Re: Command & Conquer Ultimate Collection

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 13:26 this Friday (GMT):

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:10:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 18:34 this Tuesday (GMT):

>
>

Ah. I've seen that kinda "sequel being worse in every way" a lot of
times, tho the only thing that comes to mind rn is Paper Mario Sticker
Star..

>
It's an understandable happenstance.
>
Game is popular. Customers want more. Developer makes sequel that's
the original game but gussied up. Game sells well. Customers want more
(but hey, maybe add a few new features?). Developer makes new game
with new features. Game sells well... but not as well as original.
Customers happy, but starting to eye other games. Still, they want
more. Developer makes new game, adds even more new features. Core
audience happy, but sales are down. Publishers panic; franchise dying!
Quick, do something! Developers revamp game dramatically, often with a
much smaller budget (because last game didn't sell that well and
publisher confidence is low) and with less time to test. But popular
franchise name and "new" is all that's needed, right? Customers hate
it, game bombs.
>
(Twenty years later, remaster old game, maybe reboot franchise)
>
This problem becomes exagerated if the franchise is farmed out between
different developers, some of whom may not really understand what made
the original so captivating in the same place.
>
What so many developers - and gamers - forget is that there's a
limited longevity to games. The tastes and trends that made a game so
popular originally won't necessarily apply in five or ten years.
Similarly, a franchise is often associated with certain ideas and
mechanics, and if you stray too far from them, you'll alienate your
core audience, and if you stick too closely, you won't attract new
customers. The end result: you can't keep milking a franchise and
expecting it to sell indefinitely. It's better in the long run - for
both developer and customer - to start investing in a new IP (bolster
it by saying, "created by developers who made Old IP!") than dragging
out an old franchise long past its sell date.
>
There are exceptions, of course. "Resident Evil" and "Final Fantasy"
have had unusual resiliency (although the latter benefitted from not
being a consistent franchise from the start; each game in the series
was different enough - in tone, mechanics, and setting - that players
never came to expect 'more of the same' from a Final Fantasy game to
begin with. Another example would be the "Call of Duty Games", whose
lasting longevity baffles me. ;-)

COD is probably surviving off the brand and nostalgia? FF seems
interesting, but I prefer the Mario RPGS (and PMD) (and Earthbound/M3)
(and undertale/deltarune) over the traditional stuff.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom