Dreakon Mar 20, 2013 @ 5:44pm
Disliking games because of their names...
This is becoming all too common these days. Too often when talking games with people I hear "this game would be good if it weren't called [insert popular franchise here]". The most common culprit lately being Resident Evil, because of the way the series has shifted towards action and away from survival horror.

I find this concerning. Why not simply enjoy a game for being good? Why does the name matter?
Last edited by Dreakon; Mar 20, 2013 @ 5:45pm
Showing 1-9 of 9 comments
< >
Gordon McClane Maximus Payne Mar 20, 2013 @ 5:56pm 
I feel the same along similar lines. Games should be judged on whether they are worth time and more importantly money.
Mivo Mar 20, 2013 @ 7:12pm 
There is a reason why there are whole companies and departments who do nothing but churn out product names. The name is part of the package. If people find it unappealing, they are less likely to buy it. Similarly, a name can also lead to purchases from people who would otherwise not have considered it and thus "buff" sales of an otherwise mediocre game.

CoD is a good example. For many people, this makes a game interesting to check out. For me, it dampens the interest. It's just part of the selection process: there are more games than I have time or money to play, so names or franchises become part of an early, rough filter.

Now if people keep talking about how great a game is, I'll check it out whether or not I find the name appealing, and I wouldn't persistently skip a game because of the name. But something like "Star Forge" is more likely to make me read up on a game than "Lots of Planets" would.
Pork "Finale" Chop Mar 20, 2013 @ 7:31pm 
Defintely have to agree with Mivo's points. I think often people will judge a game by its title when it belongs to a franchise, since they don't feel like said game(s) should be apart of their beloved franchise(s).
10Club Mar 20, 2013 @ 9:37pm 
Well Resident Evil 6 is disliked not because it's not a proper Resident Evil game but because it sucks and is a QTE fest. The game has no soul and the design process was "let's just add every mainstream and popular product/feature into this game. Oh but let's not fix characters not being able to get passed chairs unless they go around them. Because this is still 10 years ago."

I personally don't care about the title as long as a game is good but there are exceptions.

One of those would be taking one of the best real time tactical games (Syndicate) and turning it into a mediocre FPS game that features blinding lens flare and enough bloom to literally make some of the walls blinding white.

That I have a problem with. If the game was good it wouldn't have been that big of a deal but it's not. The game sucks and it deserved the poor sales it received.

EA claimed it was because tactical games don't sell anymore. What a load of BS. 2K comes around with a proper XCom and it was so successful that it was listed as one of the driving forces behind their profits last quarter. The PC version sold exceptionally well.
Last edited by 10Club; Mar 20, 2013 @ 9:54pm
Dreakon Mar 21, 2013 @ 3:08pm 
Originally posted by TenClub 89:
Well Resident Evil 6 is disliked not because it's not a proper Resident Evil game but because it sucks and is a QTE fest. The game has no soul and the design process was "let's just add every mainstream and popular product/feature into this game. Oh but let's not fix characters not being able to get passed chairs unless they go around them. Because this is still 10 years ago."
People complained a lot about Resident Evil 5 as well, and probably still do, despite it being a very good game. I have no sources, but I bet people complained about Resident Evil 4 at first too despite achieving almost "classic" status amongst critics and many (reasonable) gamers. Resident Evil as a whole is just the most prominent example I think of with people hating the game simply because it didn't follow the convention that the name preceded it with.

Resident Evil 6 (though I have yet to play it) is probably rightfully criticized for being so heavily into the QTE's... even if I really don't mind it. Hell, I LOVED Heavy Rain and the developers are even quoted calling the game "interactive drama".

Though, other than the QTE's, your complaints largely boil down to a bunch of popular phrases you probably picked up off the forums and like to parrot as if you know what you're talking about. No "soul"? Too "mainstream"? A game sucks because you can't barge through chairs? Please...

Originally posted by Mivo:
Similarly, a name can also lead to purchases from people who would otherwise not have considered it and thus "buff" sales of an otherwise mediocre game.
I would imagine people probably consider that a cheap way to garner a few extra sales, by milking customers by slapping a popular franchises name onto a game.

Something easily avoided with like 10 minutes of research before spending your money. Frankly, I tend to not feel bad for those who spend their money so carelessly.
Last edited by Dreakon; Mar 21, 2013 @ 3:14pm
Tuskan GA Mar 21, 2013 @ 3:24pm 
To a degree, a name is part of your advertising and of your franchise's identity. People who are a fan of your franchise will be immediately interested when you announce a game with the name of that franchise in the title.

It's a latent form of advertising. The name, at least partially, represents the franchise and everything that franchise stands for.

If you keep the name but not what lies at the core of your franchise, it's almost like False Advertising. People, based solely on the name, expect certain things and if you stray too far from those things, you risk serious backlash.

In a sense, the name sums up in a scant handful of words, everything that's anything about your franchise. It's the title given to its identity.

When you shift too far from that identity without drawing attention to yourself in the process, fans have every right to call foul. Because you've attempted to change what the name represents. You've attempted to change the underlying identity of your franchise but without announcing what you're doing (and thus attempting to hide it).

When you do this and end up with a product that doesn't in any way exemplify what your franchise used to, you've lost your core fanbase.
Dreakon Mar 21, 2013 @ 3:27pm 
Originally posted by Tuskan GA:
When you shift too far from that identity without drawing attention to yourself in the process, fans have every right to call foul. Because you've attempted to change what the name represents. You've attempted to change the underlying identity of your franchise but without announcing what you're doing (and thus attempting to hide it).

When you do this and end up with a product that doesn't in any way exemplify what your franchise used to, you've lost your core fanbase.
I understand that losing your core fanbase is inevitable when changing the direction of a franchise, and they have every right to not like the new direction (even if I disagree with them and find their complaints baseless and petty)... but why are the fans right to "call foul"?

How is the release of a largely hyped, largely advertised action game hiding that it's more action than survival horror (in the case of recent Resident Evil games)? It's only hidden from those too stupid to see it, from those who look no further than the name when buying a game.

Maybe that's what they aim for. Cash in a little off of the consumers stupidity. Why is that unacceptable? Why can't we just be smarter about how we spend our money? Why don't we take more of the blame?
Last edited by Dreakon; Mar 21, 2013 @ 3:36pm
Tuskan GA Mar 21, 2013 @ 3:42pm 
Originally posted by Dreakon:
Originally posted by Tuskan GA:
When you shift too far from that identity without drawing attention to yourself in the process, fans have every right to call foul. Because you've attempted to change what the name represents. You've attempted to change the underlying identity of your franchise but without announcing what you're doing (and thus attempting to hide it).

When you do this and end up with a product that doesn't in any way exemplify what your franchise used to, you've lost your core fanbase.
I understand that losing your core fanbase is inevitable when changing the direction of a franchise, and they have every right to not like the new direction (even if I disagree with them)... but why are the fans right to "call foul"?

How is the release of a largely hyped, largely advertised action game hiding that it's more action than survival horror (in the case of recent Resident Evil games)? It's only hidden from those too stupid to see it, from those who look no further than the name when buying a game.

Maybe that's what they aim for. Cash in a little off of the consumers stupidity. Why is that unacceptable? Why can't we just be smarter about it? Why don't we take more of the blame?


They didn't reboot the franchise to take it in a new direction, they just morphed what was there until it stopped being what it was. That's the sort of passive aggressive tactics I'm talking about. Shift the ground under your consumer's feet until they are standing somewhere else, hoping they don't notice.

When an honest company wants to take a franchise in a new direction, they call it a reboot, not a sequel. Why? Because it's direct and unambiguous. Any and all changes to the formula can be explained in one word and, if the fans don't like it, it's fine because at least those fans knew ahead of time there would be significant changes.


Dreakon Mar 21, 2013 @ 3:52pm 
Originally posted by Tuskan GA:
They didn't reboot the franchise to take it in a new direction, they just morphed what was there until it stopped being what it was. That's the sort of passive aggressive tactics I'm talking about. Shift the ground under your consumer's feet until they are standing somewhere else, hoping they don't notice.

When an honest company wants to take a franchise in a new direction, they call it a reboot, not a sequel. Why? Because it's direct and unambiguous. Any and all changes to the formula can be explained in one word and, if the fans don't like it, it's fine because at least those fans knew ahead of time there would be significant changes.
Sounds kind of petty to me. Odds are it wasn't called a reboot because the games are canon, regardless of gameplay. Who looked at Resident Evil 4 and didn't think this was a change in direction for the franchise? Who is being conned into buying Resident Evil 4 thinking nothing had changed?

Unless a company releases absolutely no gameplay footage for a game, doesn't allow their game to be reviewed, etc... you aren't being conned. Nothing is being shifted underneath your feet. There is no false advertising. The facts are all 'splayed out in front of you. People are just lazier than ever, and sadly laziness seems to breed a lack of accountability.
Last edited by Dreakon; Mar 21, 2013 @ 3:53pm
Showing 1-9 of 9 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Mar 20, 2013 @ 5:44pm
Posts: 9