This is from playing Pac Man ports, and the question is how much does being faithful to Pac Man the arcade game versus fun on the home console matter? Some people put a lot of stock in 'arcade perfect', while others don't. Same thing when a franchise puts out a new installment - its compared to something else, but for a very good reason.
IPs and franchises are valuable. They are real gateways to selling a product. Slap Star Wars or Mario on something, and it will sell better than if you didn't. Yet, how much is then owed to what made that IP or franchise valuable?
For instance, the Lone Ranger was a multimedia success for decades based on being a real hero and role model. I feel the Disney Johnny Depp movie betrayed that. Its not a bad movie, but it is a 'bad' Lone Ranger movie, in what it does to the character of the Lone Ranger. It can be both things at once, but many of us will judge it mostly as faithless to what made the franchise a success to begin with.
Are video games the same? Doesn't a game, say Mortal Kombat, imply certain things? Pick a franchise - Doom, Mario Kart, etc. What elements come to mind? How many of those, if any, are needed for the game to be a 'proper' game in the franchise?
How much should we judge a game based on its franchise roots (or arcade roots) versus as a standalone product?
General and high profile video game topics.
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
Short answer, il shouldn't matter, yet always will.