sketchturner's Blogs

It's not uncommon for games to be branded with popular titles for the sake of recognition, but do certain games really require it? Are there games that would have fared better without the unfair expectations and inevitable comparisons that comes with being released as part of a popular series? There are a handful of games  that have made me dwell on this, mostly recently Final Fantasy, but a couple other examples come to mind as well.

One of the first examples that made me think whether or not branding for the sake of recognition was worth it was Metroid Prime: Hunters for the Nintendo DS. While the game was created from the beginning with the intention of being a Metroid game, I've often wondered how it would have fared if it was removed from the franchise and given it's own brand and feel. Metroid has always had it's own style and ambiance, a feeling of crushing isolation in the middle of an eerie, hostile environment. Metroid is about environmental puzzles, growing stronger through an ever expanding arsenal of beams, missiles and bombs and gaining mobility through acquired abilities and gear. Hunters was an extremely competent FPS and a showcase of creative interaction between the player and the game, it also changed what people expected from the DS as far as online play was concerned. Although, other than having Samus on the box, Hunters also only hit a couple key points about what made it Metroid. If this game was removed from the Metroid franchise and given it's own fictional world would it have changed it's reputation from being "that okay Metroid game" to "that awesome DS FPS". Some might argue that the subtitle "Hunters" is the way that the brand is defining itself as a mutation of the series, the same way that Need For Speed: Pro Street differentiates itself from Need For Speed: Underground with just a simple subtitle; but the differences between those two NFS franchises runs deeper than just subtitles through style and setting and target audience, which now makes me wonder: did Hunters do enough to make sure it was clear to the player that it was an anomaly?

As I said before, one series that has really brought this train of thought back to the station is Final Fantasy. In the series's early days there was a lot of running themes: Light Warriors, elemental crystals, Jobs, etc. Starting with Final Fantasy VI the series has taken many more liberations as far as what makes a game Final Fantasy. Seems all you need now is a dude named Cid and you can call it Final Fantasy. With the requirements having been boiled down to a consistent set of names for items, spells and enemies, why haven't some of the games been given life as RPGs on their own? Final Fantasy VIII was probably was one the biggest deviations at the time, and a lot of people cried foul about the flexible-but-complicated Junctioning system, but if it was its own game would people have given it a fairer chance? Does labeling it as Final Fantasy set certain expectations that it would have been free from if it was on it's own? I really think so. When it comes to Final Fantasy games people always compare them to other Final Fantasy games, and now it seems each game is so different from the previous one that that comparison is becoming inaccurate. Heck, Final Fantasy XI doesn't even have much right to be a part of the main series. Final Fantasy Tactics got it's own subtitle to set it apart, why wasn't XI released as Final Fantasy Online? 

I think what a lot of it comes down to is expectations. When you say something is a part of Series X, it sets an expectation that it will fall in line with the series and offer what you liked about the previous games. I understand the thought processes behind a lot of these decisions, but I can't help but wonder: what if? Have you ever played a game and wondered if it would have been better if it was allowed to stand on it's own? Have you ever thought that a game would have been better as a part of an existing series? 

...I have a lot of time on my hands to think about these things.