Which series' are you bored of?

[Rummy]

I'm tired of every single series that stops evolving. Hell, if I'm being honest, I hate this "series" mentality that dominates videogames in general. A series should never stretch on for more than 3 titles, if you ask me.

 

Definite age of sequelitist at the moment.

 

Has anybody even said Call of Duty yet?

 

Yes, quite a few :p

[tapedeck]

2D platformer outings in general for me. I guess I've just yet to experience anything that even comes close to the magnificence of the 16-Bit era. Maybe it's childhood reflections but titles like Super Mario World, the Donkey Kong Country series and things like Earthworm Jim and the Virgin Interactive/Capcom Disney tie-ins were awesome.

 

As good as some 2D stuff is now, I always get the impression that the 16-Bit generation of 2D platformers will never be bettered.

[Rummy]

I can't disagree, but I still blame the Wii for that - it hardly encouraged inspiration or passion. Let's just give them the benefit of the doubt and see if they can make a great game for Wii U. If someone showed me a console only slightly more powerful than the GameCube, with a motion controller that didn't have nearly enough buttons, then asked me to design the next great Zelda I'd think "Ah, stuff it!"

 

Or you could rise to the challenge like Monolith and make the best game of the generation :p

 

More like get it back, I hate to say.

 

Definitely agree there though.

 

For me personally, it's been most series. @Sheikah, I think it's unfair to discount the handheld Zeldas - I felt PH was a fantastic little game, inspired by WW but made fantastic use of the DS features. Spirit tracks however? Exactly what was wrong, a sequel that did little decent with itself - felt like a PH cash-in. PH wasn't much of a challenge, but I probably enjoyed it more than either SS or TP.

 

Zelda needs a real shakeup, even if that shakeup is a break - as much as it pains me to say. Nonetheless, I'll be getting whatever Zelda they put out next, just out of stupid kid loyalty. Still intrigued about them making a 3D remake of LttP and how it would go down.

2D Marios, though I haven't played much of them recently, definitely need some mixing up too. I think I had New SMB on DS, but haven't owned the others in the series because it feels lazy and cash-in. Maybe it's simply the case that the Mario platform idea has just run its course, it's an outdated idea in a new and advanced world. I still say my biggest gripe is the linearity and lack of secrets/exploring. SM64 had that, and it made some of the magic. I realise a complaint of linearity is ironic, given Mario essentially runs from left to right - but even the early games had warp zones, warp vases, whistles and overworld choices, secret exits and secret star zones etc. Galaxy didn't have enough of that for me. Sunshine tried, but they fell short in some places. Whils the 2D marios are more guilty, maybe the 3D ones aren't faring much better either. SM3DL DID hit the mark for me though, though I'd say it never promised to be more than it was. 3D/2D fusion, but in an old school style - I didn't expect it to blow my mind and hence was pleasantly suprised by certain bits.

 

Can't think what other franchises I'm desperately in love with/not in love with any more. I've skipped out on MKWii, got the 3DS one but haven't played as much as I should have. I blame that on Nintendo's generally poor online infrastructure though, that could breathe life into a lot more.

 

2D platformer outings in general for me. I guess I've just yet to experience anything that even comes close to the magnificence of the 16-Bit era. Maybe it's childhood reflections but titles like Super Mario World, the Donkey Kong Country series and things like Earthworm Jim and the Virgin Interactive/Capcom Disney tie-ins were awesome.

 

As good as some 2D stuff is now, I always get the impression that the 16-Bit generation of 2D platformers will never be bettered.

 

I feel it too, but the question is why won't they? I can't help but feel it's due to some rose-tinted retro-specs.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Rummy

[Sheikah]

@Rummy I meant more in terms of showing specifically console Zeldas were quite conserved by excluding the handheld versions to make the point. There's no denying that more time and effort is put into the main console versions and those are the versions that people have the highest expectations for and want to see come close to the OoT, MM and WW days. But they constantly recycle game elements so it isn't fresh anymore. A big reason why OoT was so revered was because it introduced a ton of features and brought Zelda into 3D.

 

I did however love LA and the oracle series. Kinda a shame I felt that they tried to make the handheld versions like lite versions of the console games.

[Retro_Link]

@Rummy you're right about Mario 64 actually, the Castle and its grounds were full of little secrets and were fun to explore. That is something that's been missing from the recent 3D games.

[Jonnas]

I'm kinda worried about the future of Smash Bros.

 

The success of the series now means it's at the stage where it will receive an instalment on each console. And this I think somewhat dumbs it down.

 

The first Smash Bros was just this crazy unique idea that people never thought would happen... Mario knocking seven bells out of Link.

 

Melee was able to go one better by being this huge celebration of Nintendo.

 

Brawl and moving forward however is where I kinda worry for the series because now I think Nintendo just look at it as another Mario Kart. Switch some characters in and out, create some new levels (that kinda don't feel original anymore), bring back old levels from previous games etc...

 

(Of course now we also have Namco co-developing it which has me atleast somewhat concerned)

 

While I agree with your sentiment, I believe I do it for different reasons. Smash Bros seems to be a celebration of Nintendo, first and foremost, to you. To me, it was always about how good the game engine was, and how fun and versatile it can be.

 

Melee was a huge step forward on both fronts. Brawl was simply an update on the first front (though the soundtrack was a big improvement), but a step backwards on the second one.

I'm not even talking about the competitive community, tripping alienates everybody, they removed the little performance bonuses for little reason, certain moves are broken (Sonic's Final Smash and Meta Knight's Tornado, namely), a lot of stages are poorly designed (focusing more on style than substance) and (the most mind-boggling thing) they somehow got suicides to register incorrectly, if someone willingly drops out of the stage, the KO goes to the player that last touched them.

 

(Also, I'm not sure why Namco's team has you concerned. It's exactly the sort of thing that prevents a series from becoming stale, having help from an outside perspective. Plus, it will hopefully put the fighting engine back on track)

 

For me personally I see Melee as the high point, and I'm not sure Nintendo will ever be able to move past the simply for what the game was and stood for. Others I know loved Brawl, they preferred the slower paced fighting... but in either case how does the series successfully move forward without becoming what Mario Kart has?

 

One answer to this might be in the single player campaign. In order to keep the game fresh the adventure mode could be the differentiator. How about it the next Smash Bros, instead of the single player being a unifier for all Nintendo's franchises, where they're all brought together in one world... this time the characters visit each others games.

 

We already have the Mario side scrolling levels where we get to see Link jumping on Goomba's etc... but you could take it one stage further.

 

So you could have something like Fused King suggested, where one 'level' plays out like a Paper Mario style RPG featuring the Smash Bros cast. The next level could fling the characters into a Smash Bros Fire Emblem style strategy game. And the next could be Smash Bros Kart etc...

 

So you'd get all these different Nintendo game experiences wrapped up in one incredible single player adventure mode.

 

In that case, an entirely new game is needed. Smash Bros. is a fighting game, after all, and it doesn't need to be the only crossover around (like Nintendo Land demonstrated)

[Retro_Link]

What would you suggest then to stop it becoming the same old game over and over?

How can it differentiate itself enough from Melee and Brawl, because otherwise we might as well just play those and don't need a new one.

 

(Also, I'm not sure why Namco's team has you concerned. It's exactly the sort of thing that prevents a series from becoming stale, having help from an outside perspective. Plus, it will hopefully put the fighting engine back on track)

I guess after they were last called in to work on Starfox.

[Jonnas]

What would you suggest then to stop it becoming the same old game over and over?

How can it differentiate itself enough from Melee and Brawl, because otherwise we might as well just play those and don't need a new one.

[/quote

 

It's a tricky subject, seeing as there's little reason to continue improving something after it attained perfection. However, I'm certain that turning it into a different type of game altogether for innovation's sake is a bit too much.

[Retro_Link]

What would you suggest then to stop it becoming the same old game over and over?

How can it differentiate itself enough from Melee and Brawl, because otherwise we might as well just play those and don't need a new one.

[/quote

 

It's a tricky subject, seeing as there's little reason to continue improving something after it attained perfection. However, I'm certain that turning it into a different type of game altogether for innovation's sake is a bit too much.

It's not turning it into a different type of game entirely, the Single Player campaign is vastly secondary to Smash Bros multiplayer, but yeah maybe including elements such as RPG and racing is too much.

 

Zelda and Mario have achieved perfection in the past, doesn't mean the franchises don't need attention to not become 'boring'.

[Jamba]

I find it difficult to talk about games that I'm bored of because I don't really feel that many games at all are much of a fresh idea any more. It's not that I don't enjoy them (hell I eat bolognese at least 1 every 2 weeks and it's always great) but I've only played 1 series in the past 5 years that has really made me say "Yes, that's how you do it!" which was Portal and it's sequel.

 

Yes Uncharted was impressive and epic but frankly not that much of a game and at worst could be accused of simply doing the things that all generic action games have been trying to do ever since 3D showed up but doing them well.

 

I think back to games that felt like they leapt forward and opened things up to the point where I wanted to explore the inner world of the game for hours. Like when I first played Goldeneye, I was intrigued by how much I could do and what the limits were. Today I just don't care because I know where those boundaries will be already. Within minutes of the games starting I can see how they are going to increase the difficulty or mix up the situations and I just don't care.

 

Also, I find games rely far too much on defeating AI, which leads to feeling like you have just outwitted the computer rather than having mastered a puzzle. I know it's problem solving of a different kind but it's just not satisfying for me.

[Fierce_LiNk]

 

Also, I find games rely far too much on defeating AI, which leads to feeling like you have just outwitted the computer rather than having mastered a puzzle. I know it's problem solving of a different kind but it's just not satisfying for me.

 

I would very much like to see more puzzles in games. A survival horror with a puzzle element would go down a real treat right about now.

 

Not simply solve this puzzle by getting this item from point B and bringing it back to point A. An intelligent puzzle that requires you to think and analyse your surroundings carefully.

 

I'm getting a bit bored of games just becoming about the action. There's more to it than that.

[Daft]

I find great AI is like a dynamic puzzle. The only instance of 'great' AI I've seen is in the Halo series, though.

[Retro_Link]

I would very much like to see more puzzles in games. A survival horror with a puzzle element would go down a real treat right about now.

 

Not simply solve this puzzle by getting this item from point B and bringing it back to point A. An intelligent puzzle that requires you to think and analyse your surroundings carefully.

 

I'm getting a bit bored of games just becoming about the action. There's more to it than that.

Have you played

 

 

Really hope we see a Wii U sequel! Has a lot of potential!

[Jonnas]

It's not turning it into a different type of game entirely, the Single Player campaign is vastly secondary to Smash Bros multiplayer, but yeah maybe including elements such as RPG and racing is too much.

 

Well, references to the original games can still be made during single-player, it just should remain within the Smash Bros gameplay, otherwise it stops being Smash Bros.

 

They can still do something like this, though:

 

[Ville]

I'm getting a bit bored of games just becoming about the action. There's more to it than that.

 

Heh, quite the opposite with me. Nowadays, I'm usually like "screw the cutscenes, just let me go whack / shoot at stuff". Life is too short to listen to some boring-ass backstories, I'd much rather just go smack demons in the face with a sledgehammer.

[Ramar]

I'm tired of every single series that stops evolving. Hell, if I'm being honest, I hate this "series" mentality that dominates videogames in general. A series should never stretch on for more than 3 titles, if you ask me.

 

I can definitely say I'm leaning to this way of thinking at the moment. And unfortunately it's not just games, it's most forms of media. Movies, utter shit movies get trilogies these days. When I was a kid* sequels were reserved for quality films and I only knew of the Star Wars trilogy and Back to the Future (obviously there was more).

 

 

* F*** I'm getting old.