A name has been whispered on the tips of many tongues lately, one that, most recently, had a shift in philosophy. One of its recent titles focused more on telling a deeper narrative with a flawed, vulnerable protagonist. One with bolder, more fluid cinematics and animation, this particular series has also seen something of a scaling back in terms of depth while still leaning heavily on nostalgia, ultimately leading to some divided opinions on the final product.
This game is not God of War.
If that were the case, there would be additional mention of how its most recent entry has seen multiple claims of helping to propel the medium forward, which is something of an odd statement. From a storytelling perspective, this seems unfounded, however in terms of technical performance and visual quality, the game is certainly setting some new goalposts that are unlikely to be met except in the case of specific high profile studios. The game being described in the introduction is Metroid: Other M, and it serves as an excellent counterpoint for the current success story that is God of Four. Or, Dad of War. Whatever.
The similarities in concept that Other M has with the more recent entry of God of War are mildly amusing, especially because both products have received drastically differing reviews by both the professional journalism sphere and the larger community. Both feature strong narrative focus on family and innocence, both have simplified character-action gameplay and customization systems, and their focus on strong visuals is key. The degree to which they accomplish these aspects with success, of course, is up for debate. However, one group of consumers was clearly displeased with the state of the final product while the other was not, which may either come down to a question of their execution or the standard of quality possessed by each camp. The matter of standards within the video gaming community is not a subject that will provide fruitful results, however, and it definitely isn't the central idea of this article.
In the previously mentioned circumstance where a developer recognizes the flaws of their franchise and seeks to refine them, one can look to Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed Origins, which was something of an unexpected surprise in the way that it reformatted combat and scouting. However, these were simply modifications to a pre-existing formula, as many of the series' staple elements returned in familiar ways. It does not always take a full-on reinvention of a series in order to drastically change the resulting product- last year's Breath of the Wild reintroduced a fully-explorable map and increased focus on survival in order to differentiate itself from previous 3D entries and recapture the feeling of the original title. There are very few franchises that can make a marked transition to a new format unscathed, but when they do, it is usually because of the improvements to the gameplay experience. Take Mario 64, which turned the skill-based platformer into something of a more exploratory, adventuresome title with tight and expanse movement options, only to run into problems immediately after with Super Mario Sunshine. Likewise, while Sonic Adventure felt like an honest recreation of the Genesis-era madcap momentum, its flaws bled into far too many future installments, leaving the franchise standing on unsteady ground.
Perhaps one of the most compelling examples of a proper reinvention comes from the previously-mentioned Metroid. Though it has had its dry spells and odd iterations, the risky gambit that came with turning the beloved bounty hunter's missions into a first-person adventure was a stroke of genius, gifting Nintendo with a first-person perspective powerhouse who offered something entirely different from its contemporaries. While the Metroid Prime series is only now receiving its fourth installment, the translation of its core mechanics into the 3D space felt almost effortless. This isn't to say that Metroid Prime is a perfect recreation of the Metroidvania styling, but the resulting product was so rich in content and satisfying in gameplay that it has rightly entered the echelons of titles considered to be of the highest caliber. Looking at Metroid Prime, however, we can note a few important aspects:
-Although a marked departure in perspective, the idea of exploration and pathfinding in an isolated environment is still present in gameplay, though sequence-breaking is not. The developers have a clear sense of the identity and appeal of the franchise, and maximize on translating those ideas into the gameplay.
-The narrative elements of the title are increased dramatically thanks to the inclusion of the scanner and database, which pairs with the core, puzzle-solving nature of the gameplay. This element, although encouraged and beneficial in understanding the nature of the world and the backstory, is almost entirely optional. Freedom of choice and a greater degree of requirements for completion make for compelling additions.
-In addition to the scanning element of the game, a number of overlapping systems found in world design, weaponry, and equipment help to further complicate the gameplay experience and reward experimental players with new information. Attention to detail in a myriad of forms creates a sense of consistency and realism, especially when applied to gameplay.
To him, creating a new game doesn't just mean repainting the older title with a new coat of paint- there needs to be a gameplay focus behind the next installment. Each of the three Metroid Prime titles take Samus to different places that twist the fundamental gameplay. No two Zelda titles are exactly the same, the closest being A Link to the Past and A Link Between Worlds- and even then, Hyrule is given another dimension that allows Link to explore it in completely different ways. While some may harp that this notion is gimmicky by nature, it gives each installment its own flavor, separating them from one another in ways that enable the franchise to justify its existence. Miyamoto is only one developer, however, and while his idea of adapting foundations to new gameplay scenarios is admirable, it isn't adopted in every Nintendo franchise.
That is beside the point, however. In the end, a game justifies its existence by offering something substantial from a mechanical standpoint. Whether fans of the Dark Souls trilogy can agree on the best installment or not (it's the original, by the way), each game have mechanical twists that change the way they are played in crucial ways. This is the reason even more casual gamers can have a preference between their favorite First-person shooters. This certainly won't stop a dedicated group of fans of specific franchises or genres from wanting more of what they want, of course, but all too often, these groups call for further iterations because they want something familiar and new. (This is dangerous territory, as a specific article on this website treads dangerously close to this sort of fanboyism.) With this in mind, developers often fall back on aesthetic changes over genuine improvements: sure, they offer up a unique twist here or there, but the core remains unchanged, and grows stagnant in time. The reason that fans clamor for titles like Mega Man is because they should be easy to make, Capcom has just decided not to do so. Action platformers- and platformers in general- benefit from having solid fundamentals in character control while literally everything else is different. But this also means that eventually, a level designer or creative lead may reach a point of exhaustion, during which, a new alternative is born: read, Mega Man X.
Which brings up the central idea of this article once more: if you cannot iterate or improve upon the gameplay, should you risk reinventing your franchise? The world of video games is one that is ultimately reliant on brand recognition (or maybe that's just the whole world, sorry), and therefore, the familiarity of an existing IP guarantees a certain install base. But if graphical improvements on a recognizable character are the main purpose behind creating a new product, the result is designed to reach the lowest common denominator, a consumer who wants the next new thing just because its next and new. Moving the medium forward requires an understanding of what came before in order to add to that formula in the area where it matters most: gameplay.
This article unfortunately does not have a succinct conclusion. The reason for this lies behind a statement that is difficult to write, but would very easily drive home the point: the reinvention of any franchise should not come at the cost of simplified gameplay. A new direction in narrative structure or tone should not outweigh the existence of compelling gameplay. The freedom of choice and complexity of player experience is the defining trait of the medium, and should not be neglected, especially if certain standards have been put forth. If a franchise has set a particularly high bar, then the goal should be not only to maintain that level of quality, but to surpass it. If not, the end result is an expensive-looking product that lacks substance in relation to its predecessors. Should the gameplay foundations be used for a different intellectual property? If they are compelling enough in concept to be used as a selling point for a new franchise, perhaps. If not, then you hit on the core of the issue: what makes them compelling enough to be inserted into the pre-existing intellectual property?
Paper Mario has become shallow in writing and character. Kid Icarus: Uprising is the greatest franchise reinvention in the history of video games. Let's be honest, if you want to read a good story, you should probably go to a book, and not a video game. Do you vehemently disagree with these HOT TAKES? Do you think that some genres are justified because they rely on their narratives? Do you like Metroid: Other M? Please, feel free to leave a comment, subscribe for more content, or share with those who will be enraged by these words.
This game is not God of War.
If that were the case, there would be additional mention of how its most recent entry has seen multiple claims of helping to propel the medium forward, which is something of an odd statement. From a storytelling perspective, this seems unfounded, however in terms of technical performance and visual quality, the game is certainly setting some new goalposts that are unlikely to be met except in the case of specific high profile studios. The game being described in the introduction is Metroid: Other M, and it serves as an excellent counterpoint for the current success story that is God of Four. Or, Dad of War. Whatever.
Similar, But Not Simpler
When the phrase "reinventing the franchise" pops up in and around a beloved series of video games, a healthy dose of skepticism should be applied. This phrase implies that a developer either understands the flaws present in their titles and seeks to change them, or wishes to create something entirely new with a recognizable brand name. Metroid: Other M was considered momentous at the time because of its fully voice-acted storyline, more specifically for its exploration into Samus' character. It was never meant to be a reinvention of the franchise, but it was an attempt to make something new of a recognizable property that had never seen great sales, despite possessing a number of titles that are widely considered to be some of the finest video games ever made.The similarities in concept that Other M has with the more recent entry of God of War are mildly amusing, especially because both products have received drastically differing reviews by both the professional journalism sphere and the larger community. Both feature strong narrative focus on family and innocence, both have simplified character-action gameplay and customization systems, and their focus on strong visuals is key. The degree to which they accomplish these aspects with success, of course, is up for debate. However, one group of consumers was clearly displeased with the state of the final product while the other was not, which may either come down to a question of their execution or the standard of quality possessed by each camp. The matter of standards within the video gaming community is not a subject that will provide fruitful results, however, and it definitely isn't the central idea of this article.
In the previously mentioned circumstance where a developer recognizes the flaws of their franchise and seeks to refine them, one can look to Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed Origins, which was something of an unexpected surprise in the way that it reformatted combat and scouting. However, these were simply modifications to a pre-existing formula, as many of the series' staple elements returned in familiar ways. It does not always take a full-on reinvention of a series in order to drastically change the resulting product- last year's Breath of the Wild reintroduced a fully-explorable map and increased focus on survival in order to differentiate itself from previous 3D entries and recapture the feeling of the original title. There are very few franchises that can make a marked transition to a new format unscathed, but when they do, it is usually because of the improvements to the gameplay experience. Take Mario 64, which turned the skill-based platformer into something of a more exploratory, adventuresome title with tight and expanse movement options, only to run into problems immediately after with Super Mario Sunshine. Likewise, while Sonic Adventure felt like an honest recreation of the Genesis-era madcap momentum, its flaws bled into far too many future installments, leaving the franchise standing on unsteady ground.When "New" Means "More"
What does it take to bring an old franchise into a new era? When a fanbase has developed around a specific franchise, it can be difficult to try something new while pleasing the old. Perhaps it is ultimately best if a franchise is left to a specific era, then. Naughty Dog have consistently developed and released compelling, if not more mature intellectual property as they have transitioned from one hardware generation to the next, allowing their content to grow with their fans as their games have improved. Even so, some are still pining for a proper Crash Bandicoot reboot. Bandicoot reboot. That sort of rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?Perhaps one of the most compelling examples of a proper reinvention comes from the previously-mentioned Metroid. Though it has had its dry spells and odd iterations, the risky gambit that came with turning the beloved bounty hunter's missions into a first-person adventure was a stroke of genius, gifting Nintendo with a first-person perspective powerhouse who offered something entirely different from its contemporaries. While the Metroid Prime series is only now receiving its fourth installment, the translation of its core mechanics into the 3D space felt almost effortless. This isn't to say that Metroid Prime is a perfect recreation of the Metroidvania styling, but the resulting product was so rich in content and satisfying in gameplay that it has rightly entered the echelons of titles considered to be of the highest caliber. Looking at Metroid Prime, however, we can note a few important aspects:
-The narrative elements of the title are increased dramatically thanks to the inclusion of the scanner and database, which pairs with the core, puzzle-solving nature of the gameplay. This element, although encouraged and beneficial in understanding the nature of the world and the backstory, is almost entirely optional. Freedom of choice and a greater degree of requirements for completion make for compelling additions.
-In addition to the scanning element of the game, a number of overlapping systems found in world design, weaponry, and equipment help to further complicate the gameplay experience and reward experimental players with new information. Attention to detail in a myriad of forms creates a sense of consistency and realism, especially when applied to gameplay.
Where Do We Go From Here?
For its time, Metroid Prime was also considered a very good-looking game. However, it is the multiple additional elements that make its gameplay consistently compelling, able to be modified across each subsequent installment in order to achieve a specific kind of feeling, whether it was the oppressive, dangerous dual-nature of Echoes or the sprawling, action-oriented design of Corruption. There was a great deal there, but what warranted its existence were the opportunities for expansion. Shigeru Miyamoto's statement regarding future installments of the F-Zero franchise is one that is often quoted, yet mostly misunderstood: "We see a lot of other designers who are kind of making more traditional racing-style games, so we try to focus on something that feels a little bit more gamey."To him, creating a new game doesn't just mean repainting the older title with a new coat of paint- there needs to be a gameplay focus behind the next installment. Each of the three Metroid Prime titles take Samus to different places that twist the fundamental gameplay. No two Zelda titles are exactly the same, the closest being A Link to the Past and A Link Between Worlds- and even then, Hyrule is given another dimension that allows Link to explore it in completely different ways. While some may harp that this notion is gimmicky by nature, it gives each installment its own flavor, separating them from one another in ways that enable the franchise to justify its existence. Miyamoto is only one developer, however, and while his idea of adapting foundations to new gameplay scenarios is admirable, it isn't adopted in every Nintendo franchise.
That is beside the point, however. In the end, a game justifies its existence by offering something substantial from a mechanical standpoint. Whether fans of the Dark Souls trilogy can agree on the best installment or not (it's the original, by the way), each game have mechanical twists that change the way they are played in crucial ways. This is the reason even more casual gamers can have a preference between their favorite First-person shooters. This certainly won't stop a dedicated group of fans of specific franchises or genres from wanting more of what they want, of course, but all too often, these groups call for further iterations because they want something familiar and new. (This is dangerous territory, as a specific article on this website treads dangerously close to this sort of fanboyism.) With this in mind, developers often fall back on aesthetic changes over genuine improvements: sure, they offer up a unique twist here or there, but the core remains unchanged, and grows stagnant in time. The reason that fans clamor for titles like Mega Man is because they should be easy to make, Capcom has just decided not to do so. Action platformers- and platformers in general- benefit from having solid fundamentals in character control while literally everything else is different. But this also means that eventually, a level designer or creative lead may reach a point of exhaustion, during which, a new alternative is born: read, Mega Man X. Which brings up the central idea of this article once more: if you cannot iterate or improve upon the gameplay, should you risk reinventing your franchise? The world of video games is one that is ultimately reliant on brand recognition (or maybe that's just the whole world, sorry), and therefore, the familiarity of an existing IP guarantees a certain install base. But if graphical improvements on a recognizable character are the main purpose behind creating a new product, the result is designed to reach the lowest common denominator, a consumer who wants the next new thing just because its next and new. Moving the medium forward requires an understanding of what came before in order to add to that formula in the area where it matters most: gameplay.
This article unfortunately does not have a succinct conclusion. The reason for this lies behind a statement that is difficult to write, but would very easily drive home the point: the reinvention of any franchise should not come at the cost of simplified gameplay. A new direction in narrative structure or tone should not outweigh the existence of compelling gameplay. The freedom of choice and complexity of player experience is the defining trait of the medium, and should not be neglected, especially if certain standards have been put forth. If a franchise has set a particularly high bar, then the goal should be not only to maintain that level of quality, but to surpass it. If not, the end result is an expensive-looking product that lacks substance in relation to its predecessors. Should the gameplay foundations be used for a different intellectual property? If they are compelling enough in concept to be used as a selling point for a new franchise, perhaps. If not, then you hit on the core of the issue: what makes them compelling enough to be inserted into the pre-existing intellectual property?
Paper Mario has become shallow in writing and character. Kid Icarus: Uprising is the greatest franchise reinvention in the history of video games. Let's be honest, if you want to read a good story, you should probably go to a book, and not a video game. Do you vehemently disagree with these HOT TAKES? Do you think that some genres are justified because they rely on their narratives? Do you like Metroid: Other M? Please, feel free to leave a comment, subscribe for more content, or share with those who will be enraged by these words.
Comments
Post a Comment