General News - 5 RPGs that destroyed their Franchise
- Thread starter HiddenX
- Start date
N
Nereida
Guest
I can't agree with that list, though I'd have to watch the video to see the tone in which it's explained. My thoughts:
Sacred 3: The weakest of the Sacred, but mostly because Sacred relied in a graphic style and charm that became obsolete when 3 was out, and the gameplay wasn't as well-received as they hoped.
Dungeon Siege 3: These games were always mediocre as far as I can tell, the third was just glaringly so and came with a generation switch in a way that wasn't compelling. But there wasn't much to destroy to start with, other than a cute Diablo clone that people played just because there was nothing else like it at the time.
Two Worlds 2: These are only two games, not sure how the second can destroy a franchise? None of the two games were something to remember really, and both were "fine" as in, something that you could enjoy if you didn't have high expectations.
Mass Effect: Andromeda didn't destroy the franchise, EA did, long before that, from the whole ME3 ending controversy, the change of writer and the switch from story-telling to cash-grabbing. ME:A had nothing to do with any of that, and was actually a better game than it's given credit for (after patches and stuff).
Gothic IV: Arcania - The only case that can be agreed a bad game "destroyed" a good franchise, but even then, "Destroying" is a big way to put it. It's a bad game, there could be a Gothic V that is fantastic and makes the franchise great again.
This list in general seems to be made by a biased person that only knows a few RPGs (or maybe a lot of RPGs) and doesn't really know what's destroying a franchise, and took the opportunity come Baldur's Gate 3 to plant doom and gloom and get some hits. If they knew more than RPGs, they'd head over to ask Doom fans what's up with Doom 3 in what is probably the greatest blunder in the history of gaming.
Sacred 3: The weakest of the Sacred, but mostly because Sacred relied in a graphic style and charm that became obsolete when 3 was out, and the gameplay wasn't as well-received as they hoped.
Dungeon Siege 3: These games were always mediocre as far as I can tell, the third was just glaringly so and came with a generation switch in a way that wasn't compelling. But there wasn't much to destroy to start with, other than a cute Diablo clone that people played just because there was nothing else like it at the time.
Two Worlds 2: These are only two games, not sure how the second can destroy a franchise? None of the two games were something to remember really, and both were "fine" as in, something that you could enjoy if you didn't have high expectations.
Mass Effect: Andromeda didn't destroy the franchise, EA did, long before that, from the whole ME3 ending controversy, the change of writer and the switch from story-telling to cash-grabbing. ME:A had nothing to do with any of that, and was actually a better game than it's given credit for (after patches and stuff).
Gothic IV: Arcania - The only case that can be agreed a bad game "destroyed" a good franchise, but even then, "Destroying" is a big way to put it. It's a bad game, there could be a Gothic V that is fantastic and makes the franchise great again.
This list in general seems to be made by a biased person that only knows a few RPGs (or maybe a lot of RPGs) and doesn't really know what's destroying a franchise, and took the opportunity come Baldur's Gate 3 to plant doom and gloom and get some hits. If they knew more than RPGs, they'd head over to ask Doom fans what's up with Doom 3 in what is probably the greatest blunder in the history of gaming.
Last edited:
I actually agree with many of your points, but still things all of these games did some damage to their franchise and maybe the last, or the last game of their franchise for some time. I will also go point by point.
Sacred 3- Sacred games were Diablo clones, and Sacred 3 abandoned that for a more action oriented game by a different developers that had little do to with the series. I'm not sure how many Sacred fans there were out there, but very few of them found this game appealing, and it bombed.
Dungeon Siege 3, the Dungeon Siege games were party based Diablo games, that boasted a very easy difficulty level. Dungeon 3 was completely different, and personally I enjoyed it more than its two predecessors, but the gameplay was completey different, and people didn't want Obsidian's more complex story and combat. So again, a company alienates its fan base without winning over a new one.
Two Worlds 2: I really don't understand this one, as the game is in many ways similar to its predecessor, though the respawns are truly horrible.
ME:A I think the release of this game was so botched and the initial sales so bad, that EA considers it a financial disaster. That has nothing to do with the quality of the (patched) game, but has apparently put the series on Hiatus.
Gothic 4, game out just ahead of Risen, and proved that Risen was what fans of the series wanted, and G4 was not. So the fan base moved over ot the Risen series and this proved to be the killing blow for publisher Jowood who owned the rights to Gothic. So anyone who picks up the rights has to prove they can make a "more Gothic-like" game than PB, and I think they would have to overcome a lot of fan scepticism, and I don't think anyone would take that risk as long as PB keeps on putting out successful games like Elex.
JFarrell71
SasqWatch
Two Worlds 2 didn't destroy the franchise. One, because 2 was in no way worse than 1. And second, because they still release expansions for it to this day.
Gothic, well, isn't that the same developer that does Risen? I've played some of both series, and they're virtually the same thing. So it certainly didn't stop them from making more of the same types of games.
MA: Andromeda didn't end the franchise so much as the overwrought, memerific response to it did. It could be an absolutely horrible game and the reaction would still have been an overreaction. As it happens, I don't think it was a horrible game to begin with. Better than Mass Effect 1, about the same as 3. Some poor facial animations, every Youtuber and person with a mouth and a social media account jumps on the bandwagon to deride it, and RIP.
I never played a Sacred game. I own one (2, I think), but I've never played it. I didn't get the impression they were ever all that good, though. Maybe they just ran their course. Plenty of actually good games that didn't keep getting sequels.
DS3, I did play. It was fine. I didn't play 1 or 2, so I can't make comparisons. It's hard to carve out much space in the ARPG field, I think. Most games are also rans compared to Diablo, which has the name recognition, and Path of Exile, which is free and gets updates every 16 minutes. Maybe Grim Dawn has gotten to that level? I dunno. Seems popular and it's my personal favorite in the genre, but I dunno.
Gothic, well, isn't that the same developer that does Risen? I've played some of both series, and they're virtually the same thing. So it certainly didn't stop them from making more of the same types of games.
MA: Andromeda didn't end the franchise so much as the overwrought, memerific response to it did. It could be an absolutely horrible game and the reaction would still have been an overreaction. As it happens, I don't think it was a horrible game to begin with. Better than Mass Effect 1, about the same as 3. Some poor facial animations, every Youtuber and person with a mouth and a social media account jumps on the bandwagon to deride it, and RIP.
I never played a Sacred game. I own one (2, I think), but I've never played it. I didn't get the impression they were ever all that good, though. Maybe they just ran their course. Plenty of actually good games that didn't keep getting sequels.
DS3, I did play. It was fine. I didn't play 1 or 2, so I can't make comparisons. It's hard to carve out much space in the ARPG field, I think. Most games are also rans compared to Diablo, which has the name recognition, and Path of Exile, which is free and gets updates every 16 minutes. Maybe Grim Dawn has gotten to that level? I dunno. Seems popular and it's my personal favorite in the genre, but I dunno.
About Two Worlds he is referring to later expansions and dlc with microtransactions especially one that was released in dec last year
I don´t know if that´s correct since I never liked the games and haven´t followed them but I watched the video because I was bored
I don´t know if that´s correct since I never liked the games and haven´t followed them but I watched the video because I was bored
Vindicator
Primordial Dragon
I would add…
Fallout 76 - Can't polish this one… FO76 will forever leave its stain in the anals of video gaming history. (sic)
Might & Magic IX - The last real Might & Magic rpg was M&M VIII. I don't know all the details, but Jon Van Caneghem sold out and M&M9 was designed by someone else. It was released in an alpha state as a quick cash grab thanks to 3DO, which soon thereafter went bankrupt.
Ultima IX - As a huge Ultima fan, this one pains me the most. It wasn't a bad game, in fact, I'd say it was fairly good but fell far below expectations. Besides its underdeveloped and questionable storyline with plot holes large enough to dump bodies into, it was a bug ridden mess at launch. Even worse, its state-of-the-art 3D engine push its technical boundaries to the breaking point. It was unoptimized for even the beefiest of consumer PCs. I had one of those high-end gaming rigs, and I was lucky to get 10-15fps. I remember a salesman at Software Etc saying there had been a lot of returns of that one (remember the good 'ol days when you could return PC games?), which turned out the be the death nail in that beloved gaming franchise.
Fallout 76 - Can't polish this one… FO76 will forever leave its stain in the anals of video gaming history. (sic)
Might & Magic IX - The last real Might & Magic rpg was M&M VIII. I don't know all the details, but Jon Van Caneghem sold out and M&M9 was designed by someone else. It was released in an alpha state as a quick cash grab thanks to 3DO, which soon thereafter went bankrupt.
Ultima IX - As a huge Ultima fan, this one pains me the most. It wasn't a bad game, in fact, I'd say it was fairly good but fell far below expectations. Besides its underdeveloped and questionable storyline with plot holes large enough to dump bodies into, it was a bug ridden mess at launch. Even worse, its state-of-the-art 3D engine push its technical boundaries to the breaking point. It was unoptimized for even the beefiest of consumer PCs. I had one of those high-end gaming rigs, and I was lucky to get 10-15fps. I remember a salesman at Software Etc saying there had been a lot of returns of that one (remember the good 'ol days when you could return PC games?), which turned out the be the death nail in that beloved gaming franchise.
Last edited:
JFarrell71
SasqWatch
Good choice, though I think it died (or at least stuck the knife in) with VIII. I vividly remember reading an article with some quotes around the time VIII was released which more or less had the tone of I know you all liked the games we've been making and characters like Dupre, Shamino and Iolo, but that's all old hat and dumb and we're going to do something totally different now.
Eh? I'm a huge id Software fanboy, and I liked Doom 3 just fine. It wasn't nearly as good as Doom 1&2 were for their time, but it's good for what it is. I can think of many sequels that were far worse than their predecessors.
As far as the five RPGs listed by the article, Two Worlds II and ME:A stand out to me as definitely not belonging on the list. The other three are pretty bad imo, but I agree that "destroyed" is probably too strong a word.
N
Nereida
Guest
I admit I'm not a fan of shooters, and my opinion was influenced by my partner who is a big fan of Doom-style games, and very vocal about how Doom 3 broke it all for him, but I suppose that's his opinion.
I guess the point of what I was saying is more that those RPGs don't feel like they destroyed much of anything and the maker of the video has a veiled underline that says "BG3 has/will destroy the BG franchise" which is pretty asinine, and clickbaity, because the list itself is not valid.
Last edited:
ChaosTheory
Virtual Reality Hero
The only thing that destroys a franchise is whether it made enough money-- not what features were/were not changed, player gripes, etc. That may have an indirect effect with reviews and such, but even bad games often are profitable and get sequels.
Example: we will likely not see a Pillars of Eternity 3, even though it was a great game. It just didn't make enough money.
Example: we will likely not see a Pillars of Eternity 3, even though it was a great game. It just didn't make enough money.
ToddMcF2002
SasqWatch
I think the RPG community shot itself in the face bad mouthing Pillars of Eternity. I'll never understand that one.
Vindicator
Primordial Dragon
Yes, the decline of the series started with Ultima VIII. It was very different in tone to previous games that had your player's character, The Pope, err… I mean The Avatar, literally walking on water. The Avatar had been banished to the forsaken world of Pagan and was forced to walk alone (no party) down a dark path and even participate in occult rituals in an effort to return home.
In many ways it felt dumbed down to reach a wider audience; it was shorter and more arcadey, including notorious timed platform jumping that was later eased with a patch. It also had other problems, such as NPCs oblivious to chaotic world events and to completed quests, and a very limited bestiary due to improved graphics and animation. But, all in all, it was a decent game, especially when compared to U9... and you didn't have to wait for the next PC generation to play it.
lackblogger
SasqWatch
- Joined
- November 1, 2014
- Messages
- 4,778
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Both Pillars games recently achieved top 10 places on RPGWatch's Game of the Decade poll and in the general gaming world are considered successful games. Both games achieved no.2 spot in their respective year of release.
Who are you referring to when you say "the RPG community" and in what way have those people damaged themselves and what were they saying that you word as "bad mouthing"?
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2014
- Messages
- 4,778
I haven't looked at actual sales numbers and this might be an echo chamber problem, but to me the general reception of PoE on this and similar forums felt pretty so-so? I know I didn't enjoy my first playthrough as much as I had hoped. I gave it a second chance later but I suspect many others didn't, and I got the impression PoE2 didn't sell well. Again though, feeling, not facts, so I might be totally wrong.
In regards to the OT, I can't agree with TW2 because I found it a lot better than the first game. Sure it was more linear, but it also had a lot going for it that I found enjoyable. Can't really comment on the rest.
What does destroying a franchise even mean? I could list many personal "destroyers" that ruined franchises for me, but in the end sales matter, not my opinion. Did JA2 destroy the franchise? Kotor2? Those are pretty damn good games to me.
My personal list though:
Xcom:Apocalypse (smaller scope and RT combat was the wrong direction)
HommV: It started going downhill when UBI took over, V was still ok but I could never get into VI.
Fallout 3: Actually revived the franchise to the general public, but to me personally it wasn't half as fun as the first two.
MM IX: I enjoyed it, but concede it was a buggy mess. Pretty sure it was a last attempt to make the series viable again and not the actual reason for the franchise dying though?
Both Xcom and MM have been revived after their claimed deaths, one with huge success and the other sadly with less. Fallout is bigger than ever, and I don't think 76 is the last game of the series. Homm is dead as far as I'm aware of.
Last edited:
HoMM was shot in the leg with 4. 5 was good but the fanatical crowd was lost and after that was total disaster. I tried 6 and 7 and it was horrible experience. 
I really think HoMM4 killed the franchise.
I really think HoMM4 killed the franchise.
Can't agree. Might & Magic X Legacy was a fine RPG, and a great Might & Magic game.
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2009
- Messages
- 67
I don't really agree with the list, as the franchises in question were having issues before the specified games showed up. The games on the list might not have been good enough to salvage their franchises, but they're not the root cause of the problems either.
I'd say M&M IX is probably a better example, as M&M VIII was an excellent game (albeit not as good as M&M VII) and M&M X has very little to do with the M&M franchise.
I'd say M&M IX is probably a better example, as M&M VIII was an excellent game (albeit not as good as M&M VII) and M&M X has very little to do with the M&M franchise.
Carnifex
SasqWatch
How on earth did Dragon Age Two not make this list? Honestly it flat-out slaughtered what Origins had established, the taint is so vile I'd never even consider replaying the second game, let alone going any further in the series.