Is the "this is a good game, just not a good *insert series name here* game" a valid complaint?

[Armagon]

I've seen this complaint usually when a game in a series experiments with something new. The one that comes to mind the most is The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. I've seen many people say "yeah, it's a good game, just not a good Zelda game" and it honestly doesn't make sense to me. If the game is good, does the name matter? How can a game be good but not at the same time?

This complaint, to me, just implies that games in a series should stick to their roots and never try something new. 

Discuss.

[Dragoncat]

I heard that, but with Skyward Sword instead. 

Totally agree. Some people just can't take off their nostalgia glasses. With Zelda for example, there are people who worship OoT and everything else is automatically a bad Zelda game because it's not OoT.

I'm kind of guilty of it myself though, I don't consider Skylanders true Spyro games. But I also don't think they're good games in general. They're gimmicky and got boring really quick.

[Tryhard]

This is a good post, but not a good Fallout post.

Otherwise, I don't really think so.

[RexBolt]

I think it's a valid complaint when used for a series with a strong, for lack of a better word, personality, both in gameplay or story or music. Whatever. But should be used more in context of things that have been tried before. Like, if a game series did something before but this one game in the series wasn't very good at something other games excell, it's a good call to use this complaint. I wish i could explain better but it's hard for me to do it in english.

 

Edited October 23, 2018 by RexBolt

[Slumber]

I do think it is a valid argument to a certain degree.

When a series goes on long enough, there is a certain level of expectation that comes with it. Saying "X:Y is a good game, it's just not a good X game." is valid in these cases, since you're still acknowledging that the game has qualities, it's just not qualities that you come to expect from the series it's a part of. It's not a dismissive complaint or anything.

But there are people who lob this argument after like 2 games in a franchise, or in a franchise that constantly changes up, to the point where most people are still probably trying to figure out what an "X game" even is. Even worse, there are people who just... don't understand the franchises they're talking about, and they WILL use this as a dismissive complaint.

I think Breath of the Wild falls into that last bit. I think the only people who say this only think Zelda is a game about dungeons, and the exploration and adventure aspects take a back seat, when the entire franchise was built off of exploration. BotW was a way to get back to the basics the very first Zelda game set while modernizing the concepts. "It's good game, just not a good Zelda game" is generally used as a way to dismiss Zelda in this case, since the game is pretty in-line with the rest of the franchise, and the only thing radically different about it is the lack of dungeons.

Edited October 23, 2018 by Slumber

[Arcphoenix]

It is valid. Whether or not it's good to the series is dependent on how it holds up to series standard and the expectations set for the series. If it can be enjoyed independently (that is without bias or comparison to other games in the series), especially by an outsider unfamiliar with the series, then it's a good game in it's own right.

Edited October 23, 2018 by Arcphoenix

[Refa]

17 minutes ago, Dragoncat said:

I heard that, but with Skyward Sword instead. 

Totally agree. Some people just can't take off their nostalgia glasses. With Zelda for example, there are people who worship OoT and everything else is automatically a bad Zelda game because it's not OoT.

I'm kind of guilty of it myself though, I don't consider Skylanders true Spyro games. But I also don't think they're good games in general. They're gimmicky and got boring really quick.

I don't think people like that actually exist.

Bad example, Skylanders is not the same series as Spyro. The first game just put Spyro's name in the title as a marketing stunt.

1 minute ago, Arcphoenix said:

It is valid. Whether or not it's good to the series is dependent on how it holds up to series standard and the expectations set for the series. If it can be enjoyed independently, especially by an outsider unfamiliar with the series, then it's a good game in it's own right.

Agreed.  Games that are good in their own right can come across as downright mediocre when compared to the rest of their series. For example, the Mega Man Classic series has roughly 11 games that play very similarly to each other. The formula is good and reused for a reason, so each game is on its own merits a good game; it's when you compare any given Mega Man game to the greater series that you can more properly analyze its merits and determine if it really holds up to the rest of the series. This should prove BTW that it's not a complaint that's used to decry innovation or radical changes within a series.

[AnonymousSpeed]

I do think it's a valid complaint. Franchises tend to scratch specific itches, so if a game in that franchise doesn't scratch that itch as well, then it is not as satisfying as the rest of the games with regards to that aspect, even if it's well made otherwise. Gotta account for taste.

[Interdimensional Observer]

8 minutes ago, Slumber said:

I think Breath of the Wild falls into that last bit. I think the only people who say this only think Zelda is a game about dungeons, and the exploration and adventure aspects take a back seat, when the entire franchise was built off of exploration. They use "It's good game, just not a good Zelda game" as a way to dismiss it.

I think this varies from game to game though within the franchise. OoT is probably more slanted towards dungeons than overworld, SS too. The former by limitations of the system, the latter by choice. WW and BotW opt for the other direction- the sacrifice of dungeon to overworld. But all games (save stuff like FS, FSA, and TH) have both.

Although I am going to agree otherwise with what you said. It depends on the context and who said what.

 

And there is nothing wrong even when a series goes in a new direction. Understandably, some won't like different, but different is not always the same as bad. I like Metroid games when they're 2D well enough, but for some reason, the 3D of the Prime games doesn't get me so interested. Yet I won't call MP bad, since they from what I've heard and read, are still good games.

[Slumber]

12 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

I think this varies from game to game though within the franchise. OoT is probably more slanted towards dungeons than overworld, SS too. The former by limitations of the system, the latter by choice. WW and BotW opt for the other direction- the sacrifice of dungeon to overworld. But all games (save stuff like FS, FSA, and TH) have both.

All games have things like dungeons, but not all games explicitly have dungeons. In these cases, the Shrines scattered around the world of BotW function pretty similarly.

I do think the game would have been better served if there were less shrines altogether with multiple shrines being combined to give the feeling of going through a dungeon, but there's still largely an analogue that's more presented as an award for exploring the world.

And on top of this, there's dungeon-like content in the over world. The trek to Death Mountain(And its peak) are environments and have challenges that you'd effectively get with traditional dungeons in another Zelda game. Hyrule Castle has a bunch of stuff to do that you would have seen in a final dungeon in other games in the series. And there are other areas in the game similar to this.

I'd argue that dungeons aren't even entirely gone from BotW, it's just that the content you would see in a Zelda dungeon is all presented differently to fit with the non-linear open world aspect of the game.

I do think it'd be nice to see some traditional dungeons in a Zelda game like BotW, but I don't feel like there's anything inherently missing from BotW that suddenly makes it not a Zelda game.

Edited October 23, 2018 by Slumber

[Nobody]

I think it's a valid complaint. Like, there are some series that expect some things from. If I didn't get those things from that game but still enjoyed it, then I'll describe it that way. Like, as a game from that series, I'd want it to be something else, and I'd want other games from the series to not be like it, but just as a game, I'd like it.

Suppose they turned Fire Emblem into a dungeon crawler. I love Fire Emblem and I love dungeon crawlers, so supposing it was a good dungeon crawler (rather than SoV's shitty dungeons), I'd probably enjoy the game. Still, I absolutely love Fire Emblem's typical gameplay, being a SRPG and all, and would REALLY miss it being gone, since I wouldn't be able to get it anywhere else. So'd I give said hypothetical game a lot of scrutiny, even if I enjoyed it.

Edited October 23, 2018 by Nobody

[Thinks Their Own Way]

I find that complaint eye roll inducing, I feel that it comes off as self-entitlement in away. Condemning a game that doesn't fall into your preconceived notions while the game is good in it's own right.

[Eltosian Kadath]

I would like to give an extreme example that shows why this complaint is perfectly valid:

Tokyo Mirage Session #FE is a good game, just not a good Fire Emblem game.

[Fabulously Olivier]

It is absolutely a valid criticism if one game is substantially different from its predecessors. 

IE: Mass Effect Andromeda had good combat, but failed on every storytelling level. It didn't appeal to any of the strengths of its franchise that mattered to Mass Effect fans.

Guild Wars 2 is a great MMO that does a lot to innovate on its tired genre. It improves on its predecessor in a few key ways, but Guild Wars 1 had far, far more buildcrafting depth and more strategic team compositions and PvP that were entirely lost in the sequel. 

DmC: Devil May Cry would not be controversial in the slightest and would actually have been well received had it not carried the Devil May Cry brand. 

 

Edited October 23, 2018 by Etheus

[Reality]

I mean the archetypal example hasn't come up yet: Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts...

Really as a physics sandbox or like a "lego racers" idea that actually has gameplay to back up the customization, it's obviously a wonderful game that can appeal to people who've played lots of arcade racing games, and so on... The music is good, and the writing... although it is maybe a lttle too in-your-face during the prologue, starts to find a comforttable stride and is pretty funny...

But of  course it's not a good Banjo Kazooie game, even though it's a good game by itself... 

Now granted it isn't attempting to be one, BUT I think it's valid that the presentation and being part of the franchise lead so many people to expect N&Bs to have been a series Banjo Kazooie game..

So I can see things as valid fo people complaining about Paper Mario, BoTW, or Fallout..

I don't think that not being a good game in its own series stops most of these games not good or anything, but Even though they are fun when you give them a chance, even I find them to give me a kind of nagging out-of-game disconnect that simply wouldn't be there if they were their own new IPs or at least altered slightly to more naturally transition from their original series's gamplay to their new approach.

 

[Tryhard]

How far does a game need to go with promoting itself as a spinoff without having expectations of being like the mainline series? 

Because Nuts and Bolts clearly is one, people were just so upset by it because they were expecting Banjo Kazooie 3 to be coming, which never happened. I dunno, it's weird to me, it's like getting mad about that Mario + Ravin Rabbids X-COM game because it doesn't really have any gameplay like Mario or Rayman/Rabbids games.

If you wanna complain about mainline games then go ahead but spinoffs are called that for a reason.

Edited October 23, 2018 by Edgelord

[Solvaij]

2 hours ago, Refa said:

I don't think people like that actually exist.

I didn't think so either until I met one. I maintain Breath of the Wild has its flaws (the story for one) and I can definitely understand why some people don't like it, but I know a guy who says BotW "ruined the Zelda franchise" and his argument is basically that's it's not like the other Zelda games. And that's it.

More on point, I read the title of this thread and thought it meant people complaining that a game is good, but not good compared to other games in the series, which I think can be fair. There are lot of games that are good by themselves, but have successors or predecessors that for whatever reason do a better job of executing staple elements of the series. If you've never played a Fire Emblem game, Shadow Dragon is a great time, but if you're used to Fire Emblem mechanics like supports, map objectives other than seize, ect. you'll miss them when you play it. I think that's a fair complaint even though I love Shadow Dragon and everything about it.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

A valid complaint has an explanation. So if I said this statement without any explanation of what I'm talking about than no. Not unless the discussion held by multiple people in the thread has progressed to a point where all of us - who are on the same page - have already established how the game is different than its series. Then I can chime in and say "Yeah, Botw is an okay game, just not what I'm looking for in a Zelda game" as agreement with people who are humming around the same sentiments by pointing out how different it is.

Except I wouldn't say that. My hot take would be "Botw Is Zelda reimagined by Ubisoft but the musicians and writers were mysteriously fired a few months into development and never replaced". Yeah, Botw ignores a lot of good ideas and sensible design decisions from previous Zeldas - and the more contemporary open world games it's emulating, but you can still reasonably point at its design and say it is quintessentially a zelda game.

Saying that a game doesn't expand on previous entries isn't an "unfair" statement. Because I do like it when a game takes everything the designers learned from previous entries and applies fixes and updates to the sequel. But when all of that experimentation is thrown out the window, it's frustrating. Like, why are we changing gears now and not two, three, or five games ago?

[Slumber]

Resident Evil, I find, is a good example, purely because of how many major style shifts the franchise has had. I actually love all styles of the game, but the shift from 0 to 4, then from 6 to 7 caused some contention within the franchise, though by 7, the idea that there wasn't really a "set" Resident Evil style, and it was close enough to the originals that it wasn't as contentious as 4.

Though there were still plenty of people going "RE7 is a good game, but not a good Resident Evil"

[Johann]

It's a fair argument if you're trying to inform someone who definitely wants a new game to be like an old one, I suppose. I can imagine a lot of people are looking to get the same kind of experience from a sequel

3 hours ago, Dragoncat said:

I heard that, but with Skyward Sword instead. 

That's how I feel. SS misses the mark of what made Zelda good and mistakes it for what vocal fans bring up when gushing about OoT, while not only giving shallow gameplay, but trying to supercede much of OoT's (and other Zelda's) world building.

Here's a (perhaps divisively titled) video that analyzes Mario Galaxy in a way to determine how its formula compares to other 3D Mario games:

It's a long watch (35 min), but I recommend going through the whole thing if you have the time. The gist of it is that Galaxy has four main issues:

1. Galaxy can't decide whether to be a course clear game or a sandbox game (course clear like 2D Mario and 3D Land, etc, or sandbox like 64, etc)
2. When it focuses on course clear style, it's not especially great at it
3. It doesn't love its own ideas (new & interesting mechanics being used once or twice and then ditched forever)
4. Too linear

[Zapp Branniglenn]

Wii Music is an okay game but a poor Wii game. By that I of course mean the Wii ______ franchise of games

[Refa]

5 hours ago, Edgelord said:

Because Nuts and Bolts clearly is one, people were just so upset by it because they were expecting Banjo Kazooie 3 to be coming, which never happened. I dunno, it's weird to me, it's like getting mad about that Mario + Ravin Rabbids X-COM game because it doesn't really have any gameplay like Mario or Rayman/Rabbids games.

Honestly, releasing spinoffs in a game series that is no longer getting any main entries is pretty disappointing for its own reasons. Mario has never had this problem.

 

[Hawkwing]

It depends on the context, as I've seen the statement used as:

A. A General warning (I.E. "X is a good game, and I definitely recommend it. However, if you go in expecting it be like the rest of Y series, you may be disappointed from the lack of elements from those games")

B. A Legitimate Complaint ("X may not be a bad game, but it does not live up to the expectations and standards that Y has set over the years")

C. A Petty Complain ("X doesn't have Z. Thus, it's not a true Y game.")

D. A comment that the game may have been better received if it didn't have the name of a well know series ("X is honestly not that bad of a game. However, putting Y on the title, a series known it's deep and strategic gameplay, on top of a rather brainless shooter, was a way to shoot themselves in the foot. I'm convinced that if this game was it's own thing, it wouldn't have been a commercial failure, nor would it have drawn the ire of Y's fans.")

It can also range between series on whether or not the complaint has worth. For instance, X-COM: Enforcer sticks out as a rather shallow third-person shooter in a series well-known for it's hard-as-nail tactical gameplay, so the complains leveled against it are understandable.

Meanwhile, if you mention "The Legend of Zelda" to someone, their first thoughts about the series will most likely differ. Some will think first about the dungeons and puzzles, others will think about the exploration and secrets, and still others with have the story and sidequests jump to mind. All the games contain these elements, but to varying degrees, meaning the "It's not a good Zelda game" complain holds less water, and in truth they more likely mean "It doesn't focus on an aspect of the series I like as much as another game does." There are better ways of expressing one's disappoint about this than saying it's "not a true Zelda game", but the opinion itself is still understandable.

Heck, it doesn't even need to be a full series for the complaint to hold water. Deus Ex: Invisible War, when judged on it's own, is an above-average action-RPG shooter. However, if seen as a sequel to Deus Ex, it's seen as a disappointment by many. This is because Deus Ex has several distinct and well crafted elements woven together into an intelligent masterpiece that still holds up today. While the sequel does contain some of these elements, it doesn't have all of them, and neither does it handle some aspects with the same amount of quality that the first game did. Again, while not a bad game, it is seen as a disappointing sequel, so even though Deus Ex wasn't a series at that point, the "It's still a good game, it just isn't a good Deus Ex game" holds some water.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

10 hours ago, Reality said:

Now granted it isn't attempting to be one, BUT I think it's valid that the presentation and being part of the franchise lead so many people to expect N&Bs to have been a series Banjo Kazooie game..

Hm, Can't think of a reason why we thought it was a Banjo Threeie game. Nope, not one thing at all.

The Nuts and Bolts name and vehicle concept were not revealed until May 2008. Or E3 of that year if you weren't a games journalist at the time. Before then we were being sold a different game. You bet we felt lied to. Imagine if, after all the years of silence regarding Metroid Prime 4, Nintendo came out and said "we're proud to announce Metroid...Prime...4....PINBALL". And to be fair that E3 2008 trailer gives you the impression you'll be doing things in equal parts on the ground or in a car. A lot of us bought the game based on that assumption.

Edited October 23, 2018 by Glennstavos

[LuxSpes]

I think it's completely valid to compare the most recent game in a series to its predecessors, but I think just saying 'this game is a bad 'X' game by itself doesn't give any valuable information and it's much better to just outright say something like "if you liked X series for this reason, this new game might disappoint you".  If we take the Zelda example, just saying "Skyward Sword is a bad Zelda game" and "BotW is a bad Zelda game" don't mean anything since the first group is criticizing Skyward  Sword's lack of exploration and linearity while the second group is criticizing BotW's lack of dungeons, so even though they're using the same criticism, their grievances lies with completely different things.

Instead of saying 'Metroid Other M is a bad Metroid game', I think saying "if you like Metroid for the atmosphere of isolation and sense of exploration, you might want to skip other M since it's linear, focused on action and puts story front and center with lots of cutscenes and character interactions" would be more helpful for both Metroid fans and other people wondering about the game. 

And I think it's completely understandable that people might be adverse to change in a series of game they like, especially if the changes are major. I think it's understandable that Paper Mario fans are disappointed with the most recent games in the series since they ditched a lot of the charm of older games for cheap paper related gimmicks that negatively impact the gameplay. Though I must add that screaming at people that like the games in a series after a major change is pointless and toxic. I'm someone that often replays old games I really loved, so while I'd like more Zelda like OoT, more Metroids like Prime or more Paper Marios like TTYD, if the series is going in another direction, I still have OoT, Prime and TTYD to replay when I get the itch. 

8 hours ago, Refa said:

Honestly, releasing spinoffs in a game series that is no longer getting any main entries is pretty disappointing for its own reasons. Mario has never had this problem.

 

Perfect example is the reaction of the Metroid fandom had when the first Metroid news Nintendo gave them after Other M was a spin-off multiplayer game. Federation Force might have not been a bad game, but the timing of its release made sure a lot of Metroid fans did not even give it a chance. Spin-offs are fine when a series is thriving with frequent release since fans of the core game often have something new to play with, but a spin-off being the first entry in a series after years of drought is a sure fire way of pissing off the fans. I can just imagine the F-Zero fandom's reaction if Nintendo announced a F-Zero beat 'em up spin-off with no news of a core F-Zero game.