The Hot Topic Returns

[HandsomeDead]

That's just a narrow definition of creativity.  And Angel of Darkness wasn't a reboot.  It was a regular entry from Core's time with the series.  I think the only real reboot in the TR series is '09 game onwards.  While development changed hands to Crystal Dynamics earlier I think their first three games were absolutely set in the original game's universe and were sequels.

 

Like you can look at DmC and again it had plenty of it's own creative takes on what Ninja Theory decided a DMC game should have.  It does have its own identity due to these creative decisions.

It doesn't matter whether you like these decisions or not, that's not the point here, the claim that it's not creative is just wrong as a blanket statement.

 

As another example take Golden Axe: Beast Rider.  I think on its face to turn Golden Axe into a more timely action game is definitely a creative endeavour but it failed because it was mismanaged, or bit off more than thew could chew, or execute on something that was fine as a prototype but didn't come together by the end, or just lack of time/money.  But none of this is a lack of creativity, maybe in terms of problem solving it lacks, but that's not what you're talking about.

[OCH]

1 minute ago, HandsomeDead said:

Like you can look at DmC

That's a funny one*. As I've mentioned before, if that game didn't trade in on that franchise name and released under it's own. I honestly think it's reception would have been more positive. Which is my whole point. If the game produced is good enough. Does it even need to be called "Hitman Dodgeball"?

 

 

 

*Oddly enough, although I only ever played about halfway through. It clicked with me more than regular DMC. Which the combo system has always traditionally been a barrier for me.

[HandsomeDead]

8 minutes ago, OCH said:

That's a funny one*. As I've mentioned before, if that game didn't trade in on that franchise name and released under it's own. I honestly think it's reception would have been more positive. Which is my whole point. If the game produced is good enough. Does it even need to be called "Hitman Dodgeball"?

 

I don't know why people say this.  It was made to be a DMC game, if it wasn't it wouldn't have been that game.  It would have been Heavenly Sword or Enslaved.  It would have been a different game if it didn't have certain hallmarks it had to apply itself to.

Recontextualising certain works through adaptation has always been an interesting creative project.  Just make a new thing bro is an argument that could be used against so much great work.

[OCH]

31 minutes ago, HandsomeDead said:

I don't know why people say this.  It was made to be a DMC game, if it wasn't it wouldn't have been that game

The most famous example of all: 

 

DMC was made to be Resident Evil 4.

Haunting Ground was made to be Resident Evil 4.

Actual Resident Evil 4 was neither of the above.

 

 

[one-armed dwarf]

I don't want to relitigate DmC, but the kinda approach I don't really like is the 'oops, we fucked this one up and need to redo it over', or 'we ran out of runway, so lets start again with this rethought out thing' and throw away the old thing cause well it's way too cringe to bother with now. It's much more interesting to me to see weird spinoffs that branch off of something else within an existing universe, than reheat it with a new style. Even if arguments can be made that the style is fresh and interesting, it's cool for instance that something like REVII co-exists with something as crazy as RE6 and Code Veronica. Or GoW 2018 with the stuff that precedes that. I believe that was actually the idea with DmC at some point, something which Ninja Theory themselves wanted to do, but someone at capcom specifically asked them to make it a completely new continuity and cut off the old one.

 

It sometimes feels like in gaming there's this thing where the medium gets embarrassed with itself and strains to be taken more seriously, so these kinds of facelifts become a bit more common than in other media. Tomb Raider always stood out to me as a particularly shit reboot that just made those games way less interesting. I'd even say I preferred Angel of Darkness tbh, though it was pretty shit tbf. 

 

FFVII Remake, despite its faults, is a pretty cool way to reboot an IP. If you know the plot of the game you know why, or you vehemently disagree because of that. But I think it's a cool way to go about it.

[HandsomeDead]

25 minutes ago, OCH said:

The most famous example of all: 

 

DMC was made to be Resident Evil 4.

Haunting Ground was made to be Resident Evil 4.

Actual Resident Evil 4 was neither of the above.

 

 

 

I guess I'll try and piece your argument together for you.

 

So DMC, famously made from the bones of a prototype intended to be RE4 at some point but a decision was made to turn it into a separate thing.  A long process internally at Capcom where they wanted to reinvigorate the mainline series where some of this work didn't want to be a waste of time.

 

That is comparable, in anyway at all, to the situation at Capcom later where they were on the ropes because barely anyone bought video games in Japan at the time unless it was on a phone so they felt at the time that a good decision would be to work with the western market to help them make games that would do better in the west.  Obviously, it didn't end up working well, but it's a sound theory.  One of these Projects was DmC (I'd generally say, one of the few successful ones.  It's not a Dark Void).

 

So is the suggestion here that they should have stopped development for DmC and turned it into something else, despite there being no reason to? It wasn't made during an experimental period, NT were purposefully contracted for that project.

 

 

Look what's happened, all I wanted to do was say that reboots aren't inherently void of creativity, which I don't think is controversial and there are a number of examples that prove that but now I'm here parsing through two points of Capcom's history trying to figure out how they are remotely the same thing 😟

[OCH]

34 minutes ago, HandsomeDead said:

I guess I'll try and piece your argument

 

1 hour ago, HandsomeDead said:

I don't know why people say this. 

Answer: Precedent

IE:

1 hour ago, OCH said:

The most famous example of all: 

 

DMC was made to be Resident Evil 4.

Haunting Ground was made to be Resident Evil 4.

Actual Resident Evil 4 was neither of the above.

 

The point was these internally developed, but abandoned potential reboots of RE4 didn't go to waste. They became their own thing. Unbeholden to the RE name. Each could have been their own Code Veronica (while Haunting Ground is roughly a spiritual successor to Clock Tower. It shares enough elements to be a weird RE side story). But they weren't. As such they were allowed to creatively be their own thing. Not bound to expectations of an IP license.

 

34 minutes ago, HandsomeDead said:

That is comparable, in anyway at all, to the situation at Capcom

There was no critique of Capcom's wider business situation. Only anecdotal discourse about the games cited.

 

34 minutes ago, HandsomeDead said:

So is the suggestion here that they should have stopped development for DmC and turned it into something else, despite there being no reason to?

No?

2 hours ago, OCH said:

if that game didn't trade in on that franchise name and released under it's own. I honestly think it's reception would have been more positive.

TLDR:

Name change = more positive reception.

[HandsomeDead]

How many new IP have to bomb, or at least not quite break even, to come to the conclusion that maybe the broader market needed to justify these things is reluctant to jump on board with new IP, while sequels/reboots consistently do better.  You can cherry pick a story with a happy ending (also during a time with less financial stakes) but it doesn't reflect general trends that inform these kinds of decisions.  Great, if you're gonna go against the grain and push a new IP and I wish them all the luck, but it's fantasy land stuff if you think a Wayne's World style "if you build it, they will come" attitude will work.  It doesn't most of the time.

 

The other day I was talking about how great it was that a situation happened where Hi-Fi Rush exists, but the gaming industry is in a place where that is a luxury (and there is even discourse over if it did "well").  Most dev teams are gonna be put on projects where they have to work on one of these existing IP.  To think that these people aren't putting anything creative into them is, frankly, needlessly disrespectful.

 

There's lots of thoughts and criticisms to be had but an absence of creativity is, ironically, a criticism absent of creativity for a lot of reboots.

[Nag]

 

Quote

Readers discuss what it takes to play a game all the way to the end, from open world title like Zelda to ultra hard ones such as Sekiro.

 

This week’s Hot Topic was suggested by reader TheTruthSoul (PSN ID), who asked what it is that inspires you to finish some games and not others? Are there common elements which influence your decision, or does it depend purely on the quality of the game and external factors?

 

Most people tried to beat at least the story campaign of any game they played, while admitting they don’t always have time and could easily get distracted… often by other games.

 

[mfnick]

I used to finish nearly every game I started. Then I realised I was being stupid & wasting my precious time on mediocre shite when I could be playing the good shit. 
 

Nowadays I still complete most games I start but I’m much more willing to fuck it off. Ill try to put at least 4 hours into a game before sacking it off, if it hasn’t grabbed me by then, I won’t bother. if it does grab me, unless there’s some bullshit later on or it’s a 50 hour open world grindathon I’ll tend to stick with them till the end. How Long To Beat is a great resource, if I get bored by hour 20 and HLTB says its 30 hours I won’t bother, if it’s 24 hours I’ll keep at it. 
 

The overall length matters too, if it’s 5 hours or less I’ll tend to complete it if I’ve made a start even if I don’t like it. 

[one-armed dwarf]

If I'm having a bad time with a game I walk away and put it down, as I did with Sekiro and Nioh 2. There comes a point with some stuff where it becomes clear there's very little runway left in the game to win you over if it hasn't already. Or, in the case of Nioh 2, it's basically gambling your time to decide if grinding at the mechanics will turn it into something you really like or not, which is also not great.

 

If I like a game though I will probably play it more than once, I don't really think game completion is important in general so much as just time spent. I played RE4 remake lots. I played a few hours of Village and don't intend to ever return to it, cause I found it boring and I think it sucks. I never beat BOTW, but still spent 70 hours with it and think it's maybe one of the best games I've ever played

[OCH]

These days, it is outside factors. In times past, I was practically glued my GBA for Minish Cap or Metroid Fusion. Completing Eternal Darkness the required three times in a row didn't phase me.

 

Now, it doesn't matter how good the game is. If I'm not feeling great and/or the inclination to play isn't there. The greatest experience on Earth won't move me.

[DisturbedSwan]

Owing from a childhood largely spent not finishing many games and playing a lot of them. In my teenage to adult life I have constantly strived to correct that so I will finish pretty much ever game I start, unless it’s a smaller title or Game Pass game which I don’t feel as obligated to finish as games I’ve spent money on so to speak.

 

So yeah, most of the time I’ll beat myself up if I’m thinking about dropping a game and drag my arse to finish line no matter what. Since Elden Ring though I’ve said to myself that I’m never doing that again, so if I’m 50 hours into a mammoth 120 hour game that I’m not enjoying I’ll throw in the towel in the future and move on. 

[spatular]

Yeah usually finish games ive started, although less likely if the game was super cheap/on gamepass or similar.

[Nag]

I'll echo the sentiment that I'm far more likely to drop something that's on Game Pass or given away through PS Plus/Gold... there's games I've given up on and traded back when I actually bought physical (usually From Soft games 🤣) but I'll generally grin and bear it if I buy a dud nowadays as I'm all digital now and not getting some money's worth on a 60/70 quid game doesn't make sense.

[shinymcshine]

Finish games......  I don't even start them, I've got a bunch of unopened PS5s in my garage just to skew Sony's game sales figures......

[DANGERMAN]

similar to @mfnick I used to finish just about everything I played. I think there was one year my completed game list was over 70 games. Now, I still try to complete things, but it's easy to find reasons not to. Same as @Nagif it's not something I've paid for I'm probably not completing it because I've probably got something else to play. 

 

In terms of what stops me, I'm not sure there's a hard and fast rule, but where I stop and how easy it is to pick up I think play a big part. There's rpgs I'll take a break from, and maybe have to return to 4 or 5 times to finish. I've still not finished Shin Megami Tensei V for example, but I think I will, it's just going to take another year. I think I'll get back to Ishin at some point. I'm less convinced by some of the srpgs I've bought recently, I've stopped early in them and that I can't remember their names off hand doesn't bode well.

[bellow]

I can only remember not seeing the credits on 3 games. There must be more but I can recall any others off hand. Both Tales of Arise and Tales of Vesperia saw the middle finger off me, and that's after putting in over 50 hours on both of them - but they both became utterly obnoxious in the writing department in the later hours, with endless inane and unskippable chatter between the characters. Fuck those games.

 

And then there's my anomaly. Minnish Cap. I just couldn't beat the final boss. 

 

I think I'll check 'sacked that off mate' before I post.

 

I'm back🙂

 

Yeah, gravity rush 2 and something called Immortals. Swear to Christ I can't even remember that one!

[DANGERMAN]

Immortals was that Ubisoft Zelda ish kind of a game. I think it originally had another name 

[Nag]

If it's Immortals Fenyx Rising I gave up on that too.😂