#1 Edited by Soulderon (122 posts) -

Hello Everyone! 
so we all know about the DmC Reboot and we had this kind of decisions  from game developers / publishers before
I wonder what is your opinion about this kind of steps: you care, you don't, the gameplay is all that matters, mmmmm pie etc...
 
In my opinion a reboot is an O.K thing to do but the developer needs to give something  to the fan base
if its the character design , a weapon or at least a "FREE" unlockble skins.
 
Edit -  and its "Franchises" sorry for the typo!

#2 Edited by BraveToaster (12589 posts) -

Frenchises 

#3 Posted by TheGreatGuero (9130 posts) -

Ehhhh..... it depends. I can't say I care enough about the DMC series to mind, but it does seem kind of silly to me. I found DMC4 to just be so unbelievably cheesy and lame that I found it embarrassing to even be playing it. So sure, a reboot isn't such a bad idea to me, but I'm not sure if I'm crazy about the direction. From what I can tell, it's like how they're treating the Spider-Man movies. "Let's make the main character young again and start over and be so cool, yeah!" Neither are reboots I can get excited about.
 
Now if it's a series that's kind of died off and needs a next-gen reboot or something, I might be more inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. I can tell you straight up right now that I will not be playing the new DMC, and it's not because I am at all upset with this reboot idea. It's just that from what I've seen, even the reboot fails to get me interested in the series.

#4 Posted by Soulderon (122 posts) -
@TheGreatGuero said:
" Ehhhh..... it depends. I can't say I care enough about the DMC series to mind, but it does seem kind of silly to me. I found DMC4 to just be so unbelievably cheesy and lame that I found it embarrassing to even be playing it. So sure, a reboot isn't such a bad idea to me, but I'm not sure if I'm crazy about the direction. From what I can tell, it's like how they're treating the Spider-Man movies. "Let's make the main character young again and start over and be so cool, yeah!" Neither are reboots I can get excited about.  Now if it's a series that's kind of died off and needs a next-gen reboot or something, I might be more inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. I can tell you straight up right now that I will not be playing the new DMC, and it's not because I am at all upset with this reboot idea. It's just that from what I've seen, even the reboot fails to get me interested in the series. "
wow great answer  :)
so what do you think about lets say Mario, if Nintendo would chaange him ( yeah I know it will never happen but lets say it will)
would you think it will be a good step one day?
 
my point is not about the Devil May Cry series its more about how the developer treats the fan base/ the older view of the game.
#5 Posted by TheGreatGuero (9130 posts) -

You gotta be careful when you mess with the classics. Mario's gone through some changes over the years, but it never feels like they change him so much that he loses his core character. I think it's inevitable he'll change some more, but I really don't see anything drastic happening to him. I certainly don't expect them to make Mario look like a real human and put him in a more realistic platformer type game like Mirror's Edge or anything, ya know? You just gotta find the right balance that brings innovation and that doesn't totally neglect the people that have been fans since the beginning. 
 
I think Metroid Prime is a fantastic example of a reboot done right. Bringing it to 3D really changed everything, and luckily they made it work so beautifully. Or look at the current Resident Evil games, like RE4 and 5, they offer plenty of new stuff, but they're considerate about what makes the series what it is, so they don't do anything to really harm what everyone likes about the series. Though I fear I might be running off on a tangent, because I don't really know if I'd consider those to be reboots in the same sense that DMC is getting. With the new Devil May Cry, they seem to be taking what they already have, and just taking it back to the beginning by starting the story all over, which isn't exactly the same as a series evolving. Okay, I guess the new Mortal Kombat could be considered a reboot, and man, it's my most anticipated game of next year. So yeah, I think it can work, but developers just have to be careful to not alienate or upset their main fanbase. The purpose of a reboot is to bring new life to a series and increase the size of the fanbase, and the best way to do that is to not piss off the guys that made you a success in the first place.

#6 Posted by MysteriousBob (6272 posts) -

Frenchises are alright. I prefer Englishises.

#7 Posted by Soulderon (122 posts) -
@TheGreatGuero:
 
Mortal Kombat is a good example for a reboot but, its the same team working on it so even if they did change it fans would accept it.
here the publisher (CAPCOM) which was the developer gave the project to Ninja Theory. to me it looks like they don't care about the fan base.
 
by the way if we are talking about the new MK - 
  
   
ARE YOU READY FOR MORTAL KOMBAT!?!?!?! lol
#8 Posted by Kazona (3068 posts) -

Reboots happen far too quickly these days. As soon as one game, or movie, in a franchise returns less than stellar results, a reboot of the franchise is announced. At the rate it's going, franchises will end up diluted beyond the point of recognition.  
 
That's no to say that I am against reboots. When done properly, they can really revitalize a franchise, and make it better than it ever was before. I just wish publishers and movie companies weren't so quick to resort to these 'tricks'.

#9 Posted by Soulderon (122 posts) -
@MysteriousBob said:
" Frenchises are alright. I prefer Englishises. "
lol... come on don't be a troll I edit  that I made a typo.
 to bad you can't change the topic after you post it.
#10 Posted by Soulderon (122 posts) -
@Kazona said:
" Reboots happen far too quickly these days. As soon as one game, or movie, in a franchise returns less than stellar results, a reboot of the franchise is announced. At the rate it's going, franchises will end up diluted beyond the point of recognition.   That's no to say that I am against reboots. When done properly, they can really revitalize a franchise, and make it better than it ever was before. I just wish publishers and movie companies weren't so quick to resort to these 'tricks'. "
I agree but they say that its because of money loss. 
if they lose money, is that a good reason.
#11 Posted by TheGreatGuero (9130 posts) -
@Soulderon: Hahaha. Awesome video, man.
#12 Posted by skadbob (230 posts) -
@Soulderon said:
" @Kazona said:
" Reboots happen far too quickly these days. As soon as one game, or movie, in a franchise returns less than stellar results, a reboot of the franchise is announced. At the rate it's going, franchises will end up diluted beyond the point of recognition.   That's no to say that I am against reboots. When done properly, they can really revitalize a franchise, and make it better than it ever was before. I just wish publishers and movie companies weren't so quick to resort to these 'tricks'. "
I agree but they say that its because of money loss.  if they lose money, is that a good reason. "
I honestly cannot think of a better reason to do a reboot.
#13 Posted by Soulderon (122 posts) -
@UncertainOtter said:
" @Soulderon said:
" @Kazona said:
" Reboots happen far too quickly these days. As soon as one game, or movie, in a franchise returns less than stellar results, a reboot of the franchise is announced. At the rate it's going, franchises will end up diluted beyond the point of recognition.   That's no to say that I am against reboots. When done properly, they can really revitalize a franchise, and make it better than it ever was before. I just wish publishers and movie companies weren't so quick to resort to these 'tricks'. "
I agree but they say that its because of money loss.  if they lose money, is that a good reason. "
I honestly cannot think of a better reason to do a reboot. "
so maybe its not to fast?
#14 Posted by takua108 (1479 posts) -

Frenchises are delicious when rebooted.

#15 Posted by Kazona (3068 posts) -
@Soulderon said:
"@UncertainOtter said:
"                      @Soulderon said:
"                      @Kazona said:
"                      Reboots happen far too quickly these days. As soon as one game, or movie, in a franchise returns less than stellar results, a reboot of the franchise is announced. At the rate it's going, franchises will end up diluted beyond the point of recognition.   That's no to say that I am against reboots. When done properly, they can really revitalize a franchise, and make it better than it ever was before. I just wish publishers and movie companies weren't so quick to resort to these 'tricks'.                                        "
I agree but they say that its because of money loss.  if they lose money, is that a good reason.                                        "
I honestly cannot think of a better reason to do a reboot.                                        "
so maybe its not to fast?

                   

                "

Spider-Man 3 didn't lose any money. It made a shit-ton of money. And yet it got rebooted. As far as I know, the last DMC did pretty reasonable in the financial department as well, yet it's getting a reboot.
#16 Edited by vidiot (2737 posts) -

If the mechanics you are bringing to the reboot, fit's the design of the franchise, then you're going to do well.
 
Ask yourself this question: Why is Mario 64 a Mario game?
Compare the mechanics of the previous games in the series, to what was on display in Mario 64 and you will notice striking differences. 
"Of course! It's in 3D", you might say, but it's far more deeper than that: They adapted, and in many cases made new mechanics, to fit with the previous game's design of a character traversing a world using agility and precise jumping. I call it gameplay mechanic adaptation, and it's fun because you can find it almost anywhere from reboots to sequels. It's the reason why Final Fantasy XII can be a Final Fantasy game, or why the design and mechanics of God of War isn't an outrageous idea for a 3D Castlevania game, or what made Tomb Raider Legends popular with critics and fans who long-forgotten the series in disgust. 
 
Sometimes it can be very subjective. Although if those mechanics can nail what was previously there, with either the same effect or perhaps expand upon it's quality, then usually it works out.
 
Reboots are sketchier because sometimes you're adapting thematic elements as well, which can be far more subjective compared to how we play the game. You gotta be careful, because if you don't take the time to really study what made the previous games work, and work with fans, you can shoot yourself in the foot. There's nothing wrong with making something "edgy", or attempting to change the tone or mold of the game, just do it in a manner that makes sense and aligns organically with what was put before it. People like to point at Batman as a good example of a character who transitioned between multiple different tones, but at the end of the day the core story of his origins has/was pretty much unchanged. From a visual and character perspective, Batman is still a guy in a Batsuit.....
 
....versus new Dante who doesn't seem to hold...any...visual relation to the previous character....outside of his two guns... He also seems to be sporting an emo look (Lead designer keeps bringing up that he's supposed to look "1970's punk", a design that has rightfully gone over the heads of everyone: Because we live in the future.) , that is a complete diametric opposite to his previous design and confident persona...which was something fans really enjoyed from the character....
 
...*ahem*...trying to hold back diving into that mess.
 
So yeah, I'm for reboots. If they can keep the spirit and respect the source material, and make a good effort to appease the fans of said source material: Then I'm all for it. 
If they want to do something else: For the love of god, just call it something else.  
 
 
I'm looking at you: Upcoming live-action adaptation of Akira.

#17 Posted by Lazyaza (2184 posts) -

Generally I'd prefer developers make original games than reboots but eh occasionally its kinda awesome, especially in the case of Mortal Kombat. 
 
I would really like to see Resident Evil get rebooted, new story, new characters, go back to zombies, isometric camera, auto-lock on aiming and actual survival horror.  I would buy that shit so fast.

#18 Posted by Soulderon (122 posts) -
@takua108 said:

" Frenchises are delicious when rebooted. "

LOL! dude you are a  genius...
I'm going to print this on a T-shirt 
#19 Posted by Soulderon (122 posts) -
@vidiot: 
dude you have a great point of view but, lets say that the gameplay is awesome but they changed everything!
lets even say that the fan base don't like it, is it still the right direction?
 
and forget DMC it was only an example I want to know about the opinion on general.
#20 Posted by nintendoeats (5975 posts) -

We can't kick the frenchies out until they come back in again. Oh wait, they did! the bastards actually walked all the way back to Nova Scotia! Those crazy Acadians.
 
So yeah, can you come up here and re-boot out the frenchies? Not the rag stores though, we like those.

#21 Posted by Synthballs (2193 posts) -

Topic of the day? 
 
Honestly? Fuck off. This sounds way too familiar.

#23 Posted by Wuddel (2092 posts) -

Well, hard to say. I honestly can not remember a Reboot of a franchise I care about. Most of them are non-story driven games, where this is hardly an issue. The line between "greatly changed sequel" and a "reboot" is a blurry one though.

#24 Edited by vidiot (2737 posts) -
@Soulderon: 
The let it fall into subjective territory and hope for the best. There's not many good examples of something the defies the gma theory and succeeds (Perhaps, Resident Evil). For example, I remember the Prince of Persia fanbase getting split a bit with 2008's reboot, but at the same time that game was unarguably still a Prince of Persia game. Because, like I had pointed out in the previous response, it still holds true to the Prince of Persia design.
 
Using that same series as a way to answer your question, think of Warrior Within. It's combat and design were great refinements over the previous Sands of Time, but many people were legitimately turned off at the new angst-driven direction that completely replaced the creative and engaging storybook atheistic of the previous game. So much so that people seem to forget the positives that Warrior Within brought, and the first gut-reaction people have of the game is it's garbage presentation, and it's 360 degree flip from the previous game. Compare that to let's say, Resident Evil 4, and I'm sure people's reaction to how the plot and presentation in comparison to previous titles is far less divisive, compared to how the game played. 
 
When it comes to presentation, history shows the fans usually get their way with the subsequent sequels: If the previous entry went in a direction nobody wanted.
#25 Posted by Soulderon (122 posts) -
@vidiot: 
 
so what you are saying is, if I am a developer eventually ill do what the fan base asks me to do. 
ok I see what your saying but then why bother on trying to change it?
 
@Wuddel:
what do you think about the new Castlevania, can you call it a reboot or is it another sequel?
#26 Posted by vidiot (2737 posts) -
@Soulderon said:
" @vidiot: 
so what you are saying is, if I am a developer eventually ill do what the fan base asks me to do. 
ok I see what your saying but then why bother on trying to change it?
Not as absolute like that, there have been changes in which fans have appreciated. 
Like when the Jak series went from lighthearted platformer, to something with a bit more depth. This isn't something with just games, if fans overwhelmingly didn't align with the new "creative vision", something is usually done to remedy it. You defiantly wont completely ignore the fanbase of said franchise, your future paychecks usually depends on them. If there's overwhelming negative feedback over something/anything, it's always good to listen and divorce yourself a bit and reflect on what may be a bad idea. 
 
You can argue that you think your direction can bring in a new broader fan-base, but the logistics of this is not really set in concrete and you have to be aware of this. Many fans of Bethesda's previous work with Oblivion followed them with Fallout 3, with the continual support of old-school Fallout fans like me. Although admittedly at the time, I knew popular opinion of how Fallout 3 was going to develop was probably going to follow the Oblivion template. This conclusion made sense with the types of games Bethesda makes, but also made sense to fan expectations.
 
By contrast: If the fanbase of my previous titles is admittedly small compared to the franchise I'm inheriting, I would assume that mentality would probably be flipped.
#27 Edited by melcene (3056 posts) -

Some franchises sorely need reboots.  One that I'm looking forward to is Twisted Metal.  There's a franchise that needs it.  And hopefully the gameplay will be great, and while the story will probably change, hopefully the game itself won't change much.

#28 Edited by BabyChooChoo (4525 posts) -

This:
 
Earlier this year at the Capcom studio: "Crap, we want to make a new action game, but everyone else is kicking our asses. If only there was some way we could put out an entirely new series without actually having to do so..." 

"Sir, why not just call up Ninja Theory and have them make a new game, but call it Devil May C...no, DmC. It's edgy and hip and makes it seem fresh. This way we can put out a new game, BUT disguise it as something our dedicated fans will buy up no matter how different it looks. This way it gives the impression we actually care, but in reality we were just too scared to put out a new IP even though at this point we really should."
 
"I like the way you think. Not really sure why the hell you chose Ninja Theory...but I like the way you think. Make it happen."
 
" 私達の主任はなぜ英語で話しているか。"
 
(In case I didn't make this clear, I don't like reboots.)

#29 Posted by phantomzxro (1577 posts) -

I don't know man people play games for different reasons so you will have different opinions. People who only care about gameplay won't care as long as it plays the same. People like me who put story hand in hand with gameplay need a story, a character to get excited most time about a game not all the time but most. So changing everything up is often looked down on in my eyes. Some reboots can work when the game series is for the most part retired and needs a new start. 
 
But games that are ongoing or has a rich character,story, world etc is pretty hard to reboot from stcratch without making people or fans upset. The DmC thing is a hard hit to some dmc fans because it shows nothing of what they know. Cheap tricks don't work ether of just putting a dude in red with two guns and a sword and calling him dante, Fans will have to see something that they know before they can embrace this game. It just seems pretty bad to remake dante in there image, it could have work as a spinoff with a new character. Also i not to sold on a gameplay side because ninja theory are great a making story driven games, not so much on smooth combat. Even enslaved which is a fine game is not up to the stuff that dmc fans want.  
 
but all we can do it wait and see what happen.

#30 Posted by Bloodgraiv3 (2712 posts) -

I don't mind it, but some franchises don't need reboots, or at least this early. 
Like DmC.
#31 Posted by RiotBananas (3600 posts) -

It's not "Franchisis" either. 
 
It's "Franchises"

#32 Posted by iam3green (14390 posts) -

they are alright. i think they need to put more work into some of them. toruk for example got a reboot. i heard that game was bad. stuff like that happens a lot.

#33 Posted by CharleyTony (924 posts) -

a reboot is only good if it is better than what the game was before. They don't need to give us anything. It's just that if they make a reboot and throw everything in the garbage, why not make a new game all together? 
 
A lot of people will bitch about this exemple but here goes. Star Trek Vs. Star Wars... 
 
Trek has a real respect for canon, the fact check stuff, they worry about how the new stuff will fit into the bigger picture (franchise) 
Star Wars just added way too much stuff. You would watch everything in that franchise in chronological order and all you could say after is what were they thinking? 
 
Sorry for that comparison ... don't rip me a new one...

#34 Posted by Wuddel (2092 posts) -
@Soulderon said: 
@Wuddel: what do you think about the new Castlevania, can you call it a reboot or is it another sequel? "
Well, you may know that this game actually started as a completely different game, and just was made a Castlevania game somewhere in the middle. I guess due to marketing reasons. So that counts as a reboot I think. I never really played Castlevania games though. Maybe one on the original GameBoy. I however have zero interest in eastern developed games. So also I could not care less about DMC. 
 
Counter question: Civ5 reboot or sequel? ;) (considering hexes, one unit per tile and ranged combat)
#35 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -

If its broken, fine. If its doing good already, an inexplicable "new direction" just seems like "well we want to do something new but we don't want to call it something new. Let's make God of War Me Too and call it Castlevania". Rebooting something that's not broken just seems like a cheap way to basically make a new game IP yet win over IP loyal simpletons. Just make a new IP instead of killing the goodwill and expectations of an existing IP. The whole point of a franchise is people know certain expectations are going to be met.

#36 Posted by Soulderon (122 posts) -
@ryanwho: 
I agree but then we asked, what if the publisher/developer doesn't make enough money?
or what they call "not enough money" but there is a big fan base who loves the game.
Then is it ok to change it and reboot it?
 
@ryanwho:
:)
Well yeah its started as Lords of Shadows and turned to Castlevania: Lords of Shadows
and just that you will know, they have set it somewhere in the time line so they can call it a sequel of sort.
 
I haven't played it yet but I talked about it with a friend of mine who is an addict to that franchise.
I think Civ5 is a sequel because they kept the core mechanics and add stuff.
and so they intended the game to be a sequel and not a reboot.
 
what do you think about Prince of Persia 3D... no not sands of time, PoP3D
is it a sequel or a reboot?
#37 Posted by mylifeforAiur (3484 posts) -

I remember reading about a game called Precursor (or something similar). It looked pretty awesome, but that was many years ago in a Hyper magazine.

#38 Edited by Raymayne (1226 posts) -
@Soulderon said:

Edit -  and its "Franchisis" sorry for the typo! "

Holy fucking shit. 
 
OT: It depends. I like how Castlevania was done, and Resi (I consider 4 onwards to be a reboot of that franchise), there haven't really been enough of them yet for me to pass judgement but idk, I will always prefer seeing original IP's over re-hashed stuff from days gone by.
#39 Posted by dudeglove (7866 posts) -

In regards to your post, game designer Jack Monahan ( Darkest of Days) makes some great points in his blog about (ta dah!) design reboots. These two entries explain what he would do if given the chance of rebooting Clive Barker's Jericho
 
In this post he writes about the problems concerning the visual clarity of the game's NPCs and how to go about remedying them.
 
The subsequent post goes into detail about Jericho's level design and ways of trying to get the player involved in the game's fiction more.
 
He's said he might touch on DmC, but he isn't really a fan of the franchise to be able to pass judgment.

#40 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -
@dudeglove: It'd be great if publishers could be talked into backing the idea of rebooting games that were failures but had potential.
#41 Posted by dudeglove (7866 posts) -
@ryanwho said:
" @dudeglove: It'd be great if publishers could be talked into backing the idea of rebooting games that were failures but had potential. "
Unfortunately if a game had already proven itself to be a lame duck, it would be highly doubtful (and probably viewed by marketing as completely nuts) that someone would invest more money in trying to fix something that was broken. It's not really the same as with films, as you mostly need a director and a couple of writers with a "vision". Logistically, with games, dev team structure can go all over the place, and other staff invariably come and go (the EA Louse blog entry would be a good example of this) which fucks up the whole process. How/why Blizzard managed to pump out patches for Diablo II for the past ten years baffles me.
 
But who knows? If Gearbox manages to make Duke Nukem Forever the most fantastic FPS of this generation, maybe Ninja Theory could give current consoles a game worthy of the DMC title. (Even though the Brits are doing it, I really hope they don't buckle and make you have to fight god as the final boss. Fucking Japanese.)
#42 Posted by Gamer_152 (14078 posts) -

I think reboots shouldn't be done too soon after the original series started but like with any game as long as it's done well I'm all for it.

Moderator
#43 Posted by anterline (73 posts) -
Only needed for franchises that truly need it. 
#44 Posted by Romination (2777 posts) -

I feel like if they had a downloadable "original Dante" skin in the new DMC game, it would be too much of a compromise on their part. They have to stick to their guns. 
 
I frown on reboots unless someone can come up with something really new to do with it.

#45 Posted by jim_dandy (891 posts) -
@MysteriousBob said:
" Frenchises are alright. I prefer Englishises. "
racist!
#46 Posted by Soulderon (122 posts) -
@jim_dandy said:

" @MysteriousBob said:

" Frenchises are alright. I prefer Englishises. "
racist! "
lol..
 
@anterline:
when can one developer decide that a franchise need a reboot?