Game franchises that have regressed

[KaiserMk7]

Terraria (hot take, I think that the current state of my previously most favorite game is horrible than what it used to be since the devs are putting every single popular person in the community in their game. Sure Terraria is a community-centric game with some community members and the devs themselves having paintings in the game, but when you literally do every single popular person who is heavily associated with Terraria, they get it, and I've seen some other people that didn't make the cut. I could go on all and all about this but nah)

I generally don't care for in-game recognition of specific members of the community. In jokes and memes that aren't about specific prominent figures so much as common remarks about the game's oddities are okay, though.

 

[DragonMals]

While it's true can we say it became "worse" if the games are still good?

Hm.... That depends on the person. I prefer a good story and gameplay and while I don't think the Klonoa spinoffs aren't bad, I think that the more puzzle-ish aspect of them kind of ruins the flow of the game, especially since the second game iirc has a harsh ranking system that almost demands that you do perfect on the stages to get an S rank.

Gradius IV was a bit disappointing but Gradius V was truly a masterpiece made by Treasure (and I think G-Rev as well). It still pushed forward the series.

Gradius V is indeed a good game, but I think that it was a bit too mechanical for my liking. Doesn't make it a bad Gradius game at all, but eh... it wasn't as good as the awesome game that was Gradius Gaiden. If it stemmed to more on what the previous games and not much tech, then I would appreciate it a lot, especially since I'd rank it as one of the most active Gradius games of all time. Talking about this reminds that I have to make a list regarding that, specifically.

While I see that it's a hot take I think that the 1.3 could've been the last major update it wouldn't have been a problem at all.

Journey's End has the same issues I got with Microsoft era Minecraft. Sometimes it's better to have a mod API and only focus on bugfixing.

1.3 had laid the grounds for Terraria for what's to come, and for how expansive it was since 1.2, I can 100% agree that the game should've ended off as the last major update. While I don't mind the additions that 1.4 made, playing Journey or Classic (even expert to an extent) on the newest version makes the game feel a bit like it's giving too much of your hand. Take this with a grain of salt though, as i spent more time in modded Terraria than in Vanilla 1.4.

generally don't care for in-game recognition of specific members of the community. In jokes and memes that aren't about specific prominent figures so much as common remarks about the game's oddities are okay, though.

You definitely have a different mindset that I have, and I appreciate it a lot. I know that Terarria is all about it's community, but I personally believe that they're doing it a bit too much now that it's making what used to be it's own game into a sorta fangame.

 

[Mini_Man.XW]

God of War

 

[Lena CE]

What are you talking about, Kirby Adventure and Super Star are objectively among the most ambitious platformers in their respective consoles. The jump from DL1 (no copy abilities) to Adventure and then to Superstar (copy abilities with full movesets) is huge.

Also you are severely underestimating the differences of each game early in the franchise, SS and DL3 didn't just "try to do things a little differently" they are extremely different games despite being on the same console, not only because of their completely different artstyle and presentation, but structure, pacing and use of copy abilities are completely different. And 64 again made big changes by adding the ability to mix copy abilities and limiting the infinite jump.

I'll give you Kirby's Adventure being on par with games like Mario 3 in terms of ambition, but by the SNES I view it as no different than what most franchises did with sequels. Kirby was never anything special in that regard. I just don't see how Kirby's attempt to iterate on itself are above and beyond what most franchises were doing at the time by the time you get to SNES. KA1 laid a foundation that throughout the past 30 years hasn't changed all that much and that may as well have been the first game in the series with how is set the blueprint that everything after it would iterate from.

Especially with Super Star. I love that game to bits, but I don't really view it as all that ambitious especially if you compare it to what KA did on the NES. Like adding a couple moves to copy abilities counts as "most ambitious platformers" when we look at what Super Metroid, Yoshi's Island, Mega Man X and DKC did for their respective franchises? It's a great game but it absolutely feels iterative to me. Like ok we have copy abilities and now we give them a couple new moves. It doesn't really feel transformative to how Kirby played or was designed, it just felt like a more refined version of the same combat.

And again, I think Kirby 64 is great, but if our metric for ambition is just "added a new feature and altered the moveset of the main character" then the floodgates open and I struggle to understand what we'd define as iteration at that point.

Obviously definitions are gonna be different from person to person though. I'd call Amazing Mirror a far more ambitious game than Kirby 64, for example.

Post automatically merged: Today at 3:30 AM

While it's true can we say it became "worse" if the games are still good?

On an objective level yes. If a franchise goes from routinely being excellent to just being great, that technically counts as worse right? I gave RE as a personal example earlier of a franchise that I still love, but don't think reaches the heights of quality and uniqueness that it once did.

 

[dropsmegamega]

I'll give you Kirby's Adventure being on par with games like Mario 3 in terms of ambition, but by the SNES I view it as no different than what most franchises did with sequels. Kirby was never anything special in that regard. I just don't see how Kirby's attempt to iterate on itself are above and beyond what most franchises were doing at the time by the time you get to SNES. KA1 laid a foundation that throughout the past 30 years hasn't changed all that much and that may as well have been the first game in the series with how is set the blueprint that everything after it would iterate from.

Especially with Super Star. I love that game to bits, but I don't really view it as all that ambitious especially if you compare it to what KA did on the NES. Like adding a couple moves to copy abilities counts as "most ambitious platformers" when we look at what Super Metroid, Yoshi's Island, Mega Man X and DKC did for their respective franchises? It's a great game but it absolutely feels iterative to me. Like ok we have copy abilities and now we give them a couple new moves. It doesn't really feel transformative to how Kirby played or was designed, it just felt like a more refined version of the same combat.

And again, I think Kirby 64 is great, but if our metric for ambition is just "added a new feature and altered the moveset of the main character" then the floodgates open and I struggle to understand what we'd define as iteration at that point.

Obviously definitions are gonna be different from person to person though. I'd call Amazing Mirror a far more ambitious game than Kirby 64, for example.

SS expanded movesets weren't just "a couple new moves" but rather lite fighting game movesets that redefined the way you engage with the core mechanics. The simpler copy abilities in Adventure and DL2~3 are sort of situational and the pacing is completely different as you are forced to work with more limitations in these games. Also that kind of moveset was very rare in SNES platformers, most of then having one or two moves, so 20+ abilities with 4~8 moves each is no small feat. Add on top of that its very unique minigame structure and great co-op feature (maybe after wii era this doesn't seem like a big thing, but I can barely think of snes coop platfomers, let alone that allowed it seamlessly) and yes you have a very ambitious game. I really think you underestimate the amount of work and thought that went into this title.

And yes Kirby 64 may not be as ambitious as those two, but again the ability to combine any of its copy abilities to make a new one is not just a gimmick, but a core mechanic (and one that goes in opposite direction of the fast paced SS, that sadly will probably never be revisited) and the use of klonoa inspired 2.5D, in which every stage is completely unique, still makes it a standout in the series.

 

[Lena CE]

SS expanded movesets weren't just "a couple new moves" but rather lite fighting game movesets that redefined the way you engage with the core mechanics. The simpler copy abilities in Adventure and DL2~3 are sort of situational and the pacing is completely different as you are forced to work with more limitations in these games. Also that kind of moveset was very rare in SNES platformers, most of then having one or two moves, so 20+ abilities with 4~8 moves each is no small feat. Add on top of that its very unique minigame structure and great co-op feature (maybe after wii era this doesn't seem like a big thing, but I can barely think of snes coop platfomers, let alone that allowed it seamlessly) and yes you have a very ambitious game. I really think you underestimate the amount of work and thought that went into this title.

And yes Kirby 64 may not be as ambitious as those two, but again the ability to combine any of its copy abilities to make a new one is not just a gimmick, but a core mechanic (and one that goes in opposite direction of the fast paced SS, that sadly will probably never be revisited) and the use of klonoa inspired 2.5D, in which every stage is completely unique, still makes it a standout in the series.

I just fundamentally disagree that expanded copy movesets "redefines core mechanics". Nothing about the combat or platforming comes close to necessitating or even really encouraging the use of those mechanics. They're fun, they're good to have, but it feels more like general iteration and QoL than it does redefinition.

Of course, some copy abilities do feel nicer than others thanks to expanded moves (Sword is always the obvious example) but I wouldn't say it transforms or changes the way the game is played on any deep level. When it comes to higher level play there are some cool tricks esp vs bosses, but even then its not super duper intriguing and I reckon most players beat the game without really diving in all that deep into the (imo not that deep) movesets.

Most of the minigames don't really redefine Kirby, they're just fun asides. The sub-games are just neat little distractions, the arena is a boss rush mode and Gourmet Race is just the platforming with a greater emphasis on precision rather than the series' basic combat.

Is SS a beefy package? Yea absolutely! But the core gameplay still hadn't changed much and the minicampaigns basically combine to rival the length of a single adventure without really feeling that distinct from one another. Great Cave is probably the closest it gets to really breaking the franchise's mold on a structural level.

Idk maybe I sound crazy but I really dont view SS as anything but a solid, largely iterative sequel that sacrificed one long campaign for a bunch of slightly different campaigns and some neat minigames. One of the SNES' best, but not because of immense ambition and moreso because it further refined the core campaign and threw some fun extras to compliment the campaign.

Maybe I'm also just a bit of a SS underappreciator. Love that game but it probably wouldn't crack my top 5 Kirbys tbh. I remember my friends in high school getting me so hype to play it when at that time I had only played Nightmare in Dreamland. I really loved SS but then when I went on a franchise binge over the next couple years I struggled to really understand why everyone online talked about it as the best Kirby game. Maybe if I was around when it had originally released I'd hold more appreciation for it contextually, but I'd take KA3 as my SNES Kirby of choice most days.

As for K64, again I don't think copy mixing really redefines or reinvents the franchise in any huge way. Its awesome to experiment with what cool new stuff they added, but it pnce again feels like iteration more than anything. Its also probably my favorite Kirby game aesthetically but idk if I'd say that because it takes advantage of new hardware its automatically super ambitious or anything.

Again, if just that makes a game ambitious, what game isn't at that point?

 

[dropsmegamega]

I just fundamentally disagree that expanded copy movesets "redefines core mechanics". Nothing about the combat or platforming comes close to necessitating or even really encouraging the use of those mechanics. They're fun, they're good to have, but it feels more like general iteration and QoL than it does redefinition.

Of course, some copy abilities do feel nicer than others thanks to expanded moves (Sword is always the obvious example) but I wouldn't say it transforms or changes the way the game is played on any deep level. When it comes to higher level play there are some cool tricks esp vs bosses, but even then its not super duper intriguing and I reckon most players beat the game without really diving in all that deep into the (imo not that deep) movesets.

Most of the minigames don't really redefine Kirby, they're just fun asides. The sub-games are just neat little distractions, the arena is a boss rush mode and Gourmet Race is just the platforming with a greater emphasis on precision rather than the series' basic combat.

Is SS a beefy package? Yea absolutely! But the core gameplay still hadn't changed much and the minicampaigns basically combine to rival the length of a single adventure without really feeling that distinct from one another. Great Cave is probably the closest it gets to really breaking the franchise's mold on a structural level.

Idk maybe I sound crazy but I really dont view SS as anything but a solid, largely iterative sequel that sacrificed one long campaign for a bunch of slightly different campaigns and some neat minigames. One of the SNES' best, but not because of immense ambition and moreso because it further refined the core campaign and threw some fun extras to compliment the campaign.

Maybe I'm also just a bit of a SS underappreciator. Love that game but it probably wouldn't crack my top 5 Kirbys tbh. I remember my friends in high school getting me so hype to play it when at that time I had only played Nightmare in Dreamland. I really loved SS but then when I went on a franchise binge over the next couple years I struggled to really understand why everyone online talked about it as the best Kirby game. Maybe if I was around when it had originally released I'd hold more appreciation for it contextually, but I'd take KA3 as my SNES Kirby of choice most days.

As for K64, again I don't think copy mixing really redefines or reinvents the franchise in any huge way. Its awesome to experiment with what cool new stuff they added, but it pnce again feels like iteration more than anything. Its also probably my favorite Kirby game aesthetically but idk if I'd say that because it takes advantage of new hardware its automatically super ambitious or anything.

Honestly, it’s kinda funny hearing Super Star called just “QoL” from someone who prefers Dream Land 3, which is way slower and more puzzle-oriented. Super Star is where the series really leaned into a more fast-paced and combat focused gameplay and DL3 consciously reverted it to go on its own slower take on the formula, but you talk as if its nothing.

Again, if just that makes a game ambitious, what game isn't at that point?

Well, considering most of these recent ones are barely taking advantage of the new hardware...

 

[KaiserMk7]

I just fundamentally disagree that expanded copy movesets "redefines core mechanics". Nothing about the combat or platforming comes close to necessitating or even really encouraging the use of those mechanics. They're fun, they're good to have, but it feels more like general iteration and QoL than it does redefinition.

Yeah, no. If SS was the first game where copy abilities became broadly more focused on combat, different attacks were given different values, boss and player health became a bar as opposed to an indicator of the number of hits left until death, and the boss fights became more mechanically interesting, it's a huge leap toward modern Kirby from the likes of Adventure.