A trend I find with modern versions of old franchises.

ThatZenoGuy

ThatZenoGuy

Residential Zealous Evolved Nano Organism
Be it fallout, homeworld, call of duty, anything.

Just a modern version/episode of an old game...

"This game is what got me into the franchise, and I love it!"

I expressed my dissapointment of Homeworld Remastered on the Homeworld subreddit, citing issues like the wrong sounds being used, unit balance being changed for no good reason, damage system changed from ballistic to RNG, and more.

I will quote one of the more infuriating comments I got.

It's insulting to the guys that literally brought the franchise back from the grave and got a new generation interested enough to get DOK made.
Click to expand...

Brought the franchise from the grave?

Hastily updating some graphics, and shunting everything to the simpler engine which makes for a less enjoyable game is 'bringing it back from the grave'?

I frankly don't care how much attention Homeworld gets, and I don't want people to be brainwashed into thinking the high definition trainwreck which is remasted, is the REAL 'Homeworld'.

I can attest to this resurrection. I picked up the collection two days ago on steam, having never heard of homeworld beyond maybe seeing the name on reddit once or twice. The remastered Version is the reason I, and I assume many others, have gotten into the series at all. And I'm enjoying it thoroughly!
Click to expand...

This was posted after that comment by someone else.

Again, I cannot comprehend how people can just ignore the original games, what made them good, what made them so loved in the first place.

How can people be so ignorant of the franchise's history?

I am genuinely curious what causes this, but I'd just assume it chalks down to 'yey new gaem to spend money on so I look cool owning this 'historical' game'.

You know how I learned about Homeworld? Well, honestly I have no idea how, some day I just stumbed upon it. (IIRC I played Homeworld 2 first)

Homeworld 2 was a dissapointing wreck, barely better or worse than Remastered, and yet that's all I knew of Homeworld until I played the first, and superior game.

I see this getting more and more common, I've met people who 'love X game', but never actually played the games which made the franchise good.

Can you guys list any of these encounters in your life? What games do you love, which everyone ignores the original of?
 
a721402 said:
Pardon me, but I remember we already have similar thread in recently?
Click to expand...

Possibly, I recall makign some other rant threads before.

This one is more focused on developers releasing a modern variant of a game, and people picking it up and proclaiming themselves to know everything about the franchise.

That.

And I'm pissed off at gearbox for ruining Homeworld.
 
Hmm... That I know of, beyond the obvious, TES and Fallout, not much.

Dark Souls may have it but the first game is too revered (sometimes even a wee bit too much) to be overlooked in the franchise scheme. And DS2 was victim of the hate meme, not of being below DS3 in fan opinion. In fact, people are getting a lot warmer to that game in hindsight of DS3.
 
Arnust said:
Hmm... That I know of, beyond the obvious, TES and Fallout, not much.

Dark Souls may have it but the first game is too revered (sometimes even a wee bit too much) to be overlooked in the franchise scheme. And DS2 was victim of the hate meme, not of being below DS3 in fan opinion. In fact, people are getting a lot warmer to that game in hindsight of DS3.
Click to expand...

Never was into Dark Souls honestly, but I do know of a lot of people who got into the game with 3.

IIRC wasn't 1-2 significantly better in terms of actual mechanics? Poise and shit was actually worth something, etc?
 
The old xcom vs New xcom by firaxis

Lucky for us we still get mod like long war
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
Never was into Dark Souls honestly, but I do know of a lot of people who got into the game with 3.

IIRC wasn't 1-2 significantly better in terms of actual mechanics? Poise and shit was actually worth something, etc?
Click to expand...
Yeah, the popularity of the franchise has increased exponentially. Every game is great and some of the best Action RPGs I have ever played, but while 1 had an incredibly well designed world and 2 a huge amount of content and its mechanics were very damn solid, 3 learned few of 2 and tried to cater to 1's fans while only apporting things distilled from Bloodborne. Not a scam by any means, but unless the second DLC makes up for it in some way, i'll be a bit dissapointed.

Streamlining (coming from BB) wan't harmful per se, but it just made things even more obtuse (a lot of stats like Guard Break, Poise and Counter damage are invisble now) and it's just not as replayable and sheer fun as the predecessors who did it in different ways. Maybe it's more artsy and all, but eh.
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
Sadly never played much of dragonage either. ;(

What did the first one do so well, which later ones didn't?
Click to expand...

They made the classes much more differentiated, simple and more restricted. In DA:O for example I remember you could wear heavy armor and a sword as a mage as long as you had the right strength etc, in the following DAs you could only wear mage armor and weapons (staff), and that's just an example, in general everything was simplified, more action less strategy.

Another thing I love about old games and I hate about new ones is hyperbalance, like no "game breaking" endgame abilities, weapons, whatever. I remember in DA:O if you decided to go the Arcane Warrior path with a mage you'd end up being a demigod DPS tank impossible to kill thanks to all the buffs you could get and it was actually really fun for me. DA:I on the other hand, had a not as cheesy version of the Arcane Warrior but still OP and they just rolled an update and made it useless. Hate it when I can't play a magic god in fantasy games.
 
Wardened said:
They made the classes much more differentiated, simple and more restricted. In DA:O for example I remember you could wear heavy armor and a sword as a mage as long as you had the right strength etc, in the following DAs you could only wear mage armor and weapons (staff), and that's just an example, in general everything was simplified, more action less strategy.

Another thing I love about old games and I hate about new ones is hyperbalance, like no "game breaking" endgame abilities, weapons, whatever. I remember in DA:O if you decided to go the Arcane Warrior path with a mage you'd end up being a demigod DPS tank impossible to kill thanks to all the buffs you could get and it was actually really fun for me. DA:I on the other hand, had a not as cheesy version of the Arcane Warrior but still OP and they just rolled an update and made it useless. Hate it when I can't play a magic god in fantasy games.
Click to expand...


Oh my god I agree so much!

I miss all the super OP stuff in old games, which you had the CHOICE to use or not.

Nowadays games need stupid amounts of balance which makes tanks/DPS/etc useless.

What's the point of having more HP, if the DPS can just melt through it!?
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
Can you explain a bit on this?
Click to expand...

GLADLY.

I'm a old xcom fan, got in via Terra Phoenix. NuXcom dummified X-Com in its vanilla form: No base attack. Only one base. Squad capped at 6 and at first is 4. Enemies run away when first seen. Terror attacks force you to go after one and ignore two others. Reaction shots became a action, overwatch. The micromanagement, which was barely anything, was removed for the newbies.

Of those, the first four grate me the most. I'm X-com, funded by the world of 7,000,000,000 to defend the world, but I can't bring a full modern squad with me? (A modern squad is 8-12 people). I can't have more than one base? Hell, I think the aliens only have one base as well! How am I going to defend the world without global capability - because the aliens attack en masse, I am forced to, by the game, to sacrifice on no logical ground. In old xcom, you could face multiple battleships within one hour and scramble your interceptors, track them with multiple skyrangers, and get the job done. I can't even be attacked in the vanilla game, and the expansion only gives you ONE base attack. It's weird.

It doesn't feel like a war for the earth, it feels like a hah-hah match in a comfortable ring. I have one base, the aliens have one base, I can't be hurt, but they can.

Enemy Within and Long war alleviated a lot of that, for its credit. But I would take openxcom-oldxcom anytime of the day, even with all the fluff and stuff NuXcom added.

I notice a trend with the clones of Xcom as well: finnicky funding, recruits are something to be valued like diamonds, and the war seems incredibly small in scope, from UFO AI to the After-blank series. The world can give you everything but the fight is still a bleak affair because these are *aliens*, it shouldn't be toned down to what is basically a gang war (and Apoc sort of did this)
 
I'll confess that Fallout 3 is what got me into the fallout series. Now I try to get into series' by playing either the first game or the chronological first game, like I did with the MGS series.
 
fallout and TES are big ones. occasionally I get people who love resident evil 4 or 5 but never played the originals. that's about it really.
 
I only ever played dino crisis 3 on the xbox... it was terrible.
and yeah I forgot about nightmare creatures. I played it on the n64.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top