Editors Note: Vs. Articles explore a concept dear to the broader gaming consciousness. Our writers pick a topic and then duke it out, fully exploring the topic. Hopefully, based on the rants enclosed, you can form an opinion. Who do you agree with and what do you think? We want to know!
This Vs. topic was born out of a discussion of the recent franchise revivals that we’ve seen of late, and what they mean for consumers and the industry.
Thomas Cross: Let’s talk about reboots/"re-imaginings”. Wolfenstein is the latest, but recently we've had Prince of Persia, Monkey Island, and a bunch of others; depending on what you count as a "reboot," there have been many moreRob Alvarado: There's a lot of debate concerning what can be classified as a "re-imagined" title or franchise - how they should be, if they should be, and comparing/contrasting them to their forbearers. For example, I loved the new Prince of Persia, despite its numerous flaws, and believe that it does hold up as a spiritual successor to the original. I could say the same thing about the series' previous reboot, Sands of Time. Both were fantastic, and I think they breathe new life into an old genre, and put a new spin on a classic story and how it's told. But I also think that they are completely new intellectual properties. You could also bring many of the Zelda, Mario, and Sonic, etc. titles into the mix and debate whether using old IPs in new genres and settings can be considered a reboot/re-establishment of the characters and stories.
TC: Reboots and remakes are as popular in the video game industry as they are in the film industry. Far too often we hear about a franchise that’s “in need of fresh material,” or something to that end. Video game companies are looking to old franchises for solid, less risky products. Even if the new game has little to do with its namesake, marketers and developers are certain that a classic franchise name will earn a few extra points with gamers because of nostalgia thus translating into additional sales regardless of the quality of the title. From Bionic Commando to the aforementioned Prince of Persia, franchises get remade and rebooted (some more than once). What does this do to the franchises, what does it do to the industry that produces them, and how do we, consumers, benefit from it?
RA: I like to think that many of these remakes are simply new games that have no specific character or story to go along with them. Devs and publishers looking to launch a new game concept find an existing IP that could accommodate the new play style, and the rest of the game is fleshed out until it resembles something that the general public could recognize as being part of the same brand or IP. Take Sands of Time just as a hypothetical example. Remove the story, music, sounds, and the setting, and just to be thorough, the Prince and other characters that were introduced in Sands of Time. Forget it all but keep the game mechanics - jumping, combat, climbing, puzzle solving, etc. What do we have? A complete, ready for market, blank game.
We could put any character, any story, and any setting we want in place of all the stuff we just removed. Here are the choices: Design a completely brand new character and develop a world and story that naturally fits this already developed game mechanic or drop in an old pre-existing IP that shares vague similarities with the new game mechanic, molding it just a bit so it appears to be a natural update or re-imagined version.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
