument regardless of the subject. Your channel should have way more subscribers.
I haven't watched the entire video yet but I think the reason change is more accepted in some franchises compared to assassin's Creed is because the later games basically weren't assassin's creed, like the assassin's are barely mentioned if mentioned at all in Odyssey, atleast Final Fantasy 16 can be recognised as a final fantasy game from a glance, in Odyssey and maybe Valhalla on the other hand? The only thing that tells us they are assassin's creed is the big Assassin's creed Logo that probably came up near the starting of the game (I don't remember if it even did...) And the stealth...
I know you probably tired of hearing this, New Vegas is wildly consider the best Fallout game, and it's also my personal favorite game of all time, but without Fallout 3's innovation, it could never been possible. Fallout 4 is excellent too, and it's my second favorite Fallout game, even after almost 8 years it's still one of the most daily played single player game on Steam.
@@Patrickdaawsome 4 is a very different game for sure, I think it's more enjoyable if you don't expect it to be a RPG like the previous game, many people think water down the RPG elements is the biggest problem of the game, but I think the problem is that they didn't water it down enough and commit to the game's new direction, resulted the remaining RPG elements felt pretty out of place and unnecessary.
@@Patrickdaawsome Yeah, Fallout 4 did lack the conversation, and the main plot doesn't gel too well with the exploratory nature of the game. You do get important decisions, and I think the main story has always been a bit weak compared to the world building and side quests in general. I prefer F3 over NV because it's better at free exploration. NV funnels you all around the map, so by following the main quest, and the quests you pick up along that, you will explore pretty much the entire map. In F3, you'll miss huge areas of the map if you don't go exploring on your own.
I think most people boil down the "general vibe" of the game into a sentence or two theme, not more. Like in Legend of Zelda it is "Young hero explores world, finds princess." so the mechanics and shifts that occured in it from Ocarina of Time to Majora's Mask to Wind Waker to Breath of the Wild does not seem to break the theme in the eyes of the players. However, look at Assassin Creed for example, "Assassin sneaks and parkours through the city to hunt targets.", so the changes to that franchise (even though I quite like Odyssey and even Origin to some extent) causes changes to that sentence, in Odyssey it is "Strong warrior participates in Peloponessian war", so it doesnt "feel" like Assassin's creed to some people. At least I think this is what is going on in the background when people say some games dont feel like their predecessor.
I am in an awkward situation. I don't agree with you on certain aspects, particularly with Assassin's Creed, but you were so polite and well structured in your arguments that I still enjoyed the video. Another big problem of Assassin's Creed is also the inconsistency in it's story and it's rules, which getting lost game after game have made suspension of disbelief increasingly difficult. This problem for many (including myself) became even more evident with Odyssey, in which over the top abilities and much more fantasy betrayed what was a pillar of Assassin's Creed: grounded but with precise fantastic elements, which were science-fiction and the first civilization. Roughly summarizing what you said in the video, if you don't like the new Assassin's Creed course it may simply be because of your taste. That's partially true, because it was not only changed in gameplay, but also marred in its story and internal coherence. It was bad decisions that brought the second result, it's not just a desire to innovate. When people say "Assassin's Creed is no longer Assassin's Creed" it's also because of this
My biggest problem with the new AC games is more its name. Imagine if a game called World War was a fist person shooter set in the first world war, but the sequel suddenly became a farming simulator called World War 2, it won't matter if its a good game, people expect war in a game with war in its name. I feel the same about a game called assassin's creed, I expect to play as an assassin. If the new AC games dropped the AC name and became a different IP, I believe that most of the criticism would disappear and people wouldn't be as divided. Although I concede that slapping the AC name on anything will make it sell. Good video btw, you've earned a new subscriber!
Fantastic video, but, 2 things: new vegas was actually more of a return to form for the series compared to 3 and whatever the hell else came between 2 and 3, and DmC wasn't just bad because of how bad it fucked up the story, tone, and characters. It also had some really bad gameplay changes like being half the framerate of all the other games, removing the ability to lock on to enemies, which had the knock on effect of making certain moves like Stinger much worse to preform, and adding enemies that could only being harmed by certain weapons and if you hit them with the wrong one you'd bounce off and it killed any momentum you had grr who thought that was a good idea. And tangentially, I remember seeing lots of people bitching about mgsv when it came out because they changed the gameplay too much and it wasn't metal gear anymore and all I could think was "you guys didn't play anything before 3, did you" Anyway great video. Really great.
On the topic of MGSV, personally I though it was one of the best stealth games ever made, the mechanics were great, the missions were enjoyable, it was atmospheric as all hell, it was a fun game and so many creative ways to play the game. and building Mother Base is so much fun and give reason to go back into the world and keep playing. But it was missing the highly focused but twisty-turny narrative and heavy handed symbolism and philosophy that previous games had. MGS1 had Psycho Mantis reading the save data of other games, messing with your controls and the staunchly anti-nuclear messaging and a critique of putting so much value into genetics. Every villain had a coherent, if somewhat flawed philosophy about war. And Revolver Ocelot is the man manipulating everyone behind the scenes and just hamming it up in his scenes. MGS 2 had the Arsenal Gear section where the foxdie worm from EE earlier was corrupting the AIs, breaking the fourth wall and the manipulation people through the information they see and interact with, which those AIs very similar to the content curation and moderation algorithms of the present day. And Ocelot is again manipulating everything and being a campy villain hamming up the scenes and occasionally getting possessed by Liquid. MGS 3 was an loving homage to and an inversion of a lot of old spy movie tropes and ideas, Snake doesn't get the pretty girl who unceremoniously dies partway through, in fact she was a spy herself and just using him to get the Philosophers Legacy for China; there's no such thing as an absolute enemy, the Soviets were Allies during WW2 until the suddenly weren't for the Cold War and The Boss saw through the pointlessness of all that "enemy" speak and how governments use that language to manipulate the young to die for their ideological causes. And Ocelot is still being a manipulative bastard, even at a young age and is beyond silly with his gun spinning protecting him from a swarm of wasps. MGS 4 was a globe spanning conspiracy about private contractors and governments constantly instigating conflicts and destabilizing regions to fuel an economy that runs on warfare and all the industries that support it. Modern war really isn't about getting more resources or even ideology anymore, it's a multitude of industries that are making sure they all stay in business. And Ocelot is full crazy villain with more ham than a pork processing plant and fighting against you in a giant mech battle on Shadow Moses. MGSV was about how revenge is a poison that eats away at your morality and turns you into the monster that is going to hold the world hostage with a secret nuclear equipped Metal Gear in like less than a decade and you become responsible for war crimes like rescuing children from working in a diamond mine and getting them medical treatment, or failing missions for hurting child soldiers, or investigating the oil spill coverup of a fossil fuel company and uncovering a bioweapon program that kills people based on what language they speak. And in this one Ocelot is the only serious character, who doesn't get any ridiculous scenes. Miller gets his burger development cassettes, and Ocelot is the straight man the entire game constantly commenting on just how crazy everyone around him is. All the messaging about how revenge will infect the system through language and Venom becoming the eventual villain of the original Metal Gear game, is just not there aside from Skullface monologuing for 20 minutes and it's undercut by all the objectively heroic things that Venom and Diamond Dogs do to the point that there is a Heroism score. Again MGSV is a great game, I put numerous hours into the game because of how much fun it was to play but to call it a good Metal Gear game while missing the convoluted narrative essence of all the other Metal Gear games is.
When major companies leave their old formulas behind, indie companies pick up the pieces and fill that void. We saw this with 2d platformers, 3d platformers, arena shooters, farming simulators, rhythm games, and so on. These genres then have a resurgance and the very companies that abandon the concepts dip back in for a while. That is how the cycle goes.
an interesting discussion as a more recent resident evil fan that got into the franchise through the remakes with re2 remake in 2019. I absolutely love the old games and I love the remakes too but none are without criticism and I feel like some older fans are being unreasonable when it comes to the remakes. for example now with re4 remake being out a part of the fandom is saying how it's soulless when they don't take time to appreciate how much the remake improved the writing, the characters and the combat, keeping what the original did and building and improving on it, cause they think leon isn't corny enough or whatever, when the man says some very bad but funny jokes throughout the remake. I think people need to be a bit more objective when it comes to changes in big franchises, but I also think devs should be more open to improving on what fans love from the series rather than changing it entirely and risking an alienation of the core fanbase. there needs to be a better balance both in fan response and in dev reaction when it comes to change
Re 4 remakes aiming sucks it's a generic third person shooting mechanic with bloom on shooting in original re 4 the aiming is fucking god like the reactions from the genados you don't get that anywhere else besides 5 everything is bullet spongy enemies in any game nothing beats the creepiness of the village section the noises they make when they notice you they're loud they speak creepily in the remake they speak like normal people the voice acting sucks the movement sucks no i frames so there's a chance of getting stunlocked you can't just jump out of windows when serounded you just fall either down or get stunned wich gets you grabbed
I think one of the big things that (I admit is very hard to do) buys the Devs innovation room is to get to a point where the IP transcends a single game series. Take a look at Mario. While there is a through-line of ‘mainline’ platformers, there are also sub-series that explored into different areas like Mario Kart, the RPG games from seven stars to Paper Mario to the Mario Bros handheld RPG series. All are Mario games, but each sub-line develops it’s own niche. (Of course the Paper Mario line is it’s own example of potentially changing too much and fans reacting after the changes following The Thousand Year Door)
I honestly agree. People often act rather toxic about it. Like if they don't like say the parkour in the newer AC games, then they'll just use good moment for parkour in a game they liked, while using a bad moment in the game they don't like. And it happens with so many different games. I personally believe people should be allowed to enjoy what they want to enjoy, without having to be judged by others who want to stuff their opinions down their throat.
I think the only conundrum with Assassins Creed is that the mere noun "Assassin" evokes some pretty distinct concepts. A Zelda is a Zelda, not anything else, a DmC is a DmC, not anything else, an RE is an RE, not anything else. The genre, style, gameplay, etc etc are all post-title blurbs, but the title themselves describe only themselves. Like, imagine a game called Sniper, but the majority of game play is bonking people with a club. Even if technically you could make a game where setting up a sniping spot by clearing an outposts first is part of the sniping task, the title itself sets somewhat skewed expectations, so it is just an easy target to point as a flaw even if in the grand scheme of things you just don't like the game because you felt cheated by having the wrong expectations yourself. It is petty, but it's a "you played yourself" situation on both sides.
I think not mentioning Hironobu Sakaguchi leaving Square after Final Fantasy X as being at least part of the reason for the, "It's a good game, but a bad Final Fantasy game" argument is a missed opportunity in this discussion in regards to how a single artist's style can also define a franchise . I would imagine it would be like Metal Gear Solid 6 being made by someone other than Kojima. It could be a great game, but it would never be a Kojima game so a divide would happen in the fanbase. Just my thoughts. I'm enjoying the content. Looking forward to the next video!
His departure definitely had an impact. It’s tough to fully quantify since he had been promoted and stopped directing FF games after V (my personal favorite in the series). While he worked on others up to X-2 after that, there was a clear shift that occurred with VI and VII, and those two are the most popular games in the series by a fair margin.
This was a great video. An analytical view of the gaming landscape as a whole and of one of the numerous reasons games get criticized for nowadays. Critical thinking at its finest, no shallow arguments, only an accurate representation of games and their fanbases. This video got me thinking quite a bit, and made me stop a couple of times in order to accurately process what you just said; most of the times, your arguments came out as factual, which is an extremely rare thing when presenting an opinion online. You got me hooked for the entire 41 minutes!
I'm more bummed that FF16 seems to lack a team of interesting characters to go on adventure with (like 7 ft tall bunny girls, black mages, etc.) than the shift to being an action-based game. It's just... him.
Yeah the Berserk Games of Thrones vibes are insanely heavy in FF16. Edgy looking but deep inside compassionate character with skills amplified by their anger for a protag. It's a very mainstream Final Fantasy game meant to appeal to the people who want a hardcore environment Final Fantasy game. I hope the next game after is more light hearted for variety, I'm excited for FF16 though
@@lindblumpickles3407 I kind of agree with that. I don't care much for the MMOs, a few boys in black outfits I can't tell apart, or the drab, fake medieval style of FF16. That's really the main reason I'm not interested in the new one. The combat in Final Fantasy games have always been more or less innovative. They've tried new things constantly, some more severe than others. I don't think any particular style is core to the franchise.
@@heroicgangster9981 iirc FF16 writing-wise is more taking after games like Vagrant Story and Tactics Ogre that a lot of the people working on it are huge fans of
I'm glad there's no 7ft tall bunny girls in FF16, and the idea that you never have a party with you in FF16 is literally categorically untrue. You do often have people with you, you just have no direct control over them.
I just think if the story is changed/new or core gameplay is completely changed then just use new name or market as spin off. That's why I only count series like Trails series a true series 10+ interconnected story with gameplay evolving every titles.
people getting mad that final fantasy games change so much is wild to me since the whole point of the numbered games is they are entirely different and unconnected from eachother, it makes sense the games will be different since the story, world and environment will also be entirely different
The difference with Final Fantasy and Yakuza is that many of us are NOT just resistant to change, and simply LIKE things like turn-based combat and party management. And something like Like A Dragon is just further proof that turn-based combat isn't actually dated or unpopular like the Final Fantasy heads seem to believe. Overall, it's just frustrating and we're lamenting the opportunity cost and general direction going on where the bigger budget games are trying to make more 'mainstream friendly' choices, even though this 'wider appeal' chasing is usually not nearly as necessary as corporate suits seem to think it is. I mean, Capcom learned this very lesson with Resident Evil, learning that "Oh, actually people do really like it when we focus on more horror stuff and not all the action schlock". These companies constantly read the gaming audience wrong.
And to further the point about it not just being resistant to change in general - most Final Fantasy fans were entirely fine with all the big changes that happened up through about FFXII or so. And then the complaints about FFXIII weren't about any design changes specifically(FFX was also super linear), they just weren't very well executed games. Even with XII's more 'real time' combat, it was tolerable because we still had the party there and great control over the party. And that *is* the main factor for why people tend to like turn-based games, it isn't the 'time to think' or anything, it's that you get full(or near enough) control over all the character's actions. So FFXII still worked given the superb gambit system even if it was technically real-time. It is specific direction changes that people are unhappy with, not some inherent disposition against change.
the audience of FF is too vast with each game's different styles to fully cater to one. IDK where people get that action is an appeal to larger audience thing but its another style FF wants to try. That's how they work.
One of the major things why fans hate new AC creed games are how it basicly killed the storyline that was going from the 1 game to the ac 3, that ended on a cliffhanger. Than AC 4 was relevant to the main plot, but more like a teaser to what should come. AC Unity was meant to continue main storyline but for some reason most of it was cut.(You still can see a lot of references and lore that continue story, but not in the main part of the game). Then in AC Syndicate they made a full DLC that directly continue overall story of series, that should have led to the finale in AC Origins. But, probably because of how terribly Unity and Syndicate was acclaimed, they decided to throw all this in the trash and kill off most import characters for franchise in some comics that most of the people doesn't know they exists.
Video Game Franchises have no obligation to follow any specific rules set by the community. If stagnant sales necessitate change, then companies have the right to shake up the formula. Formulaic games are familiar and comfortable, and people have trouble stepping out of their comfort zones. However that doesn't mean games that change up the formula are bad games within the franchise. If the games are both commercially and critically successful, then they are 100% good games within their franchise. The only time a game can be considered truly bad is if it fails both commercially and critically. "It's a good game, but a bad (x) game" is a flawed argument anyway. What people really mean is "the game is good, but it's not what I want out of a/an (x) game".
I think a big thing for me that fits with the perceived issue of change I've always heard in the Final Fantasy community was the argument of Linear vs Non-Linear (especially when Final Fantasy 13 came out). For me, I rather enjoy the linearity of some of the games with Final Fantasy 10's narrative gave me that "it's all about journey and not the destination" feeling despite the goal being to reach a destination at then end of the road. To be honest I feel like there is no true "non-linear" Final Fantasy as everyone has a clear route for the player to take (there are some that require searching and talking to NPCs to figure out though), and the only difference being "how wide the road is" is how I put it. For me, a true non-linear Final Fantasy would have to be like BOTW or TOTK where you are given a goal, but you have the freedom to choose how, when, and where to approach that goal. A goal where there are multiple roads leading to it from an origin point.
Pokemon should have stayed 2D. Not because 3D is inferior but because Game Freak's 3D is inferior to Game Freak's 2D. The sprite art that gen V had had more spirit than anything that came out since they went 3D. The quality also lowered.
For me, no game is a better example of this phenomenon than Crash of the Titans. It's completely unrecognisable from the previous Crash Bandicoot games, being a beat-em-up rather than a pure platformer with focus on breaking boxes. They also had drastically different character designs, with Tiny and Uka Uka being butchered the most. But taken individually, it's still a fantastic game with cool mechanics, with the only real flaws being unskippable cutscenes and occasionally repetitive combat.
This is, in my opinion, the best video I have ever seen discussing this debate and is much appreciated. This video also has great timing considering the new gameplay trailer of AC Mirage has released and seeing the comments on those videos is just........ its something.
@@yodaddyrc1220 Sorry if I was unclear, but basically what I meant was that the comments in some of the trailers for the game was really going on about how they are all excited because it will be like old-school Assassin's Creed and that it will be a good game (or a better game than the previous three) simply for returning to the older style of Assassin's Creed games.
@@infinitewisdom8400 Well yeah of course cuz many people wanted a traditional ac experience. They’re burnt out on rpg elements and not playing as an assassin. But still, that doesn’t mean that the game will be “good” you are right in a way. If the game is broken and the story sucks, then it won’t be anything stellar, but still, people just want ac to do what it was known for instead of trying to be like every other popular franchise.
@@yodaddyrc1220 I understand that want from people for the series to return to the older style of Assassin's Creed and it would be interesting to see if Ubisoft pulls it off with this new game, but my big issue with the whole thing is when people start bashing and invalidating the previous three games because the fact that they are seen as fake or lesser Assassin's Creed games duo to them trying to change up the gameplay and exploring different concepts for stories. Its one thing to simply not like a game for trying to do something different from its predecessors and still being good, but an entirely different thing to put on your nostalgia goggles and say that the original games were the best and that nothing that comes after it can be even close to as good as they were let alone being a good game in of itself, especially if it tries to do something different.
This is a pretty good and well put together video. But just a note... the part where you talk about Final Fantasy, rewatch it and count every time you say Final Fantasy.
The important thing to remember is that no matter how much you love something you cannot claim ownership over it, you have to accept that it is not within your power to hold back change, and be mature enough to walk away if something isnt for you anymore
What makes you think they haven’t already walked away? A lot of older AC fans actually left during the RPG trilogy because it just didn’t feel like the kind of experience they wanted out of an AC game. What makes you think they’re complaining about the direction WHILE still playing all the games?
@@quatreraberbawinner2628 Would be nice if the market still had alternatives for what you wanted though. Just because something switched tactics doesn't mean there isn't a demand for the first product.
This is the same way I feel like some movies based on popular IPs, notably video game movies. Some of these movies, largely the live actions, would have benefitted greatly from entirely removing themselves from the context of the expectations gamers have when coming in. I mean, faithfulness to the franchise doesn't make it automatically good, but in a vacuum and with some tweaking of names, locations, other inventions, I can see a lot of these movies just being standalone dumb fun. Namely DOOM, Hitman, Max Payne, the entire Resident Evil series, etc. They'd still be stupid and schlocky, but at least they wouldn't have fans scratching their heads about something that otherwise could have been a non-issue.
It didn’t really do anything for the story tbh, and they already made an origin game, it was un-needed, and it’s a disgrace to Assassins Creed and video games in general.
Never in my life have I heard the incredible RE Director's Cut Basement song used in a transition like that! Instantly subbed. That was so god damn funny
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
Correction: At 35:05 the header for the conclusion of the video instead has the text for the previous chapter, and unfortunately the tools on TH-cam wouldn't allow me to do anything other than blur it out, so I will leave it as is.
i think the reason ppl think orgins and odydess are bad assin creeds game a in something like final fantasy the name does not sitguest anything other than it being a fantasy based game plent of games can fall into when we think of assins we as ppl think of selth ans shadowing enimey to kill them in something like odyessy one of the games i loved it really hard to say with the rpg mechics that is seath based game and not a rpg based game that where i think the arugment boils down more to was we expect when we see in the tital is not waht the games have become tho i am not going to say it a bad thing it jsut different i liked obydess but i perfered to think of them as a game in the rpg set in the assins creed world less so as a assin creed game thinks are like eso are a mmo in elder scroll world less to do with there singal palyer version inless a game later states so
i think we should insade of think of ac obyess of a rpg games based in the assasin creed unverise that uses the bigger name that nameing it somethign random so ppl can reconzie the game world and pick it up we should evaulate each game on how much we like palying that type of game form that stuio if you dont like odyess mabye inless something like mirage comes out dont buy assassins creed you jsut some like the rpgs assassins creeds it okay not to like a gnera or a styal of games i dont like shooters but i still love palying hord zombi modes we need to eevaute less on the name and more on the gnera it trying to do the name is only for lore and setting eso is a good exaple of a mmo at it heart that has elder scrolls lore set in elder scroll world names are more set dressing less about mehcis
Jesper Kyd or Lorne Balfe?
Pokemon is a good example as to why you don't abandon your *_SOUL_* to "appeal to modern audiences."
I think the problem with AC and DMC lie in what you mentioned with disrespecting what came before.
I've started disliking AC because they dropped everything they had up to AC3 to start making games that went nowhere with the overarching narrative.
I liked desmond, they built up the character for 5 games then killed him off to free Juno so I really wanted to know what happened with Juno. I was waiting and playing each game to find out what's next with her. She made these small cameos up to Syndicate I think, then she disappeared. After playing Odyssey I decided to Google it and as it turns out she was killed in a comic book.
Imagine if after Infinity War Thanos just disappeared and Endgame was just about random heroes no one knows resurrecting everyone with no mention of Thanos and afterwards you found out he was killed off in She-Hulk's 3rd episode.
It just sucked. The gameplay changing is not what made me feel like it's not AC anymore.
There's much more to elaborate on but that's the short of my opinion.
I think it's worth mentioning in relation to God of War: One of the big reasons I think that worked out so well as a shakeup to the games is that effectively God of War 1,2,3 Told their whole story. The games were effectively done. Most people didn't expect it to go anywhere else. So when they popped up with new God of War, it was in a completely new place and a different period in the protag's life to support the radical change in mechanics.
I think that made it a lot easier to swallow. The series seemed "done", and so the change in the formulae was a new start in nearly every way anyway, instead of an expected next entry just being radically different.
oh yea, thats a very good point. god of war is probably the best franchise rebot i have ever seen. as for Ubisoft, they refused to end the AC franchise back with AC3, which lead to that awful desmond saga conclusion and the convoluted modern day plot that they tried to fix with origins. had they not fired the original creator of the franchise, and taken a GOW approach to the series, i think assassins creed would be in a much better spot right now, maybe ubisoft as a whole aswell.
Great point.
I don't think applied to Assassin's Creed though, there were 9 games before Origin so the franchise was really overdone, but Odyssey came in and some older fans still upset about the departure from the franchise formula.
I think people take it better with the new God of War is because of how many God of War clones has been made in the past decade which accelerate the genre's fatigue, while stealth game like Assassin's Creed getting more niche as time goes by.
The change was welcomed by fans because a good portion of the fanbase experienced serious burnout with the usual hack and slash mechanics around the time Ascension came out. I never missed out on a single God of War game up to GOWIII. After GOWIII finished the Greek saga I couldn't get myself to care about another prequel with the same old GOW gameplay and this was the case for many people.
Honestly I believe that's why there isn't more outrage at the gameplay change of LAD, because the kiryu saga is over in mainline entries, and a new protag with a gameplay shift is a lot easier to swallow, because it feels like it's telling a new story with ties to the old one, rather than a continuation
Remember, Devil May Cry was originally supposed to be RE4. They realized the change was too much, but that the idea was solid, so they created a new IP and arguably created a new sub-genre of action games.
And that is where all the nuance comes in at the end of the day. Some games have 100% been better off as new IPs, while others have thrived by transforming existing ones. On the other hand, some games have failed by making unpopular changes. The situation is complex and definitely different on a case by case basis.
@@sosaysjay IIRC, Assassin's Creed was originally a spin-off Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, called Prince of Persia: Assassins. It was rejected but was later made as a new IP instead.
@@spongebobfan78 Croc started as a Yoshi game, Resident Evil started as a remake of Sweet Home,Dementuim The Ward started as a Silent Hill game,Vagrant Story was retroactively made into a Final Fantasy spinoff,Tales of Arise started as a new IP,Star Ocean started as a sequel to Tales of Phantasia,Perfect Dark started as a sequel to Goldeneye,Starfox Adventures started as a new IP Dinosaur Planet and Xenoblade Chronicles started as Monado The Beginning of The World.
@@Chelaxim Stairfax Temperatures would've been a better game as a unique IP though.
@@ChelaximIf anything, Xenoblade is the opposite of what you’re talking about: “Monado Beginning of the World” is a completely new IP, while “Xenoblade” establishes a connection between itself and previous Tetsuya Takahashi work, those being Xenogears and Xenosaga (though technically being a different IP)
I view this as companies being afraid of making new IPs, so they experiment with already popular and established ones.
100%
Totally and completely.
Yea it's really hard to pump out new ips when the risk is the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars
Agreed. New IPs are a risk, so it's safer to rely on name value.
Hands down.
Making a new IP is a big gamble. Using a pre-existing one works as marketing, "more of this franchise people have liked for years"
Bethesda could have easily done fallout space considering how similar starfield is to fallout 4
Rockstar could have made GTA wild west in place of red dead.
But they're their own franchises and I strongly believe that's worth the risk. Especially since it prevents other franchises from "going bad".
What really hurts about Zelda, though, is that despite it being a very successful series pretty much nobody really tries to do its dungeon-based gameplay like Nintendo did. Some games, like Okami or Tunic, manage to hit on the Zelda gameplay loop for overworld exploration, or "helping the people of the world" sidequest structures just like zelda.
But there ain't nobody trying to do Stone Tower Temples, or Snowpeak Mansions, or Ancient Cisterns, or Eagle's Towers, or even the much-dreaded Water Temples (which are frankly not that bad, go play Oracle of Ages to see what a truly hard water-manipulating dungeon looks like), you have to dig deep to find stuff like Oceanhorn or Pandora's Tower...
I have a copy of Pandora's Tower I never got to playing.... I need to push it to the top of my play list now.
The series didn't really become mainstream until BOTW
If you're looking for suggestions, might I say to check out Blossom Tales and Ittle Dew for Zelda-like games?
@@fishtacodeluxe1940 Before BOTW no game has sold 10 million plus
@@BitchChill You're comparing across different eras; BotW is roughly as popular as OoT was in context. There were literally 25% less people on the planet, on top of the fact that gaming was much less accessible to the masses 25 years ago. Nothing from that era except handheld games or massively successful PSX games could break the 10 million barrier, and nobody would ever argue that Final Fantasy wasn't mainstream just because it sold 10 million while Red Dead Redemption sold 50 million two decades later.
I definitely think a lot of the resentment with changing franchises comes from losing things that those franchises did uniquely well. Like I really enjoy BOTW/TOTK, but at the same time I'm a huge fan of specifically the puzzle box style dungeons from earlier Zelda games and no other franchise has ever really replicated them. If Zelda continues on its new path then that's a kind of content I might never see again, which is sad no matter how much I like the new formula
Zelda in particular is also more awkward because of the absurdly long gaps between games. It's only been like 3 games since the last fully "traditional" Zelda game but those 3 games have been over the course of 12 years
and nintendo makes it harder and harder to play old games, though zelda gets is a little easy being on the NSO service... but that service is also fundamentally flawed. its a ton of money to emulate old games with a small library and its just renting since you can't play them offline. hard to justify for a lot of people. I'm fortunate, I can hook up my nes, N64, Gamecube, or wii whenever and play an older game (not to mention my handhelds), but that's a luxury many don't have.
I feel you. I'll add that classic Zelda not only has game design unique to itself, but also a particular, striking feeling. Only way I can describe it is 'Zelda feel' and it's why those classics are so replayable. I look forward to playing through the forest temple and spirit temple in OoT for different reasons, yet both capture a sensation that other games cannot replicate.
For me, I was only intrigued with BotW for the first twenty five hours of gameplay. Slogged through every shrine anyway and now I can't go back to it. Bought ToTK because I heard so many good things about it but dislike it even more than BotW for its wasted potential and price tag. Neither game gets the real Zelda design or 'feel' whatsoever.
If they keep making BotW clones, I'm clocking out of the franchise for good. It's a direction that apparently a lot of people like, but it's a total betrayal of the classics. I mean, I don't even want to finish TotK because of how horribly it retcons everything in the established timeline. For now, I'm back to playing Elden Ring.
@@Megacailloucalling innoavation a "betrayal" is the exact sort of hyperbole this video is criticising
@@Vivi_9 You can call it innovation if you want. I call it a betrayal. It abandoned the core tenants that made the Zelda games that came before (clever dungeons, decent sidequests, a coherent, deep story). But whatevs, I'm not here to argue, I made my point.
@@Megacaillou it's cool I'm not here to argue either and I respect your opinion, I am very happy with the direction Zelda has gone recently and am confident they won't just churn out BotW clones forever
What bothers me is that the changes to a series are typically seen as an "evolution" as if the older mechanics are objectively outdated and needed to be thrown away. A lot of these newer games just feel completely different to me not necessarily better.
and people seem to think change is automatically "good" and if you don't like change you are "baaad".
if I like a thing I don't want what makes it my favorite thing to be changed just for the sake of change.
let's say there's a pizza place that has a great pizza, one day the marketing guys say "we need to attract the chocolate cake fans, let's sell only chocolate cake but keep the pizzeria name". now they don't sell anymore what you liked in the first place, but if you complain, there's always somebody that says "change is good, you wanted it to be stuck and not evolve?" or "you don't like chocolate cake?". that's not the point.
The same old mechanics in every game gets really stale after a while, especially if you are talking about franchises with like 10 or more entries. There is a point where every new game just starts to look like a reskin of the same old game.
Ideally when it comes to gameplay mechanics a game franchise strikes a balance between innovation and maintaining its core identity, but the problem is that people disagree on what really makes up a "core identity" and to what extent change can happen before it is compromised. So no matter what the developers do, a long-running franchise will always develop a group of critics and detractors over time.
To take the pizza example from @Pelger here above, people may want to eat pizza, but they don't want to eat the exact same pizza every single day. So the pizza place has to innovate and come up with new types of pizza every now and then. But the problem is that some people aren't going to like these new types of pizza, and after several years of the pizza place coming up with new ingredients the new pizzas stray farther and farther from the original Margherita. At some point, people are going to start declaring that once you put pineapple on a pizza, it is no longer a pizza. The problem is that what ingredients are acceptable on a pizza is different for different people. Some people love pineapple pizza and would like to see more pizzas like this, other people ardently hate the very idea of pineapple on pizza. Driven by profits, the pizza place is likely going to go with whatever the biggest group wants. But this has the negative side-effect of leaving the people who like the old pizza Margherita-based varieties feeling left behind, since the pizza place is now no longer making new pizza varieties based on Margherita since they are too busy working on new varieties with pineapple. Eventually, after years of innovation, the pizza place may even start making more radical innovations like selling chocolate cake-flavored pizzas. Again, some will say that a pizza that tastes like chocolate cake is not a pizza at all but rather a chocolate cake. To others however, it is very much still a pizza and they will love it. Again, the pizza place is driven by profits and will pursue the type of pizza preferred by the biggest group.
There is one consolation for the fans of the old pizza Margherita though. The pizza place does actually still sell that original pizza. You can go back to the pizza place and eat it every day, and it will always taste exactly the same as it did on the first day the pizza place opened up. They are just not making any more new varieties based on that pizza. There will be no more changes, it is just the exact same pizza every single day, which as mentioned, gets stale.
So it is with video games. You can always replay the old video games, but they are always the exact same which gets stale after a while. All people want change. And that is the root of the problem since different people always have different opinions on what mechanics are important to them and want different degrees of change. And that inevitably leads to a divided fanbase as some feel left behind when the devs stop making games based on the mechanics that they loved, while to others that mechanic wasn't as important and they prefer the new mechanics that were introduced in the newer games.
"Evolution" doesn't always mean "better" though anyways, even in biology. Just "different"
In some cases though, they are too divisive. Here in BotW and TotK, they made the world really open and non-linear, but at the expense of the quality of the dungeons. Similarly with Yakuza and Final Fantasy, they changed gameplay styles, so the audience who loved the old gameplay styles are essentially left behind.
@@Allustar I stuck with the Yakuza serirs but I'll admit it was super hard to enjoy Final Fantasy after 10, and 13 outright sucked and was a waste of money. Ironically Yakuza turned into old school final fantasy lol
In regards to Yakuza, another big reason as to why most fans aren't that upset by the switch to turn-based RPG gameplay is because of the fact that RGG (the studio behind the series) is also making the Judgement series which is a spin-off of the Yakuza games that retains the beat-em-up gameplay so because of that the main series no longer being beat-em-ups is a much easier pill to swallow when RGG is still making a concurrent series with beat-em-up gameplay.
The problem is those are not games about fighting, those are games about helping people in an open-world city environment with a combat system to fill in-between, and when the "in-between" starts to require you to grind and spend time you wanted to spend playing this social system game, it feels frustrating. The fact they don't understand it is not good at all, and what they really did was make the main game unbalanced and unplayable and its spinoffs playable.
@@MacMan2152 personally I liked how Yakuza 7's RPG systems actually incentivize you to engage with substories in order to stay at a decently high level, with that said there's a lot of room for a improvement with its battle system but I do think Yakuza 7 has a lot of neat ideas and is a fine foundation for future games
with that said I understand that there are a lot of people who don't care about the series' side-content and just want to go through the main story, but considering the fact that RGG has been making it clear that they'll continue to make games with beat-em-up combat alongside the new turnbased games I really don't see what the problem is, it seems like a win-win situation to me
@@MacMan2152 like a dragon is not a spinoff ?
@@devforfun5618 nope.
@@devforfun5618"Yakuza: Like a Dragon" is just the western name to Yakuza 7 -- or, how the game is called in Japan, "Like a Dragon 7".
Sega realized fans were open to the original Japanese title of the series, so they dropped the "Yakuza" and went with "Like a Dragon" for the series in the west too (see: LAD Ishin, LAD Gaiden, and LAD 8)
The Final Fantasy example is also worth talking about because it has multiple spin-offs explicitly trying to capture the game elements the main series left behind for fans who miss them- *Bravely Default* is all-but-explicitly a FF spin-off, and I have a hard time seeing *Octopath Traveler* as anything else either, both of which have been successful enough to spawn numbered sequels. People who don't like the actual gameplay of modern FF games (very much including me) are still being catered to by Square Enix: Just not in the main, numbered titles.
Except octopath has a very different structure than ff with it's 8 distinct stories set up and bravely default 2 was garbage.
Dragon quest and like a dragon are basically the only mainstream trafitional turn based nowadays, aside from maybe indies.
more expy or homage
but to those spin off titles like tactics and such they had a way to gain other audience's without ruining their core brand and now have wasted that chance more and more as they try to turn it to a third person action game cause broad appeal
@@marcusclark1339the last traditional game was 20 years ago, they have been moving towards action since 12. So it’s kinda weird seeing ppl complaining about something almost a 1/4 century later
@@guilhermecardoso2365 I'm sorry, did you just list Octopath 2 and Bravely Default 2, two of biggest turn-based rpgs of the last few years, and then say they don't count because you don't like them? I don't have any interest in the Yakuza games, but I'm not about to claim that Like a Dragon isn't apart of the Turn-Based RPG genre. And it breaks from the 'traditional' model *way* more than either of the games you discounted.
@parkerdixon-word6295 i did like OT 2 a lot actually, one of the best games this year. It's just not what i would call a traditional RPG like the original ff games.
BD2 was complete trash with the awful boss design counter bullshit and ugly visuals and bland story.
I also played like a dragon, and all the yakuza games before it and i love it, very excited for the sequel.
The point of "it never worked, but it promised something no one else has even attempted" hit me so hard. I keep coming back to the AC games because social stealth is such a perfect fit to the themes and ideas of the series. They may be skilled warriors, but the point of who they are is that tyrants stopped seeing their subjects as people, and that will be their downfall.
And where the hell else will I find a series that moves so well, that asks you to blend and to pay attention instead of to move silently?
The problem for me is that when a franchise changes that much and it's successful, it basically spells the end of the old type of gameplay. I love the Zelda series - there are very few games in the franchise I don't enjoy, and BotW and TotK are among the ones I do. But I also love Link's Awakening, and yet the 3D era seems to have made the 2D gameplay an afterthought. It makes me a little sad to think that I may never get to play another like it, but the 3D Zeldas have historically had enough similar elements that I have enjoyed them as well. But now with BotW and TotK, it seems that even that may be a thing of the past. Again, I like both of these games - I sunk over 500 hours into BotW according to my Switch, and I'm not going to pretend like I've ever played any other Zelda game that much. But it didn't feel like "Zelda". So when I say "BotW is a great game, but not a great Zelda game" what I'm really saying is "this game is super fun and I love it, but I'm going to be really sad if I never get to experience a game in the old school Zelda formula again".
I will fully admit that there's a decent chance I would have never played BotW if it hadn't been labeled a Zelda game, and that would have been my loss. I am glad I didn't miss out on playing it. But I'll never stop wishing that those of us who enjoy the old formula will someday be able to experience it again. Because as fun as BotW and TotK are, it's just not the same kind of fun.
100% agreed.
This is exactly how I feel about Fromsoftware in recent years.
Despite the fact that the *core* gameplay mechanics haven't changed much at all since Demon's Souls, the game design PHILOSOPHY has been drastically altered since the release of Bloodborne.
The pacing of combat, the designs of enemy encounters, online multiplayer functionality. Gameplay styles that were strong in Dark Souls and Demons have been disincentivized over gameplay styles of Bloodborne and Sekiro.
The interesting environmental elements of the games bosses have been dropped in favor of bland flat arena's "for the players convenience" so they can instead focus on the Boss' over-the-top and elaborate attack strings and nano second punish windows. Souls bosses used to challenge pre concieved notions of what a boss fight could be, an otherwise normal wolf with a giant sword in its teeth wouldn't gain a massive Anime Desperation Power Up when on its last sliver of HP... it would crawl pitifully and buckle under the injuries it sustained.
And this wouldn't be that big of an issue... if the last classic souls game wasn't over TEN YEARS AGO and we hadn't had four back to back games that essentially played identically to eachother at their general optimal level.
I liked Bloodborne, I thought it was a very refreshing game for the time, but that doesn't mean I want it to replace the old style completely!
I agree. The new games provide a lot to complement the series. I feel like the shrines were a detriment though and the dungeons didn’t have enough emphasis.
@@sasaki999pro It's funny, while I fundamentally agree with what your saying, for quite a while I had a similar thought process about Souls games as a whole. In that I liked them but was upset as a fan of older FromSoft games that this direction of games would be all they'll ever do as a company now.
Luckily now a new Armored Core is finally on the way though.
@@TekTheNinja even funnier is armored core actually had the same generational disconnect between fans, it was right between the transition from 3 to 4 where fans became split because the series pacing went from slower weighted mecha combat, to FAST high octane, and this put alot of legacy fans off.
Same things actually happened to similar franchises outside of FromSoftware like Monster Hunter too.
I dont mind these things existing, I LIKE EM, but one Niche's success is anothers downfall and this *"FEAST OR FAMINE"* nature of genre fulfillment SUCKS.
I will never understand how these companies, deeply afraid of creating new IP, dont look at the Warhammer franchise (and now, the League of Legends franchise) and go "hey, maybe a diversity of game types that tell different kinds of stories might be a creative and lucrative means of keeping our pocket books lined while also preventing us from doing the scary, artsy thing of making new stuff"
LOL only has the MOBA and the card game (ignoring the show obviously since it isn't a game) so I wouldn't really agree on it being a good example. Maybe something like SMT and Fate with all of their spin-offs.
@@thegamerfe8751 The Ruined King is a turn based LoL game, Convergence is the recent LoL action platformer, they have that fighting game coming out sometime this year, Hextech Mayhem is a Rhythm game. Would agree that SMT/Persona are the same vein, however, League at this rate is diversifying their portfolio with a range of gameplay styles. SMT spinoffs are largely the same style of game (yes, they also have rhythm, warriors and visual novels, but like...most of the games have deeply similar gameplay styles)
@@thegamerfe8751 Dude, Mageseeker literally came out a few weeks ago, there's also teamfight tactics.
@@thegamerfe8751ur also forgetting arcane which my fricking sisters watched.
Because the time and money it makes to make a new intellectual property, essentially means they have to wait until the next Generation consoles. From a business point of view. It's not worth it.
"Change is only as bad as the game it ends up creating" is a good way of putting it.
I think the only thing that bothers me is how indie devs are trying to recreate the "old magic" of games formerly made by well-funded studios to mixed success. Not that I don't like what they're doing or don't appreciate what they're trying to do, but whenever well-established franchises end up exploring new formats, often they leave behind a void that others struggle to fill. This doesn't just happen when the franchises are turned around, however; it also happens when a development studio is shut down, and the genre of games they had been innovating on gets left behind.
If a games company has been pioneering a certain category of game for a long time with no good competitor (meaning no other such company has endeavored to challenge their take on the category), what makes it frustrating to see changes is that no one else will be able to match the level of quality and creativity needed to make their games. Again, there are exceptions to this, but they're rare and often continue to face the challenge of inadequate competition. So once the indie dev makes their love-letter to the category of game, this can feel like the final nail in the coffin rather than a continuation of an old legacy.
TL;DR, there's nothing inherently wrong with successful new things, so long as the old things aren't abandoned altogether, which they in many cases have been.
A good way to imagine this is if Bethesda shut down tommorow. Indie devs can create all the love letters to the genre they want but no indie dev will be able to recapture the unique charm and qualities of a Bethesda game.
I find this a real weird statement. Why does it bother you that there are people at least trying to fill the void you have? "HOW DARE THEY TRY!!!" or "HOW DARE THEY FAIL!!"
That's just such a weird way to look at it.
Besides the old games aren't gone. You can still play them as much as you want.
@@DrTheRich I'm not against it as a concept. I just think they're less equipped to provide the same experience, partly because of the context. In my view, it's like trying to argue Undertale as a successor to Earthbound, just because the latter inspired the former.
I agree that if it was as simple as going back to the old games, I wouldn't have as much reason to complain. But many older games I like have become inaccessible, thanks in no small part to the atrociously ineffective scene of games preservation. An industry solely focused on change in order to attain mass appeal is unlikely to show sufficient respect to the archivists. In such cases, the pool isn't getting wider or deeper; it's getting filled so a different one can take its place.
@@realfangplays Exactly. Homage just isn't the same as the whole production process of an innovative company.
Agreed.
Jay can argue subjectivity all he wants, but in the end, as the replies in comment thread and many others have said, making new IPs based on wanting radical changes to an existing one *more often than not* results in something new, creative, and innovative.
Alternatively, sticking to the formulas of original IPs is a constraint that developers can creatively work around. Limitations _can_ breed creativity after all. The problem is that too many game companies either don't want to take risks or when they do, they take too far. What is the determinant? The answer is simple, A UNITED MAJORITY.
A fandom devided unto itself cannot stand, and its better to have a game that includes all the positives of the last devisive entry in which most people agree on.
And from what many can see, Assassin's Creed is no longer itself.
Not all change is good.
And a good change is one that improves upon the identity of the game, NOT what causes the identity crisis.
What I hate about AC Origins and Odyssey is the fact that stealth kills aren't always one hit kill. It boils my blood to cuttsomeone's throat just for the sucker to scream and alert everyone. They totally butchered the stealth.
That is one of the biggest reasons I lost all interest. The world was also so huge and empty that it was tedious and boring to me (I get it, it's a literal desert). At least if I could assassinate people I may have finished it, but you basically just, can't assassinate people 90% of the time.
@@andreethier816lol just upgrade the hidden blade its a quick fix
@@SanAndreas24 it isn't. you still need to perform Critical Assassinations, which requires you to get a particular upgrade in the skill tree. and even then that move takes up a bar of Adrenaline that you might not even have in that moment. the only way for a basic assassination to kill an enemy is if you max out the Stealth stat, but this basically leaves you far too weak to handle the story moments that are an all out brawl and it only works on basic grunts. trying to perform it on a brute sized enemy will only take out half his health.
@@frostsoul4199 thats in odysey i was talking about origins.
@@SanAndreas24 you sure? thought it was in both
Another consideration is a games place in the overall gaming landscape. If you don't like 1 FPS, throw a dart at a steam list and try a different one. There are no AAA Zelda dungeon-likes that I know of so those kinds of fans are the most hurt by a change. Its a similar problem to elder scrolls. There isn't anyone else of caliber making those kinds of games, so Bethesda not making one for however many years now is a rough spot to be in if those are your favorite games. The more unique the gameplay the more a change is gonna feel like a slap to fans left with no alternatives.
Agreed. My main feeling of disappointment with BOTW and TOTK is that, since they will likely be the formula future games are based on, and that formula is inherently anti-dungeon (in my opinion) we will never get a new traditional dungeon again, unless some other series picks up the formula.
@@mustacheman529Honestly, I think they could strike a good balance between traditional and modern if they axe the shrines and make heart containers a reward for exploring around Hyrule. The shrines have puzzles and concepts that should be integrated into a dungeon, not found out somewhere in the middle of nowhere with basically some upgrade point as a reward.
If you want a game that has some fairly in-depth dungeons (with the caveat that it is also much more story-focused and has an MMO-style levelling system), might I recommend CrossCode?
@@thegrouchization I've had it for forever I need to play it at some point.
@@wesleycarlton7936 crosscode is indeed a great game. While I wouldn't call it exactly Zelda-like, the unique mechanics and puzzles of the game are interesting and fun, and do scratch the same itch.
Yes a franchise can change too much, it's just finding the exact line that's the trick and you know you've crossed that line when you've split the fanbase. And make no mistake the point of a franchise is to make use of its fanbase, you want it to grow but not split.
Here's an example of how to handle change and experimentation the right way in a long running franchise. Monster Hunter, which has 5 mainline games (MH1 thru World), 2 more experimental but still very traditional MH games (MHGU and Rise), which are hardcore 3rd person action games and a spinoff series that's a completely different genre (Stories 1+2), which are classic turn based JRPGs. Now if Capcom had tried to make MH Stories a mainline game, there'd have been open rebellion and hate for them in the MH fanbase. But since they were introduced as a spin off, they were warmly embraced by MH fans.
That line is definitely tough to balance. While I think a vast majority would reject MH Stories if it was marketed as a mainline game, at the same time there are several people in this very comment section citing Monster Hunter World as a game that they feel betrayed by. In their eyes, the mainline games have alienated them, even if to some others MH World feels like a very natural evolution of the existing mechanics.
I am VERY guilty of saying the whole "good game bad zelda" thing about Breath of the Wild, and now Tears of the Kingdom. I admit that.
If the sentiment is common, then I truly believe there is a deeper point to be made there, but I think I just ain't smart enough to figure it out past that simple statement.
All I mean when I say it, is that there's something about the old Zelda games that isn't here in the new ones, and I feel alienated by it. With TotK I'm coming to accept I don't really know what made the series appeal to me before, and I'm better off just moving on or replaying older ones than getting bitter about the new ones. If anything, it's helped me look for new games and books I never would've tried before.
I just can't help be sad that I feel like a series I loved moved on without me. Not just the series, but the community too. But, I don't really hold it against them either.
I feel similarly. I don't mind when a series innovates and changes. However, it saddens me when a genre-defining series switches to a new genre, leaving the old one behind.
I played TotK and BotW and enjoyed them both. But I also enjoy the classic Zelda format and it seems like Nintendo has no interest in making that genre of game anymore.
I'd compare it to my favorite pizza place deciding to make tacos instead. I like tacos but it's a bummer that there's nowhere in the neighborhood to go for a good pizza anymore.
Think what you're looking for is elaborate puzzles like the temples in every game pre BoTW
Because very few are making those in games, they were uniquely nintendo
My main gripe with New AC has always been that I already play Rpgs and I didn't need one of my favourite series to take in those game philosophies and (imo of course) over extend the playtime and locking of intrinsic game mechanics.
Tying assassinations to level in Orgins for example was the worst of those changes everything I was interested in trying out to give the game a fair shake. But I feel that point specifically ties into the formula point you made here obviously the ability for that instant takedown with few exceptions was intrinsic to my version of AC.
But it's a change I could be totally fine with if the stealth mechanics of AC were stronger but they has never been a stealth system in AC beyond what I consider the basics with a bit of flair once in a while. Frankly I think if the series changes things up again that should be what they add. I wouldn't mind a game like Origins/Osyssey where it has certain level locked things if the other options were half as fun. Can't assainate that guy in your way cause your level is too low? No problem you have ways to get around that which are also fun and interesting. That is what's missing in these newer games for me. The things they do are just new but not just as or more fun than what was already present for me and so I end up missing what an evolution on that formula coulda been
For the many things AC Valhalla did wrong, one of the things I think it did really, really well was that it still let you insta-assassinate targets above your level - you just had to hit a QTE at the right time (and you also had to have the skill...), and when Ubisoft inevitably throws another RPG-style Assassin's Creed game out there I think that's how they should handle stealth takedowns - maybe not in the exact same way as Valhalla, because after a certain point I found timing the QTE was way too easy even on "major" enemies, but you should always have some way to instantly take down enemies even if their arbitrary numbers are bigger than your arbitrary numbers.
This is a perfect summation of my feelings for FF16. There are many excellent ARPGs out there. But that's not what I want in a FF. Just like AC has abandoned many of the specific gameplay aspects that made people love the series, FF has done the same thing. Sadly, gaming has become too homogenized and these franchises abandon what made them unique in the first place.
Thank you so much for the beautifully expressed, balanced point of view. I'm tired of being fed the idea of polar opposites in every aspect of life, but even more so in games where I seek escapism and fun. Your channel is such a gem and I can't wait to hear more from you :)
I am glad that my thoughts here resonated with you
Never had any experience with the AC Series, but the split fanbase feels very similar to the Fire Emblem fanbase, where a lot of the older fans don't like new direction the series went on the 3DS/Switch era, but the newer games sold so well that it pretty much created a new generation of strategy game players and developers
I’m one of the older players… I hate the waifu sim bond bs, I hate how weaboo everything looks. I refuse to buy the new game because of it. I read that it’s also the most combat oriented and strategic one of the series which is what I’m all about.
I have principles though, so I won’t buy it. I’ve been playing them since sacred stones was released on the gba.
@@jaimeruiz7837 When you said "I hate how weaboo everything looks" can you elaborate? Although I never played an FE game based on stuff I already know about them instead of being pixel 2d games they're now 3D and it isn't specifically animey imo.
And reminder that "weaboo" and animey artstyle are literally all Japanese creations and FE is a Japanese series made by Japanese people published by a Japanese company.
@@thegamerfe8751 I don’t need your fuck8ng reminder when I’ve been playing these games from the first ever Western FE game back dur8ng the GBA era, and reading manga since the early 90s. The older games were influenced by European painters to get that feeling of knights and more modern American comic style. They were doing it before it was popular, and then mangaka started short handing everything to lower the time it took to produce panels. People enjoyed that stuff and as such started influencing more and more things.
Now it’s all cutesty bs with all the crazy hair colors, and big round eyes and shit. Power of friendship and blah blah.
All this dating sim nonsense and developing bonds with your fellow soldiers. Cringe.
@thegamerfe8751 consider the character designs for two games that dropped sequentially - Radiant Dawn and Awakening. There was a remake of the original FE in between, but it was still maintaining the older art style.
In Radiant Dawn, while clearly still having manga/anime-esque features, the characters are more "normal" looking, be they a Laguz with animal features or a human with pink hair. They all have closer to real designs about them, and that carries on back to Shadow Dragon. Even Shadows of Valencia - another remake of a classic title, released between Fates and Three Houses- has this.
Then, from Awakening onward, the character designs start to (generally) become more brightly colored and anime. When I say that, I mean it in terms of the characters look like they stepped out of a bad shounen anime. Compare the support cast from any game Awakening onward that isn't a remake to Radiant Dawn and earlier and there's a consistent difference in terms of the kind of coloring used, not mention the pure absurdity that the armor designs became. I still can't look at half the cavalier/armor knight designs since the 3ds era without rolling my eyes about how bad it looks.
@@thegamerfe8751 i started playing fire emblem since the gba too and the waifu thing is real. im very averse to the recent overdesign/fem boy trend in anime so the new games are visually unappealing to me. fire emblem characters used to look like actual people not shonen characters
basically the game got jiggle boob physics and a dating sim, when the reason we loved the franchise was because of the medieval fantasy turn based strategy.
the trifecta of ruin would be if they added mechas, and reginn is basically 90% mecha but at least shes confined to heroes.... for now
like someone else said using elder scrolls, part of the reason long time fans like us dont like this amount of change is because we have no other games to turn to if these games change too much. the best move would be to keep a core series and use spinoffs to move the franchise into different genres, like they did with warriors. the waifu dating sim should be in a spinoff not taking up space in the mainline games
I feel like final fantasy was a poor example for this discussion because for a very long time part of the branding was a lack of sequels so each game was kind of its own thing so big changes didn't matter much and it was actually more bits of world building that linked the games. Like moogles, chocobos, or summons. Other games try to hard to force the core story of their ip into new areas it doesn't really fit, which makes it awkward or weird and leads to more fan splits based on taste.
So in a way, the faxt that ff almost always presented unique unrelated stories made it comfortable to throw in different systems and mechanics and have fans give them a chance on their own merits instead of always comparing the games. FF is the entire produce section where as assassins creed feels more like just the apples.
Final Fantasy is unique in that sense: its identity is half the themes they share and half the mechanics that remain (and also stuff like chocobos and FFV Gilgamesh and a Cid). No other franchise is linked in these two ways which means Final Fantasy has an unusually strong identity despite all its changes. No other franchise has maintained either save possibly Zelda/Kirby/Mario, so when other franchises change up stuff it is effectively a new franchise because they never had a strong identity to begin with
I think the biggest series that definitely falls into this category at least in the shooter genre is Halo. Once bungie left it just all changed. And the fanbase could not have split any harder
There has never been a video game franchise where the basic concept of SPRINTING has been such a contentiously debated topic of game design conversation.
It didn't even split the fanbase. Halo fans are just terminally disappointed by 343's output. The split is that some of them find some fun in them, and some don't, but everyone knows that 343 Halo isn't the real deal. An ultimate example of a franchise that should've been allowed to die with some dignity.
@@Lilbee730 I mean there is definitely a split between newer people that enjoyed halo 4 and 5 and the older fans that grew up on CE-Reach. Granted having grown up with the bungie games, I loved the way Halo 5 felt to play and if 343 wanted to double down on that style of gameplay and have that be their version of Halo for a whole new generation i wouldnt have complained. I wouldnt say their halo isnt the real deal though at least in terms of gameplay. I think everyone could agree that Infinite was the perfect balance between bungies formula and 343, but everything surrounding that gameplay was hot ass and it really should’ve been delayed another year or 2 even. As for Halo 5 I view it as a new take on halo, to me regardless of thrusters, aiming down sights, sprinting and sliding, the game still felt like halo at its core to me. I think the only game that comes closest to not feeling halo like is probably 4 with its loadouts and kill streaks but even then, in non loadout modes the bones of halo are still there.
tbh outside of the “core” halo gameplay which all these games share (shields, emphasis on nades and melees, guns that all fill a unique role, emphasis on power positions and power weapons, etc) no halo game is like another, 2 feels different than the first game, 3 I’ll say feels the closest to another halo, that being H2, and even then it still plays differently, it’s more slower paced and way less competitive, Halo Reach introduced a bunch of stuff that played nothing like CE-3, and so on and so forth. Halo isnt like cod where it’s legit just the exact same game. Each game had its own unique feel and flow yk.
That being said when it comes to 343’s games it’s usually the lack of content that hurts them the most and mismanagement. And some of that is MS fault too: like for example 343 knew that the master chief collection needed more time to be developed and they wanted more time, but Microsoft essentially told them no. (Obviously I’m paraphrasing but that’s basically what went down)
Halo should have been rebranded after reach and continued as a sort of successor
@@jackpark2736
In a better timeline Halo Should've been shelved and Microsoft should've been kissing Bungie's ASS to make Destiny an Xbox exclusive instead of trying to pigeonhole them to single franchise.
Then they wouldn't have to deal with activision meddling in their creative vision and they probably could have actually given the game a good story on launch.
All parties would have been better off.
Different games in a francise can be good for entirely different reasons. I like the early AC games because of the story and the clash of assassins and templars, but I like the new games because I also like Witcher-like RPGs.
Then do yourself a favor and play the Witcher then lol
@@dillonkramer1575Gameplay sucks there though, and how long can you actually play one game?
I actually don’t Witcher worthier 😂😂 I guess I meant do yourself a favor and don’t play odyssey
@@dillonkramer1575they said Witcher-like so it’s safe to assume they have already played it and want to play a similar game
I firmly believe the sweet spot for AC right now would be to take the gameplay mechanics of the more recent games and mix them with the grounded feeling of earlier AC, focusing the story on Assassins. I think AC Origins is basically the perfect Assassin's Creed game because of this
I know there's a lot of fans who get mad at old fans complaining, but long time consumers of a product are often taken for granted when companies search for ways to expand the fanbase. Fans don't like to be taken for granted in pursuit of non fans or future fans. This isn't exclusive to games.
And i think people sort of ignore that lots of gamers only play specific types of games. If you like one genre and not another, nothing will ever make them enjoy their favorite franchise changing play styles.
I know a lot of fans are annoying with their conplaints, that's fair. But it's also possible for new fans of a franchise to devalue long term fans as well.
AC for example
New final fantasy fans telling old ones "evolve or die" as final fantasy changes into dmc. It's a joke
The issue with old fans and their complaints is that those fans either haven’t played the franchise in years or themselves have complained about how the series has stagnated. There’s no rhyme or reason. They hate it cause it’s the same and hate cause it’s different.
The final fantasy opinion from above for example complaining the Final Fantasy is “becoming” dmc when 14 is an mmo, 15 is barely action adventure, and 16 is just combat focused and nothing like a dmc/bayonetta action game. Final Fantasy doesn’t have to be turn-based random encounters for all time.
Pokemon fans in particular are the worst at this. I have never seen a fanbase hate their franchise, and any minuscule change to it, as much as they do.
The thing about IPs is that they can go in whatever direction the owners want to take it, but because old fans refuse to move on they instead complain about how all games are the same. It’s the weirdest behavior
@Andre_Pi^ umm the old final fantasies weren't stagnant. Turn based jrpgs had a lot of room for potential.
There is a reason, I can't play new jrpg final fantasies and that happens to be something I would thoroughly enjoy and pay extra to experience.
I'm being sarcastic when I call it devil may cry, but it looks like that's what they want it to be. They have been very excited to point out the fact that one of the devs from dmc is working on the combat.
The thing about ips is that when you have 10 entries that are the same genre and then you throw out 6 that are a different one it defeats the purpose behind naming video games or using sequential naming sequences. The games are not final fantasy so why are they not calling it something different as to dileniate the differences in the games... besides the simple fact that they can take advantage of the way people respond to the brand?
Yea they can do what they want but I can also complain about it and make it known that I would like to play actual jrpgs with modern updates WITHOUT new fans telling me that the games we have held up for 30 years as masterpieces aren't worth making anymore and that I need to get with what they like or die. Consume product get excited for next product.
It's still a joke
@@asdfghjkllkjhgfdsa8725 No one said turn based was stagnant and I’m not a new fan either. What I’m saying is that old fans often fall into the categories of complaining about how their series needs change because the same thing over and over is boring (and then later complain about change) or they want a series to stay the same despite not playing it in a decade (hyperbole).
My issue are these fans that will whine no matter what and proceed to cause drama around a game they weren’t going to buy to begin with.
Sequels don’t have to remain in the same exact genre or style until they end. The purpose of sequels is to put them in the same world with similar themes. Case in point: Crash bandicoot. Those games have gone through constant change and never once do people feel the need to act like other crash games aren’t crash.
Final fantasy XVI absolutely could’ve been turn base and even random encounter, but they simply decided not to go that route.
I can understand this argument for the Assassin’s Creed games to an extent. They managed to change both the world and the mechanics to an extent that would give the argument some basis to stand on, but Final Fantasy has done everything from Crystal Chronicles, to tactics, to dissidia, to rhythm games, to gacha mobile games. FF X-XV I would even say range wildly in their differences.
The funniest thing about all of this is that if there’s a Final Fantasy XVII and it’s a tactical RPG I’m certain no one would claim that it isn’t a final fantasy despite the numbered titles never being tRPG.
When it comes to zelda, all the traditional zelda games are some of my favorites games ever. But even i can admit, the formula was getting incredibly stale. It doesnt make them bad games, they are fabulous, but after literally three decades, massive changes were needed. Botw and totk arent perfect, but they have given some od the best ah ha moments ove had in games in a long time, which to me, is part of what zelda always was to me growing up.
@Brad Thomas never said the totk dungeons couldn't be improved. I'm saying the traditional dungeon formula is stale.
@Brad Thomas but also I wouldn't call any of the dungeons in ocarina "hard"
I don't think the challenge is what matters to much for totk dungeons. Idc if it's easy as long as it's fun. Totk is a lot fun and I'm enjoying it far more then botw. The building stuff is great. My main issue with totk is the repetitiveness. Shrines are forgettable, koroks are back, and the dungeons are a bit of a let down. There look and music and bosses are great but the main objectives inside are boring. Also the side quests are mostly fetch quests, some of them are pretty neat but most are "go get me certain number of something" which is lame. Totk is fun but I think there's issues that people just overlook. The older zeldas games never get boring for me but botw did for me. Totk is definitely a lot more enjoyable tho then botw and skyward sword, but I still prefer oot, twilight, and windwaker imo. Sry I talk a lot lol.
@Vector702 yeah I think that botw and totk being more open and because of all the other open world games have made me bored of them to. Some of my favorite games are more linear like dark souls, dmc, and older zelda title's. I think if there wasn't so many open world games they'd be better. Uibsoft comes to mind, they make so many. Totk kinda less boring because of the creativity. I think the building part of the game carrys it heavly tho. And pls pls do not get me started on the changes to the lore TwT
I was hoping for TotK to fuse a bit more of classic Zelda into the mix. I like having the dungeons provide items that open up new routes and allow us to advance the stories of the people around us, and I hate that my progress feels so...floompy?
Like, when you got the hookshot or clawshot, you knew your world had just gotten bigger. When you defeated a boss, you knew you were that much closer to victory. The shrines and koroks just didn't have that same satisfaction for me, and the divine beasts honestly weren't much more than a couple of shrines taped together.
In this hero's journey, there's too much journey and too little hero, for me.
Doom 3 is a perfect example of this, great survival horror game. It’s a shame Doom isn’t a horror game series, you are the horror
have you played the original releases of the first two games?
@@ProtoKrok Yes, I beat the first two games.
@@nickbecerra9580 Well I feel it's unfair to act like Doom didn't have major horror elements before 3. The atmosphere and enemies were much more oppressive and you much less an unstoppable force, that's just something that one comic established, which 2016 adopted. I definitely felt dread playing doom 1 for the first time!
This perception that Doom 3 wasn't *a* natural evolution of the series at that time is rather recent and in part caused by all the source ports we play today warping the original experience (which is fine).
@@ProtoKrok I guess the modern Doom did sort of influence my prescription of the original ones. While I did use GZDoom, I pretty much just used it for mouse look and the little visual tweaks, I never touched Brutal Doom as it alters the original experience way too much in my opinion. I will say though that while some levels are oppressive, the music completely controls that feeling for me. The original soundtrack is just as blood pumping as the Mick Gordon’s with tracks like e1m1 or e1m9, some of which served as inspiration to him. Just look at Doom 64 or Doom PS1’s sound in comparison, way scarier. Dark Halls is a good example of some of the slower and more mysterious tracks, Doom has a good mix. The series did evolve like you were getting at tho. Just look at the evolution of the cover art, in the original the appeal came from the Doomguy being in a completely fucked situation and wondering how he (and later you the player) will survive, in the newer 2 game well, it’s still fucked but the tables have turned.
Yeah! I wish doom 3 wasn't considered the black sheep of the family. It really isn't a world away from what the originals were doing, and they could totally evoke a sense of dread too. Time retconned those into being "fast run and gun kill everything" games when I don't think they were that. Goes to show that what people think a franchise is, is often more powerful than what it actually is.
I've got to admit that I've never enjoyed an asscreed game, played a fair few because they're always given away on PC with various hardware upgrades over the years. Just not my cup of tea. That hasn't stopped me from enjoying analysis videos of the different entries in the series. You're doing great work over here.
I liked the pirate one, except for all the Assassin's Creed-y bits.
Haha he said asscreed lol
@@robertbeisert3315 I suggest you go play Sea Of Thieves, it did have a rough launch but now it's in a good state. Though it is clear the AC series isn't for you.
Ah a fellow asscreeder. Thought I was the only one.
I am addicted to this series. I am playing through four of them right now. Including the old ones
re 6 is one of the best examples of this in my opinion. it has my favorite third person shooter combat system ever, but since those mechanics don't have a place in a re game, it is considered bad. It is very understandable when people say they don't like it, but i have a hard time neglecting the game completely thanks to it's endlessly fun combat.
The traditional fans may not like it, but RE6 still sold like hot cakes, so there clearly a market for it. They definitely could bring back the mechanic, but they should do it in spin off games to not affect the expectation of the main series.
@@meh.96 that would be absolutely awesome. maybe if capcom could use these mechanics in some new IP that resembles more of a stylish action game, the entire combat design for re 6 would make more sense, in that context.
I think identity is less about gameplay and more about the spirit behind the game.
For example, many would consider everything after AC Brotherhood/Revelation to be bad AC, not because they are "bad game" but because they killed Ezio and the overall plot of AC just to milk the franchise. AC was a narrative driven game about the conflict between assassin and templar with the promise of closure in future installment.
A have an argument for the AC games which I think will fall under the "changes don't necessarily mean the game needs a new title" and also the "making a game with heart" arguments, but I still think is valid in this instance:
There are a LOT of open world RPG combat/gear games.
But there's only 1 franchise which has open world, detailed parkour system, "blade in the crowd", 3rd person style gameplay.
I've never seen any other game/franchise offer what the original AC games tried to offer, and it really feels like Ubi chose to only chase trends and chose to not iterate, better and optimize the only things that made it unique after Unity (and even before to a degree).
So, I really don't think that the AC games is a case where the changes were warranted. It's like a potencial that's never been fulfilled.
My biggest problems with Assassins Creed Odyssey and Assassins Creed Valhalla is how these games support the idea of being an assassin. Being an assassin feels secondary to being a spartan or a viking. Where in older assassin creed games you were rewarded for being able to sneak up on someone and kill them in one hit, in Vallhalla and Odyssey it feels more like just another damage output and pulls me out of the experience of what an assassin is like. With the enemies able to more easily find you, trying to hide is often only useful to try and recover your own hp rather then getting an actual advantage over the enemies. Feels more like a chore to be an actual assassin in those games. Where it feels better to play like a true assassin in odyssey because the gameplay and all the mechanics are all built around that experience first. While in valhalla all the mechanics are built around the experience of being a viking. In both odyssey and valhalla being an assassin comes secondary to what is the actual main selling point of the games which for odssey in a spartan experience and in valhalla in a viking experience.
Where as in the final fantasy series, each game is a self contained story. So they are able to change up the gameplay between each game. But beyond that they still manage to keep the aspect of it being a new world to explore with several fantasy elements that we all expect from final fantasy. As I play through the first final fantasy games I have noticed how the level system changes, the story changes and feels completed, while also feeling that sense of wonder and excitement from going through a new fantasy world. The main selling point of final fantasy is the fantasy aspect. With each game feeling like a completed story there is no need to make the next one continue off where the previous one left off. But the main focus off the series never feels like it takes a back seat to some new mechanic.
With god of war the original series the story felt complete. So this not only feels like a continuation of a great story but the start of a brand new set of adventures one is about to partake in. And in the beggining of the game it starts differently and in a completely different area signifying a brand new start to the series. So accepting the change in pace is far easier for both of these reasons. And even though they did change part of the combat system, it still feels like a hack and slash, but more of a methodical one then a button masher. Then as we play through the story of god of war 2018 we can see growth in kratos as a chracter making us enjoy the story further.
Exactly. Why not make it a new IP? They could have just dropped assassin creed from the title and I would have bought it
@@noirekuroraigami2270Hell, they could've kept it in the AC franchise but make it distinct from the other games. Like a sub series like Chronicles or Tales of the Creed.
The problem is with balance. If assassinations were on hit kills, the other classes would be pretty much worthless. Sure it would be weird to call it Assassin’s Creed, but it would make the RPG elements weaker. And this is the huge problem with these games, because the mechanics do not mesh well with what the fanbase wants
Tbh AC4 can be critiqued the same way AC Odyssey and AC Valhalla can...
Whereas in the Open-world being an Assasin is only secondary to being something else. And with Combat being so damn easy, stealth doesnt even feel as rewarding anyways.
Where AC4 differs is the mainline quest/story that it presents. Where the mission structure is very AC-like but also very flawed in their own ways(tailing missions), as well as the narrative being of that of a Pirate who learns to get over his greed and becomes an Assassin by his own volition.
I think another good collaborator of this sense of identity for a franchise is an overarching theme/plot/character that glues the franchise throughout those changes.
My "When did AC die?" always goes back to Desmond. I really liked AC4, but that was my first "But is it really AC?".
Game mechanics were similar enough to AC3, with deeper naval options that I thought were great and Edward was one of the best main characters, but I hated everything that was going on in the present, which to me was that glue connecting AC2 to AC1 and AC3 to Revelations.
If there was no Desmond, I can see myself either disliking AC2 as an AC (even though AC2 is one of my favorites) or taking AC's identity as somewhat disconnected Assassins though history, prioritizing theme over plot/character. But after 5 games under the idea that Desmond was the big common factor, AC4 felt underwhelming in that regard, and I started losing interest in the franchise. When the next couple games felt boring I stopped buying it all together.
I feel like if GoW came out with no Kratos, it would've had that same feeling of not belonging to the franchise, because after the initial trilogy, he was the identity of GoW.
I also feel like RE and FF have more leeway because they focused on theme from the get go, having different characters and plots ever since their first sequel. Granted that could cause an overattachment to gameplay loop, but I think the video explores that angle really well.
You bring up a good point; a very good one. After Assassin's Creed 3, the AC series slowly became very disjointed. Cohesion was barely there with AC 4 - Syndicate, then was completely lost with Origins - Odyssey; with that cohesion lost, and more aspects of the gameplay changed up, the franchise became more and more divisive with the fanbase, with it's identity being all over the place now.
yup, change the story or the game play, once you change both you have a new franchise
It helps (that at least for Final Fantasy) not only are there consistent fantasy themes, but consistent battle mechanics as well. There is almost always a black mage-like character, a white mage-like character, spells like Aero and Osmose and Gravity and Flare, three tiers of magic, summons like Ifrit and Shiva and Odin, possibly the Gilgamesh from FFV around to battle, blue mage spells to absorb like Lv 2 Death or something like that, and many more. This way, Final Fantasy can tell many different stories while being obviously a Final Fantasy game.
@@iantaakalla8180 on that note, because the magic system is relatively consistent they can completely overhaul the gameplay without feeling like the combat dynamics have strayed too far from what's expected of a FF.
On the other hand, one of the big turnoff points I remember from RE5 were zombies shooting bazookas. When you lose the ground for your magic system, keeping similar gameplay is not enough to maintain consistency.
Tbf if AC2 introduced another character other than Desmond, I don't really see my self disliking it unless that character is somehow badly done.
Obviously I'd have thoughts and questions on what happened to Desmond, but I wouldn't attribute the identity of AC to Desmond himself at that point. Cause arguably, AC still didn't necessarily have an established identity in terms of the MC up until Brotherhood imo. They could've changed present MCs every game after AC1, and that in and of itself would've become a defining identity of the game.
I think spending as much of the time that we did with Desmond and then moving on to AC4 is what causes some fans to question; "Is this really AC?".
Loved your video man! This topic is really nuanced, but i wholeheartedly agree. First off, I think change is scary in videogames (and a lot of mediums in general) because it takes so long to get a new product, so, if said product ends up being bad or not pleasing you, it feels like a "wasted" wait. Contrast that with, for example, comics, where you have tons of titles, and a monthly publication, a lot of times something displeasing you can still be substituted by something that you like, or even be ignored for a few months before the writer changes. Another point I wanted to make is that I've become less scared of changes the more my personal life has changed. Like, I don't judge "casual player" catered games anymore because, as I've started working in an exhausting job with weekend shifts, I've become somewhat of a casual player myself. Like, after a long Sunday shift, sometimes I can't wrap my brain around the nuances and intricacies of DMC V's combat, so, sometimes, the dumbed down DMC is perfect for me, because, to be quite honest, I do become kinda dumb in these moments hahahahaha
I believe that a game can change drastically, but the core them tend to need to stay intact and move slowly through each game.
Like looking at resident evil as an example, the first game was a solo horror adventure, the 2nd was a horror adventure but with a little more action, the third was an action game that kept its horror mechanics and the 4th was a action game with horror themes, 5 removes the last of the horror, and all if those games are considered true RE games.
It zelda where every game is different but they keep the core themes.
Some games change everything over one sequel and keep nothing of the original. Thats when you get this issue
Also resident evil always had giant monster, the snake and shark in one.
The alligator in 2.
You do a really great job of being impartial and understanding of both sides while not being afraid to provide your own opinion in a respectful way. Very rare these days, especially online, and especially in the world of video game discourse.
Josuke dog with Josuke hat
"What would the world of gaming look like if change always meant you needed to create a new IP?"
Well, my man, we'd have new franchises! And it doesn't have to hurt innovation at all. Don't let the irony be lost that Devil May Cry was originally going to be a Resident Evil or that Assassin's Creed was originally going to be a Prince of Persia. I think new IPs being born from old IPs is healthier for the industry, and preferable to series after series of divided fanbases.
But what a great discussion. "It's a good game but bad ____ game" is criticism I use all the time, so I think this is an excellent topic to examine further. I immediately thought of Resident Evil, and you were way ahead of me. God of War 2018, Splinter Cell Conviction, Hitman Absolution, check, check and check. This essay is well covered and well thought out. There are certainly games that pull it off. Similar to Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid is another series that can retain a sense of identity even though gameplay-wise, most MGS titles are very different from each other. But on the topic of chasing trends, I can't help wishing you mentioned Tomb Raider altering its identity to have more action and set pieces like Uncharted, itself a Tomb Raider derivative.
I can be a bit of a traditionalist, moreso these days precisely because it feels like different IPs are losing what made them unique, to become more homogenized. When a lot of games all play alike, one can thirst for something that stands out. Assassin's Creed was that for me. That's why I think it's important to differentiate when a franchise changes it's mechanics, to when it completely changes genres. If someone doesn't like rpgs, and plays Assassin's Creed to get away from rpgs, they're going to have a problem with AC becoming an rpg. There's no reconciling this. But because rpgs are popular with most people, most people won't have a problem with the change. How many times have we heard "I didn't care about Assassins Creed before, but I like it now." The idea that the thing you loved can't be appreciated by others unless it changes itself is a lot to take in. And it's unfortunate to see a series turn their back on one audience to court another. And be validated.
It's a lot to think about. But ultimately there is no 'right' or 'wrong,' just a matter of preference. Great video 👍
Thank you for the thought out response. I did have a whole section on Metal Gear but I ended up cutting it for time, but perhaps it would have been good to write about Tomb Raider. This is more of a personal thing, but I didn't really like the new Tomb Raider games, but not because they were different or too much like Uncharted. In reality, I saw that initial trailer for Tomb Raider 2013 and thought that it was swinging hard toward being more like the games Naughty Dog puts out, but I was surprised that it really felt like its own thing. Unfortunately, I just didn't like that thing.
I didn't like how they handled the open structure, the combat mechanics felt inconsistent, and basic movement didn't pass the "feel test" for me. I didn't play the series as thoroughly as I have some others; I have only played the first three and the most recent trilogy. But my problem wasn't that it lost its identity, because while it clearly shifted a lot from fighting zombie centaurs while doing backflips in TR1, I felt like it still set itself apart from the rest of the industry. I just didn't think they stuck the landing.
Amazing video!
I think a reason some people dont vibe with Zelda BotW or FF16 is because of the fear to lose certain gameplay elements and mechanics. Very few other games do turn-based-combat as well as FF or dungeons as well as Zelda (or at all). Especially not triple A titles, which is what most are familiar with.
That's just what i asked for: broader perspective on videogames at large, instead AC only.👏
I agree that you definitely don’t want to fall into the trap of hating something just because it is different. I might be a bit guilty of this with BOTW but I did make an effort to hunt down anything Zelda-esque and came up short in the end, and that was on top of deconstructed it’s very flawed open world design.
But I’m in the minority on BOTW, and it’s difficult to not be dismayed over the fact that it’s not something I can force myself to enjoy. While the failure to adapt resides with me, the net result is the same: the experience isn’t enjoyable.
The successful ones cause even more alarm because it means we will most likely see the new trends continue (ironically, we might see a time when Zelda’s open world becomes “stagnant”).
I do, however, still think there is a way to innovate while retaining the essence. Metroid Prime is different than Super Metroid but it understands the importance of ambience, isolation, and item based progression. BOTW very clearly is not interested in the importance of labyrinth dungeons and varied thematic ones at that. The shrines and divine beasts were designed to fit what the designers felt was a more suitable companion to the open world, and perhaps it was. But the game that would have replaced those things with a few thematic and challenging dungeons might have been well received too.
I love basically all the 3D Zelda games. Windwaker the least cuz of the map design and sailing.
BoTW was immensely different, and I'm happy I ended up on the side that loves it.
That being said, I understand why you couldn't get to enjoy it. But I'd almost suggest looking into tears of the kingdom. It brings back a loooot of old nostalgic things from the more traditional games, albeit still in the end like BoTW but with some different powers, more heavily themed dungeons and a lot heavier emphasis on the story.
@@Verchiel_ Tears improves upon BotW greatly, but despite the theming of the dungeons in that game it still really lacks compelling puzzles or even level design. Most of BotW's and TotK's best puzzles are oddly found in shrines as opposed to finding them in Divine Beasts or Dungeons.
They seem to be really caught up with the scale and size of these dungeons rather than the actual quality of the content within them that a lot of the space found within these dungeons are barely used. Incredibly high ceilings that could've made for more floor levels, and vast open spaces with not many enemies or even a puzzle. They already had a pretty good template for great dungeon design in BotW, Hyrule Castle itself, and an even better template for tackling non-linear dungeons with A Link Between Worlds.
I think they really hit it out of the park with TotK and addressed some of the issues with Breath of the Wild, I just hope they have better puzzles for the dungeons in the next game.
@@Kaliospectre yea I entirely agree. It's definitely missing that sense of commitment going into a densely packed dungeon with minibosses and key items and just a more linear catered progression.
I've only done two dungeons so far and I'm already seeing a kind of disappointed trend between them, that being just. Turning on 5 or so mechanisms to trigger boss
Yeah I'm never gonna accept the current style of 3d Zelda. And I've accepted I don't gotta be, I'm chilling as long as I always got the older titles and they at least keep the spirit going in 2d. In general I'm not into the current open world craze much at all. Ultimately it always seems like they made a large scope world just to say they have a large scope world and provide "freedom" but it usually just feels like there's nothing to do. Maybe I'm just a simple brain, but I like the more structured goal set up from outside the genre. Even old school arcadey games, absolutley adore those, even more so in this current climate of the industry. This "say it's open world and they'll buy it" phase of the industry just is not quite my tempo.
@@MagillanicaLouM That's very understandable. I too enjoy linear style of games a lot, especially since story driven (FPS) 20-30 hour games are a comfort genre of mine.
Saying a lot of games these days are open world for the sakes of being mass appeal is fair, but BoTW/ToTK are widely agreed to be actually great examples of open world done right, even if not for everyone.
The ac case is kinda more complicated .Origins was an rpg,but still had the feeling of an ac, it was a change that was necessary to keep the series alive .I enjoyed odyssey ,but the player doesnt even have the hidden blade(which one could say is a mascot for the series),also forcing players to farm xp to be able to progress the main story was really frustrating .
agreed, origins really gave me the vibe of an ac game regardless of the rpg mechanics
Hell, Valhalla is more of an AC game, but it's widely considered to be the worst of the RPG style games (I'd argue Odyssey is the worst).
@@zacharyeicher390 Odyssey is an arpg game mascerating as a 3rd person ac game imo.
Bro odyssey is a prequel. Makes sense as to why there’s no hidden blade. Atleast there’s a bunch of cool animations instead of repeating the same one over and over again over 10 games.
It doesn't have a hidden blade, but you have a blade that does the exact same thing, and looks pretty similar in usage. I really never found it to be a big deal, and with the xp grinding thing, I've always found that weird. I was constantly overlevelled in Odyssey, and I didn't do a ton of side content, just.. some of it. Do people not get distracted and do a bit of side stuff in AC games or something?
I know the argument. I've made it for Zelda breath of the wild. The argument boils down to: It's a very competent game, perhaps even fun, but it does not capture the essence of the series it's spawned from. It's a more common argument, the more distinct the franchise gameplay is for the gaming landscape. I think it's fair to make the argument. For Zelda, breath of the wild, for example. "it's a well crafted open world game, but it fails to capture the variety of challenges and locations, and the strong sense of progression from previous titles." That is what people are saying that a game is good, but not a good [it's franchise] game. The problem is, most people fail to articulate this well, and on top of that fail to realise how subjective "capturing the essence of a franchise" is.
Fantastic video as always. This reminded me of Ace Combat 3; that game went significantly above and beyond what was expected of the series, pretty much a reset from AC1 and 2 that were essentially just Top Gun homages; and retained none of the identity that the series had established before. That game ended up selling strongly but much less than the previous games, only barely managing to beat 2 and not even coming close 1's sales. The same game now is now pretty much treated as a masterpiece that was simply way, way too ahead of its time.
I feel like BOTW and TOTK feel alienating because they feel like they exclude old parts of the formula when they don't need to. Dungeon items are just adored, even if you have to make them less useful for puzzle solving in the open world, I feel like most players would be totally happy with botw's world and then OOT dungeons, the difference in design would be a very welcome change of pace. As well IMO, dungeon items would better feel like link rebuilding his arsensal which would best fit stories of a Link who lost everything. It really just would feel better if you had both.
with FF I've just come to accept it isn't for me anymore, which is a bummer because id consider games like 4, 6 and 9 to be some of my favorites out there, but but there's plenty of people happy with the series' currently direction so I can't really complain. Sometimes I just wish a bit if FF's titanic budget went to SE's other games, because when you look at say... anything from the mana series, or even bravely or octopath they always feel like games that needed just a little more attention put to them and SE definitely has the resources to do so.
I can definitely see where you are coming from there. I think Square Enix especially has been plagued by a lot of bad business decisions over the past decade and the FFXIV money has been keeping them afloat, so it can definitely feel like other franchises get neglected in favor of FF.
I just judge the game for what it is. I love the og AC games, but I despise Syndicate and love Origins. I'm excited for Mirage's return to the old style, but I'm also stoked for Codename Red's vast RPG adventure.
Excellent video, keep up the good work Jay.
Thank you
super based comment
Why do you dislike Syndicate though?
After 2 and Brotherhood, Syndicate made me try AC again and get back into the franchise.
Victorian London as setting just was super appealing to me, personally. It was definitely less Assassin's Creed-y but not a bad game imo.
@@catburglar82 London was a dull, boring and ugly setting where no major historical event occurs.
The story is the most shallow and uninteresting in the entire series. Assassins decide to free London from the Templars and succeed easily with no consequences. I also don't care for the tone of the story as it feels more like a parody of AC.
Jacob and Evie are the 2 least likeable protagonist and underdeveloped protagonists. The switching between them didn't work because I couldn't get attached to one before switching to the other. The have no real motivation, nothing interesting happens to them and they don't change throughout the story. Also Crawford Starrick was a laughably goofy villain and Henry Green was nothing but a liability.
The rope launcher completely broke the parkour. I understand it's because the buildings were so far apart, then maybe they shouldn't have set it in London then.
The combat is way too clunky and drawn out. Sure it can be flashy, but it often breaks the flow and it takes an eternity to kill someone.
Stealth just doesn't work. I get noticed, with or without the hood.
The game was just an absolute, boring slog that didn't bring anything new to the franchise.
@@sm4carnageihope Huh, I get your points.
Probably helped that I had like zero expectations with that game when I played it.
If anything, at least Syndicate is better than Valhalla lol
Assassin’s Creed is a weird example because it would be very straightforward for Ubisoft to let AC remain in its current state as RPG’s submerged in a historical setting and also reviving the Prince of Persia games built around parkour elements and an engaging, linear story.
Yeah, mix of both would be the best. My least favorite parts of Origins and Odyssey (I skipped Valhalla) was boring riding on horse through empty landscape, but I like its new combat (except for stealth) and RPG elements. RPG in dense city built around parkour and stealth would be likely my favorite AC.
Amazing video. You really helped me consolidate a lot of the thoughts i had around assassin's creed. You are great at being nuanced and showing each side of the debate, which is very rare nowadays. And the use of other games to illustrate your point was great. You are very well spoken, and your ability to break down complex ideas in a way that is easy to understand is superb. Been watching all of your content and loving it, you truly are a master of the video essay. Often times i simply have a video essay playing in the background as I play a game but yours are engaging enough that I find them taking my full attention. Looking forward to all of the content you'll be making going forward :D
As someone who grew up with the original “Legend of Zelda”, I felt that “Breath of the Wild” was a return to form for the series. It felt the closest to the original in the sense of: “Go anywhere, do anything” that the original had.
OG Zelda is the most overrated game in the franchise. Nintendo moved away from its design for a good reason.
As someone who grew up with the Ocarina of Time formula and have heard a lot about the OG Zelda formula. Even if I still adore the OoT Zelda formula I still think that BotW even if it's imperfect (lack of ennemies, weapon system who can be much better, dungeons, bosses who are so empty identity wise and too easy etc...) I think that the game really captures well the idea of freedom and the feeling of immersion that was originally planned in the beginning. I am definitely not saying that the others game aren't but I feel like the linearity of it was a problem and limits the feeling of freedom that the franchise was supposed to offer. So that's why I just can't understand the opinion of "BotW is a good game but a bad Zelda game" honestly.
@@theblackmoonrising You completely misunderstood "BoTW is a good game but a bad Zelda game", it's not about freedom, hell you can't make the case that it was ever about freedom, you could go anywhere in the first two games but only if your standards of freedom are going from the middle of a sandbox to its edge because all non beginner areas are locked.
BoTW is considered a bad Zelda game because of its lack of dungeons and puzzles, it essentially is just your usual action RPG without the Zelda uniqueness (I'm oversimplifying, obviously BoTW is its own unique action RPG but I was comparing it to previous Zelda games).
@@thegamerfe8751 Yes I was quite wrong. It's not really the notion of freedom it's about but more the feeling of adventure and exploration, at least for me. But again I don't understand where BotW is not ticking these boxes precisely (and that also applies to the old opuses). For Dungeons it is already something that I had mentioned but yes I am clearly not saying that Dungeons in this game are not a problem, far from it. The shrines are a good idea but still a bit inconsistent but the Dungeons themselves clearly need more and at least as complex as what we were used to. I hope the problem has been fixed in TotK even if good I don't have the game yet. And concerning BotW being a basic RPG well I want to say that Zelda is not a series of games foreign to RPGs ( Zelda II was literally an action-RPG and then we didn't even keep the formula, we kept certain elements like magic for example)
@@theblackmoonrising I didn't say that BoTW didn't have freedom and exploration, I said that the Zelda series before it wasn't really about that. It tick those boxes, I never said it didn't.
And no you misunderstood me what that last sentence of yours, what I meant is that BoTW leaned more to the action RPG side than the dungeons and puzzles side.
Fantastic premise for a video. It's nice to hear this phenomena talked about and in a really healthy way. I'll be checking out your other videos
really phenomenally written. i'll be staying tuned and can't wait to binge the rest of your content. fair play dude
Thank you, I appreciate that
I have thought long about it and came to the conclusion that for me, the main difference is the mode of interaction with the game, like, how it fits into your life and what skills are required and such.
For example, an AC game for me is a fundamentally laid-back casual experience where you basically win every single fight using glorified QTEs, where you can make your own fun by building stacks of dead guards or aimlessly jumping across the roofs, where your character just gets linearly stronger as the game progresses, and where the only challenge comes from your own desire to 100% optional goals or other self-imposed challenges. This is, like, 20-ish hours of pure fun and satisfying gameplay that you can spend two hours at a time after work while listening to a podcast, smoking a pipe, and occasionally laughing at all the over-the-top conspiracy theories.
Origins/Odyssey, however, just don't fit that template - there's suddenly this new challenging combat system which requires some degree of concentration; there is suddenly non-linear levelling and gear system which requires me to put some thought into the game and actually make some choices; there's suddenly a fair bit of grinding going on, so by playing two hours every evening you can spend several days without a single new plot beat. The new games just don't fit in my mindset when playing AC, so I, like, just stopped playing them. Plus, there were no more over-the-top conspiracy theories!
The same thing but in reverse goes for the Hitman franchise: when I play these games I expect this open-ended intricate systemic puzzle box where I can walk in circles around my apartment for half an hour thinking about how to approach a certain objective to then sit down and execute it perfectly. So when Absolution comes out and instead of this it requires me to have a good aim and a decent reaction speed I just immediately lose interest because that's not what I wanted from it.
What's worse, both of these niches I just mentioned were at the time quite unique, so it felt really bad when it seemed like they were gone for good - sure, after some time the alternatives did pop up, but at that moment I was genuinely distressed by this change in direction.
There's no challenge in Odessey if you grind the cult of cosmos you can become overpowered with full set of legendaries and the game becomes a walk in the park. The combat is basically button mashing with god powers. It's a grindy tedious game
One important element not touched on here for me is replacements. A series near and dear to my heart, monster hunter, had a very large change in it's 5th generation. To me however, it felt like "a great game, but not a great monster hunter game". They changed the core of the combat system to be flashier and faster and have much less emphasis on being extremely precise and positioning well to avoid attacks. A change carried over from world into rise and arguably taken even further in that direction. One of the reasons this hurts me so much, is because there is no other game that offers what monster hunter did. There simply isn't another monster hunting game with a focus on methodical but extremely precise combat.
Contrast that with final fantasy and I can think of half a dozen turn based medieval fantasy games I've played in the last year that have been fantastic. That makes it bother me far less when final fantasy stops offering that.
A lot of very good points in this video, but one thing I feel it misses out on is the flipside of the point about creating new IPs; sure, if companies created new IPs every time devs got too creative we wouldn't have gotten RE4, but if they never did we wouldn't have gotten the original Assassin's Creed, a game which was created entirely because Ubisoft thought Patrice Desilets' idea for Prince of Persia: Assassins strayed too far from the PoP series identity by making the player character someone other than the Prince. Perhaps PoP: Assassins would have reinvigorated the franchise, but the decision to turn it into something new instead certainly didn't stifle any creativity, it gave the devs room to make even more creative decisions unshackled to any expectations for the franchise they started with, resulting in a whole new expansive franchise that so many of us dearly love. So yes, we can miss out on great entries in existing franchises if every innovation ends up as a new IP, but we can also miss out on great things if innovation is confined to existing IPs; we shouldn't take it as all-or-nothing.
While I don’t discuss it too much here, I think that is in many ways the point of the video. A lot of people do see this as a black and white situation, when in reality, we have had great games that branch off from their franchises, great games that became new IPs, bad games that made low effort changes, and so on and so forth.
Assassin’s Creed is an especially interesting case because due to the common opinion that Ubisoft has become a greedier and less consumer friendly company in the last two decades, many would have preferred if Prince of Persia had continued to live rather than Assassin’s Creed be created. The idea of a new IP essentially killing the old is a whole separate issue I didn’t even get into, although perhaps I would have been straying too far from the original premise at that point.
But yes, you are very right, we cannot consider the impact of radical change in the industry without acknowledging the great titles that became new IPs after starting out within familiar franchises.
@@sosaysjay Thank you for replying! I really love your work.
That means a lot, thank you
This is genuinely the most reasonable and well thought-out video on fan discourse I have ever seen. Subscribed, friend!
'Fear of change' isn't always the reason. Sometimes the changes are just dumb. I say the recent 'AC games are halfway decent games but aren't good AC games' all the time. Mostly because being AC games holds them back. Change isn't necessarily bad, nor is it necessarily good. I guess it comes down to the fact that most of the time these changes ARE based on money and 'appealing to a wider audience', which most people who gave them money prior don't like.
There's no denying AC is one of those series that has started chasing trends
One word: expectations.
Even if we keep them at the low level we have some. If game changes it might not change in the direction we wanted.
I fully agree that if there is a quality behind the change as well as something new and refreshing people are more willing to accept the change.
I wonder why you focused on RE:4 only if I recall correctly changes made in 5 and 6 were even more controversial. EDIT: sorry I was writing the comment half into the video.
Just commenting to say this was a very well-made video! I was surprised to see that this channel doesn't have more subscribers. Keep up the good work!
With regards to AC: Odyssey - it was originally meant to be named “Odyssey: an assassin’s creed adventure”. As a spin off, but it was dropped and put in as a main line game.
Do you have sources for this? I have seen this before, but only from a mock up poster made using art from the Gwent card game from Patrice Dufrense, one of the many artists who worked at Ubisoft. Seeing as how the game came out only one year after Origins it is unlikely it would have had much time to exist as a different product, especially since it carries over a majority of its core gameplay from Origins.
@@sosaysjay then that info has not reached me, I thought it was a confirmed leak.
@@sosaysjay Although with regards to AC Origins, it clearly derives from the "Osiris" IP that was cancelled by Ubisoft in the mid 2010's. And I believe this furthermore adds to the feeling that the last 4 games have been "forced" into the AC franchise rather than being genuinely thought for it, contrarily to RE4 or BotW.
I would have no issue with a "Empire" franchise that would present similar gameplay and be set in Egypt, Greece, Persia, Rome and whatnot. And it's to a pint were it feels like the last games are restricted by the AC canva and cannot do their own thing, which ends up annoying the devs and the fanbase altogether and no one is satisfied (cf. your video on Valhalla).
My personal take on this is that more series should embrace the concept of sub-series and either use subtitles or clear hints whenever they wanna deviate from any perceived formula. For example I'm convinced that what DmC did truly wrong wasn't the risks it took or changes it made but rather choosing a bad title and having a confusing marketing, they should have simply called it "Devil May Cry: [insert subtitle here]" instead of the awkward "DmC: Devil May Cry" we got and marketed it as it's own new take on the established franchise. After all the game wasn't great but it was definitely good yet it got a terrible reputation as if it was a complete trainwreck.
Then there's also the cases of series where the fanbase just fragments to the point that nobody can agree on what the games should be, which is what happened to Sonic, causing perfectly fine games to be deemed bad and actually bad games being defended as if they were misunderstood gems. And then they complain when Sonic Team has no clue of what to do with a mountain of confusing and often contradictory feedback.
As a fan of old and new style games of Assassins Creed, the only thing I really want the upcoming games to improve is the traversal/parkour system and reduce the service based "Season Pass" style DLCs that are actually part of the main game.
If the devs want to go big in open world, thats fine. However, they will have to put in even more effort to balance the map size with a good parkour traversal system to win most of the fans.
I appreciate how much of a positive take on this debate you present here. We need more optimism in the gaming community :)
I have over 4 playthrough of AC Odyssey, To me is more than a evolution of the series but a welcome new formula that could be used to recreate not just Ancient Greece but countless other old societies that we only have descriptions in ancient texts. Mirage is a step back to the old tired formula that almost killed AC in the first time. I Hope the AC in Japan will follow the RPG formula
I got into FF by playing XV, it wasn’t the best but since then I’ve gone back and played all the other games except a few pixel remasters, for me what defines FF is its story, its party members and summons and I think a huge part of that is because I played this series backwards and I noticed it’s not until you get to FFX, which came out in 2001 do you finally get a true turn based FF. so turn based combat never defined the series for me, and party members I think is extremely important but again you look at XV, which I think they handled pretty well tbh it’s still party members just different, if XVI is anything like that with better writing I can’t wait to spend time will Jill And Cidolfus, overall I’m excited for XVI because it’s innovation but based on the cores of what makes final fantasy a final fantasy, it’s like crisis core no one complains about that game… yeah it’s different but it’s story summons and supporting cast is why it’s a final fantasy. (Btw my favourite FF games is X, XII & VI
Interesting because that’s not what makes Final Fantasy what it is for me. I personally love the Job System which tends to be with games with weaker stories. I’m assuming you haven’t played FFIII or FFV (which has the best difficulty balance of the PRs) because those games don’t have amazing stories, but they have awesome mechanics. I honestly think that deep mechanics are a huge part of Final Fantasy, because most of the games have interesting mechanics that set them apart from each other like Materia, Jobs, Espers, Drawing, Limit Breaks, ATB and whatever FFII was doing.
It's a hard situation to grasp because at what point does the franchise's identity change too much to tolerate? Change isn't automatically a bad thing since there are cases where refusing to change or evolve has brought harm to the series (Pokémon ironically being a good example of this). Then you have cases like Paper Mario where it changed for the worse and there's no alternates that quite scratch the void it left behind: not even the Mario & Luigi series as that's gone too due to declining sales and quality.
It's always wild to me to hear people describe Zelda post-Breath of the Breath as "less Zelda", because part of the reason I struggled to get into the 3D Zelda games I tried earlier (Ocarina, Wind Waker, Skyward Sword) is because I couldn't buy into those games' senses of exploration and discovery that felt like the core of Zelda to me. Those games tended to slowly handhold me through everything, whereas I took a lot more to the 2D games as they trusted that the player could get lost during the early hours of the game. Breath of the Wild negated most of that issue, but I still struggled to get into it because I disliked how everything led to a shrine that tended to be a lot simpler than the dungeons in previous Zeldas.
Tears of the Kingdom feels like how I had always heard huge Zelda fans describe playing whatever their favorite game in the series felt; just hundreds of mini-"aha" moments and the feeling that you're discovering new stuff all the time, or that you're constantly choosing your own goals to follow that the game doesn't have to directly guide you to with an open world quest marker. It has hooked me so much that I now desperately want to go back and play the long list of all the Zelda games I've never finished (or, hell, even started)
It surprises me how you were even interested in getting Totk considering what your opinion on 3D Zelda as a whole is.
@@Leee275 I feel like they explained their position quite well. They do not like being handheld and feel like the 3D Zeldas are on too much of a guided path compared to the 2D ones. And Tears of the Kingdom is by far the most open ended game in the series when it comes to giving you options to handle any given scenario.
@@sosaysjay Yes I get what their point was even if I don't agree with it, what I was trying to say was that if someone doesn't like the majority of games in a series/subseries, then it comes as a surprise to me that they were even interested in getting the most recent entry of a series they were never even a fan of. They even said they struggled getting into Botw and Totk is the sequel to it.
It's simply odd to me.
@@Leee275 That is understandable. But Zelda has a wide catalogue of fantastic 2D games, and one could easily get into the series through those and have a pretty limited history with the 3D games while still very much being fans.
@@sosaysjay Precisely, they seem to be a fan of the 2D games but not the 3D games, so them buying Totk despite the game being 3D is a surprise.
this gotta be one of the more respectful and well written "internet gamer discourse" videos ive seen: nice
*I'll tell you the answer right here:* if the game has gone a while without getting an entry, the fans are gonna be mad if a new one is different. If the game is so old that there's basically no fans left for the game, and it gets a new game, people will enjoy the game. If the game has had steady releases, each being slightly different from the last, the fans the series get will be used to change. If the game has had steady releases, each being basically the same, and then suddenly a new game comes out that's different; then they're gonna have a bad reaction. Then there's things like quality of life and bug fixes that basically every fanbase likes. Simple as.
This!
Sometimes they do rename a game when it changes too much: Devil May Cry started as a Resident Evil, Assassin's Creed started as a Prince of Persia. But known IP are easier to market.
Incredible video! Good thing you didn't mention Sonic games, or else this video would've had double the time, considering how much the franchise has tried different things with wildly varying results and fan reception over the years.
1. Fantastic video. Truly appreciated.
2. With that in mind, the other side of the argument must also be made: What does "being a [redacted] game" even mean?
We use term "rogue-like" to literally describe games like Rogue. We call games a Metroidvania for games similar to Metroid and Castlevania. I could go on and on.
Warhammer 40k: Boltgun released recently. it is a fantastic "boomer shooter" - an homage to 90's FPS games like Quake and Doom. Is it a Warhammer 40k game simply becasue it uses the IP, or are 40k games only allowed to be derivatives of the tabletop miniatures game? If such a line exists, where does it blur? If Games Workshop were to publish a game with pre-painted miniatures in blind boosters that were designed for a tactical table top game that used square or hexagonal grid maps for a faster paced and accessible experience, would it be right or wrong to use the expression "It's a Good Game, but a Bad [REDACTED] Game" becasue it is in some ways similar to, but wholly isn't the classic Warhammer experience? What if Games Workshop were to take another step and claim that this new game were to be considered the next edition of Warhammer 40k? Where are the lines drawn between being innovative and truly being "a Good Game, but a Bad [REDACTED] Game"?
Great video. I apreciate the amount of thinking that goes into all your videos and the balanced and unbiased aproach in wich you present both sides of the argument regardless of the subject. Your channel should have way more subscribers.
That is kind of you, thank you
I haven't watched the entire video yet but I think the reason change is more accepted in some franchises compared to assassin's Creed is because the later games basically weren't assassin's creed, like the assassin's are barely mentioned if mentioned at all in Odyssey, atleast Final Fantasy 16 can be recognised as a final fantasy game from a glance, in Odyssey and maybe Valhalla on the other hand? The only thing that tells us they are assassin's creed is the big Assassin's creed Logo that probably came up near the starting of the game (I don't remember if it even did...) And the stealth...
As a huge fallout 4 fan, I appreciate you making a video on this general subject haha
I know you probably tired of hearing this, New Vegas is wildly consider the best Fallout game, and it's also my personal favorite game of all time, but without Fallout 3's innovation, it could never been possible.
Fallout 4 is excellent too, and it's my second favorite Fallout game, even after almost 8 years it's still one of the most daily played single player game on Steam.
@@GHOSTRIDER373737 my fav is 3 then New Vegas. I just can’t enjoy Fallout 4’s conversation system, story and lack of decision making ability.
@@Patrickdaawsome 4 is a very different game for sure, I think it's more enjoyable if you don't expect it to be a RPG like the previous game, many people think water down the RPG elements is the biggest problem of the game, but I think the problem is that they didn't water it down enough and commit to the game's new direction, resulted the remaining RPG elements felt pretty out of place and unnecessary.
@@GHOSTRIDER373737 Holy shit, not gonna lie, never heard anything I disagree with more. At this point, just make a new IP
@@Patrickdaawsome Yeah, Fallout 4 did lack the conversation, and the main plot doesn't gel too well with the exploratory nature of the game. You do get important decisions, and I think the main story has always been a bit weak compared to the world building and side quests in general.
I prefer F3 over NV because it's better at free exploration. NV funnels you all around the map, so by following the main quest, and the quests you pick up along that, you will explore pretty much the entire map. In F3, you'll miss huge areas of the map if you don't go exploring on your own.
I think most people boil down the "general vibe" of the game into a sentence or two theme, not more. Like in Legend of Zelda it is "Young hero explores world, finds princess." so the mechanics and shifts that occured in it from Ocarina of Time to Majora's Mask to Wind Waker to Breath of the Wild does not seem to break the theme in the eyes of the players. However, look at Assassin Creed for example, "Assassin sneaks and parkours through the city to hunt targets.", so the changes to that franchise (even though I quite like Odyssey and even Origin to some extent) causes changes to that sentence, in Odyssey it is "Strong warrior participates in Peloponessian war", so it doesnt "feel" like Assassin's creed to some people.
At least I think this is what is going on in the background when people say some games dont feel like their predecessor.
I am in an awkward situation. I don't agree with you on certain aspects, particularly with Assassin's Creed, but you were so polite and well structured in your arguments that I still enjoyed the video.
Another big problem of Assassin's Creed is also the inconsistency in it's story and it's rules, which getting lost game after game have made suspension of disbelief increasingly difficult. This problem for many (including myself) became even more evident with Odyssey, in which over the top abilities and much more fantasy betrayed what was a pillar of Assassin's Creed: grounded but with precise fantastic elements, which were science-fiction and the first civilization.
Roughly summarizing what you said in the video, if you don't like the new Assassin's Creed course it may simply be because of your taste.
That's partially true, because it was not only changed in gameplay, but also marred in its story and internal coherence. It was bad decisions that brought the second result, it's not just a desire to innovate.
When people say "Assassin's Creed is no longer Assassin's Creed" it's also because of this
My biggest problem with the new AC games is more its name. Imagine if a game called World War was a fist person shooter set in the first world war, but the sequel suddenly became a farming simulator called World War 2, it won't matter if its a good game, people expect war in a game with war in its name. I feel the same about a game called assassin's creed, I expect to play as an assassin. If the new AC games dropped the AC name and became a different IP, I believe that most of the criticism would disappear and people wouldn't be as divided. Although I concede that slapping the AC name on anything will make it sell. Good video btw, you've earned a new subscriber!
Fantastic video, but, 2 things: new vegas was actually more of a return to form for the series compared to 3 and whatever the hell else came between 2 and 3, and DmC wasn't just bad because of how bad it fucked up the story, tone, and characters. It also had some really bad gameplay changes like being half the framerate of all the other games, removing the ability to lock on to enemies, which had the knock on effect of making certain moves like Stinger much worse to preform, and adding enemies that could only being harmed by certain weapons and if you hit them with the wrong one you'd bounce off and it killed any momentum you had grr who thought that was a good idea. And tangentially, I remember seeing lots of people bitching about mgsv when it came out because they changed the gameplay too much and it wasn't metal gear anymore and all I could think was "you guys didn't play anything before 3, did you"
Anyway great video. Really great.
On the topic of MGSV, personally I though it was one of the best stealth games ever made, the mechanics were great, the missions were enjoyable, it was atmospheric as all hell, it was a fun game and so many creative ways to play the game. and building Mother Base is so much fun and give reason to go back into the world and keep playing. But it was missing the highly focused but twisty-turny narrative and heavy handed symbolism and philosophy that previous games had.
MGS1 had Psycho Mantis reading the save data of other games, messing with your controls and the staunchly anti-nuclear messaging and a critique of putting so much value into genetics. Every villain had a coherent, if somewhat flawed philosophy about war. And Revolver Ocelot is the man manipulating everyone behind the scenes and just hamming it up in his scenes.
MGS 2 had the Arsenal Gear section where the foxdie worm from EE earlier was corrupting the AIs, breaking the fourth wall and the manipulation people through the information they see and interact with, which those AIs very similar to the content curation and moderation algorithms of the present day. And Ocelot is again manipulating everything and being a campy villain hamming up the scenes and occasionally getting possessed by Liquid.
MGS 3 was an loving homage to and an inversion of a lot of old spy movie tropes and ideas, Snake doesn't get the pretty girl who unceremoniously dies partway through, in fact she was a spy herself and just using him to get the Philosophers Legacy for China; there's no such thing as an absolute enemy, the Soviets were Allies during WW2 until the suddenly weren't for the Cold War and The Boss saw through the pointlessness of all that "enemy" speak and how governments use that language to manipulate the young to die for their ideological causes. And Ocelot is still being a manipulative bastard, even at a young age and is beyond silly with his gun spinning protecting him from a swarm of wasps.
MGS 4 was a globe spanning conspiracy about private contractors and governments constantly instigating conflicts and destabilizing regions to fuel an economy that runs on warfare and all the industries that support it. Modern war really isn't about getting more resources or even ideology anymore, it's a multitude of industries that are making sure they all stay in business. And Ocelot is full crazy villain with more ham than a pork processing plant and fighting against you in a giant mech battle on Shadow Moses.
MGSV was about how revenge is a poison that eats away at your morality and turns you into the monster that is going to hold the world hostage with a secret nuclear equipped Metal Gear in like less than a decade and you become responsible for war crimes like rescuing children from working in a diamond mine and getting them medical treatment, or failing missions for hurting child soldiers, or investigating the oil spill coverup of a fossil fuel company and uncovering a bioweapon program that kills people based on what language they speak. And in this one Ocelot is the only serious character, who doesn't get any ridiculous scenes. Miller gets his burger development cassettes, and Ocelot is the straight man the entire game constantly commenting on just how crazy everyone around him is.
All the messaging about how revenge will infect the system through language and Venom becoming the eventual villain of the original Metal Gear game, is just not there aside from Skullface monologuing for 20 minutes and it's undercut by all the objectively heroic things that Venom and Diamond Dogs do to the point that there is a Heroism score.
Again MGSV is a great game, I put numerous hours into the game because of how much fun it was to play but to call it a good Metal Gear game while missing the convoluted narrative essence of all the other Metal Gear games is.
@@blackbelt352-dd How do you feel about Peace Walker?
When major companies leave their old formulas behind, indie companies pick up the pieces and fill that void. We saw this with 2d platformers, 3d platformers, arena shooters, farming simulators, rhythm games, and so on. These genres then have a resurgance and the very companies that abandon the concepts dip back in for a while. That is how the cycle goes.
an interesting discussion as a more recent resident evil fan that got into the franchise through the remakes with re2 remake in 2019. I absolutely love the old games and I love the remakes too but none are without criticism and I feel like some older fans are being unreasonable when it comes to the remakes. for example now with re4 remake being out a part of the fandom is saying how it's soulless when they don't take time to appreciate how much the remake improved the writing, the characters and the combat, keeping what the original did and building and improving on it, cause they think leon isn't corny enough or whatever, when the man says some very bad but funny jokes throughout the remake. I think people need to be a bit more objective when it comes to changes in big franchises, but I also think devs should be more open to improving on what fans love from the series rather than changing it entirely and risking an alienation of the core fanbase. there needs to be a better balance both in fan response and in dev reaction when it comes to change
I agree on RE4 being better than what all the old fans are saying however RE2 and RE3 are just shit remakes that are great games on their own.
Re 4 remakes aiming sucks it's a generic third person shooting mechanic with bloom on shooting in original re 4 the aiming is fucking god like the reactions from the genados you don't get that anywhere else besides 5 everything is bullet spongy enemies in any game nothing beats the creepiness of the village section the noises they make when they notice you they're loud they speak creepily in the remake they speak like normal people the voice acting sucks the movement sucks no i frames so there's a chance of getting stunlocked you can't just jump out of windows when serounded you just fall either down or get stunned wich gets you grabbed
I think one of the big things that (I admit is very hard to do) buys the Devs innovation room is to get to a point where the IP transcends a single game series. Take a look at Mario. While there is a through-line of ‘mainline’ platformers, there are also sub-series that explored into different areas like Mario Kart, the RPG games from seven stars to Paper Mario to the Mario Bros handheld RPG series. All are Mario games, but each sub-line develops it’s own niche.
(Of course the Paper Mario line is it’s own example of potentially changing too much and fans reacting after the changes following The Thousand Year Door)
I honestly agree. People often act rather toxic about it. Like if they don't like say the parkour in the newer AC games, then they'll just use good moment for parkour in a game they liked, while using a bad moment in the game they don't like. And it happens with so many different games. I personally believe people should be allowed to enjoy what they want to enjoy, without having to be judged by others who want to stuff their opinions down their throat.
I think the only conundrum with Assassins Creed is that the mere noun "Assassin" evokes some pretty distinct concepts. A Zelda is a Zelda, not anything else, a DmC is a DmC, not anything else, an RE is an RE, not anything else. The genre, style, gameplay, etc etc are all post-title blurbs, but the title themselves describe only themselves.
Like, imagine a game called Sniper, but the majority of game play is bonking people with a club. Even if technically you could make a game where setting up a sniping spot by clearing an outposts first is part of the sniping task, the title itself sets somewhat skewed expectations, so it is just an easy target to point as a flaw even if in the grand scheme of things you just don't like the game because you felt cheated by having the wrong expectations yourself. It is petty, but it's a "you played yourself" situation on both sides.
The recent Tomb Raider trilogy has a version of the main character who hates raiding tombs and only explores as an archeologist. It's weird.
I think not mentioning Hironobu Sakaguchi leaving Square after Final Fantasy X as being at least part of the reason for the, "It's a good game, but a bad Final Fantasy game" argument is a missed opportunity in this discussion in regards to how a single artist's style can also define a franchise . I would imagine it would be like Metal Gear Solid 6 being made by someone other than Kojima. It could be a great game, but it would never be a Kojima game so a divide would happen in the fanbase. Just my thoughts. I'm enjoying the content. Looking forward to the next video!
His departure definitely had an impact. It’s tough to fully quantify since he had been promoted and stopped directing FF games after V (my personal favorite in the series). While he worked on others up to X-2 after that, there was a clear shift that occurred with VI and VII, and those two are the most popular games in the series by a fair margin.
This was a great video. An analytical view of the gaming landscape as a whole and of one of the numerous reasons games get criticized for nowadays. Critical thinking at its finest, no shallow arguments, only an accurate representation of games and their fanbases. This video got me thinking quite a bit, and made me stop a couple of times in order to accurately process what you just said; most of the times, your arguments came out as factual, which is an extremely rare thing when presenting an opinion online. You got me hooked for the entire 41 minutes!
I'm more bummed that FF16 seems to lack a team of interesting characters to go on adventure with (like 7 ft tall bunny girls, black mages, etc.) than the shift to being an action-based game. It's just... him.
We haven’t had an interesting team with good art design since 13, and that came out in 2009. It’s a shame.
Yeah the Berserk Games of Thrones vibes are insanely heavy in FF16. Edgy looking but deep inside compassionate character with skills amplified by their anger for a protag. It's a very mainstream Final Fantasy game meant to appeal to the people who want a hardcore environment Final Fantasy game. I hope the next game after is more light hearted for variety, I'm excited for FF16 though
@@lindblumpickles3407 I kind of agree with that. I don't care much for the MMOs, a few boys in black outfits I can't tell apart, or the drab, fake medieval style of FF16. That's really the main reason I'm not interested in the new one.
The combat in Final Fantasy games have always been more or less innovative. They've tried new things constantly, some more severe than others. I don't think any particular style is core to the franchise.
@@heroicgangster9981 iirc FF16 writing-wise is more taking after games like Vagrant Story and Tactics Ogre that a lot of the people working on it are huge fans of
I'm glad there's no 7ft tall bunny girls in FF16, and the idea that you never have a party with you in FF16 is literally categorically untrue. You do often have people with you, you just have no direct control over them.
I just think if the story is changed/new or core gameplay is completely changed then just use new name or market as spin off.
That's why I only count series like Trails series a true series 10+ interconnected story with gameplay evolving every titles.
Great video, was an interesting insight to get your thoughts, you should add timestamps so we can click through, it's easier for everyone💜
Thank you for watching, I’ll make timestamps right now
people getting mad that final fantasy games change so much is wild to me since the whole point of the numbered games is they are entirely different and unconnected from eachother, it makes sense the games will be different since the story, world and environment will also be entirely different
The difference with Final Fantasy and Yakuza is that many of us are NOT just resistant to change, and simply LIKE things like turn-based combat and party management. And something like Like A Dragon is just further proof that turn-based combat isn't actually dated or unpopular like the Final Fantasy heads seem to believe. Overall, it's just frustrating and we're lamenting the opportunity cost and general direction going on where the bigger budget games are trying to make more 'mainstream friendly' choices, even though this 'wider appeal' chasing is usually not nearly as necessary as corporate suits seem to think it is. I mean, Capcom learned this very lesson with Resident Evil, learning that "Oh, actually people do really like it when we focus on more horror stuff and not all the action schlock". These companies constantly read the gaming audience wrong.
And to further the point about it not just being resistant to change in general - most Final Fantasy fans were entirely fine with all the big changes that happened up through about FFXII or so. And then the complaints about FFXIII weren't about any design changes specifically(FFX was also super linear), they just weren't very well executed games. Even with XII's more 'real time' combat, it was tolerable because we still had the party there and great control over the party. And that *is* the main factor for why people tend to like turn-based games, it isn't the 'time to think' or anything, it's that you get full(or near enough) control over all the character's actions. So FFXII still worked given the superb gambit system even if it was technically real-time. It is specific direction changes that people are unhappy with, not some inherent disposition against change.
the audience of FF is too vast with each game's different styles to fully cater to one. IDK where people get that action is an appeal to larger audience thing but its another style FF wants to try. That's how they work.
One of the major things why fans hate new AC creed games are how it basicly killed the storyline that was going from the 1 game to the ac 3, that ended on a cliffhanger. Than AC 4 was relevant to the main plot, but more like a teaser to what should come. AC Unity was meant to continue main storyline but for some reason most of it was cut.(You still can see a lot of references and lore that continue story, but not in the main part of the game). Then in AC Syndicate they made a full DLC that directly continue overall story of series, that should have led to the finale in AC Origins. But, probably because of how terribly Unity and Syndicate was acclaimed, they decided to throw all this in the trash and kill off most import characters for franchise in some comics that most of the people doesn't know they exists.
Video Game Franchises have no obligation to follow any specific rules set by the community. If stagnant sales necessitate change, then companies have the right to shake up the formula.
Formulaic games are familiar and comfortable, and people have trouble stepping out of their comfort zones. However that doesn't mean games that change up the formula are bad games within the franchise. If the games are both commercially and critically successful, then they are 100% good games within their franchise.
The only time a game can be considered truly bad is if it fails both commercially and critically.
"It's a good game, but a bad (x) game" is a flawed argument anyway. What people really mean is "the game is good, but it's not what I want out of a/an (x) game".
I think a big thing for me that fits with the perceived issue of change I've always heard in the Final Fantasy community was the argument of Linear vs Non-Linear (especially when Final Fantasy 13 came out). For me, I rather enjoy the linearity of some of the games with Final Fantasy 10's narrative gave me that "it's all about journey and not the destination" feeling despite the goal being to reach a destination at then end of the road. To be honest I feel like there is no true "non-linear" Final Fantasy as everyone has a clear route for the player to take (there are some that require searching and talking to NPCs to figure out though), and the only difference being "how wide the road is" is how I put it.
For me, a true non-linear Final Fantasy would have to be like BOTW or TOTK where you are given a goal, but you have the freedom to choose how, when, and where to approach that goal. A goal where there are multiple roads leading to it from an origin point.
Pokemon should have stayed 2D. Not because 3D is inferior but because Game Freak's 3D is inferior to Game Freak's 2D. The sprite art that gen V had had more spirit than anything that came out since they went 3D. The quality also lowered.
The main problem is that they are expected to release a game every year, so making 2D games within that amount of time was much more reasonable
For me, no game is a better example of this phenomenon than Crash of the Titans. It's completely unrecognisable from the previous Crash Bandicoot games, being a beat-em-up rather than a pure platformer with focus on breaking boxes. They also had drastically different character designs, with Tiny and Uka Uka being butchered the most.
But taken individually, it's still a fantastic game with cool mechanics, with the only real flaws being unskippable cutscenes and occasionally repetitive combat.
This is, in my opinion, the best video I have ever seen discussing this debate and is much appreciated.
This video also has great timing considering the new gameplay trailer of AC Mirage has released and seeing the comments on those videos is just........ its something.
That is high praise, thank you
What do u mean “it’s something”.
@@yodaddyrc1220 Sorry if I was unclear, but basically what I meant was that the comments in some of the trailers for the game was really going on about how they are all excited because it will be like old-school Assassin's Creed and that it will be a good game (or a better game than the previous three) simply for returning to the older style of Assassin's Creed games.
@@infinitewisdom8400 Well yeah of course cuz many people wanted a traditional ac experience. They’re burnt out on rpg elements and not playing as an assassin.
But still, that doesn’t mean that the game will be “good” you are right in a way. If the game is broken and the story sucks, then it won’t be anything stellar, but still, people just want ac to do what it was known for instead of trying to be like every other popular franchise.
@@yodaddyrc1220 I understand that want from people for the series to return to the older style of Assassin's Creed and it would be interesting to see if Ubisoft pulls it off with this new game, but my big issue with the whole thing is when people start bashing and invalidating the previous three games because the fact that they are seen as fake or lesser Assassin's Creed games duo to them trying to change up the gameplay and exploring different concepts for stories.
Its one thing to simply not like a game for trying to do something different from its predecessors and still being good, but an entirely different thing to put on your nostalgia goggles and say that the original games were the best and that nothing that comes after it can be even close to as good as they were let alone being a good game in of itself, especially if it tries to do something different.
This is a pretty good and well put together video. But just a note... the part where you talk about Final Fantasy, rewatch it and count every time you say Final Fantasy.
The important thing to remember is that no matter how much you love something you cannot claim ownership over it, you have to accept that it is not within your power to hold back change, and be mature enough to walk away if something isnt for you anymore
What makes you think they haven’t already walked away? A lot of older AC fans actually left during the RPG trilogy because it just didn’t feel like the kind of experience they wanted out of an AC game. What makes you think they’re complaining about the direction WHILE still playing all the games?
@@cedric15773 if you didn't need to hear this that's fine, I'm sure there are those that did
@@quatreraberbawinner2628 Would be nice if the market still had alternatives for what you wanted though. Just because something switched tactics doesn't mean there isn't a demand for the first product.
@@amandaslough125 true, but I'll find something
This is the same way I feel like some movies based on popular IPs, notably video game movies. Some of these movies, largely the live actions, would have benefitted greatly from entirely removing themselves from the context of the expectations gamers have when coming in. I mean, faithfulness to the franchise doesn't make it automatically good, but in a vacuum and with some tweaking of names, locations, other inventions, I can see a lot of these movies just being standalone dumb fun. Namely DOOM, Hitman, Max Payne, the entire Resident Evil series, etc. They'd still be stupid and schlocky, but at least they wouldn't have fans scratching their heads about something that otherwise could have been a non-issue.
I loved Odyssey. I saw it as a precursor to the formation of the actual brotherhood of assassins and it worked in that respect
i like odyssey too, my nearly 400 hours says so at least
It didn’t really do anything for the story tbh, and they already made an origin game, it was un-needed, and it’s a disgrace to Assassins Creed and video games in general.
Odyssey is actually my favorite game in the franchise and I started with Brotherhood.
@@dillonkramer1575 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@spiritlance364 odyssey is just really fun 😎😎
Never in my life have I heard the incredible RE Director's Cut Basement song used in a transition like that! Instantly subbed. That was so god damn funny