Is "No new IPs!" a valid criticism?

There are quite a bit of companies that get that sort of hate, mostly Nintendo and Activision. There are some who say that it's valid and should be addressed by the company, and there are some who say that it's not valid at all and the haters aren't paying attention.

So, is it a valid criticism for those companies?

I think it's actually the opposite some times.

Depends. If the IPs they already have are becoming stagnant, it can be an extra indication of an overall loss of creativity. But if they're being innovative with the sequels to IPs they already have, that's fine with me.

Nintendo has been trying to release new I Ps and promote them but, most fall under the public's radar - or they just ignore them for the well-known ones.

I'd say yes and no. Sequels in and of themselves aren't bad - often times, they can take a good game and make it even better, or a bad game and make it good. Then again, sequels are a double-edged sword - they can be rehashes or a downgrade or flagrant attempts to milk a franchise.

As for new I Ps, while admirable, they aren't always good. A new game that's shit is still shit, regardless of the fact it's a new IP. And on the other hand, sometimes new I Ps can be a real home run of greatness.

In the end, sequels and I Ps are both mixed bags - they have good points and bad points.

New I Ps come out all the time. They're even widely advertised.

It's just that nobody bothers to look for or play them. The criticism comes off as entitled whining from people too lazy to actually do any research beyond a casual glance at the game case in their local Wal-Mart.

New I Ps have a problem of just vanishing without large amounts of notice, but there are companies that basically do nothing but introduce new I Ps. Platinum Games is a prime example of this. There are also situations where a game is released as part of a series and not a new IP, but it may as well be. Most jRPG series do that.

It seems that the no new I Ps complaint comes from a lack of research, as with a little digging, one can find tons of games that are unconnected, however, and this is the big detail, they almost consistently fly under the radar due to a lack of name recognition.

I'd say no. Nintendo at least tries different things with it's I Ps while most companies are content to release new IP shooters that are all cod rip-offs.

I think it's not just an issue of lack of innovation. Companies that feel obliged to use certain trademark elements throughout a series that is otherwise incredibly diverse (looking at you, Squeenix) would greatly benefit from letting go of those Enforced Tropes once in a while, and bringing out an equally well publicized new IP is a good way of doing so without giving the fans any expectations.

Besides, any new IP can be an old one With The Serial Numbers Filed Off and while some think that is superior to a simple continuation I personally disagree.

There are some games, such as Command And Conquer Generals, that could have been better had the developers/publishers labeled them as new IPs instead of associating it with an existing IP and pissing fans off.

I like sequels. I love faux-living in a Constructed World that gets updated every two or three years with a few fresh faces and revelations. I love browsing wikis like this one to see what people have to say about the newest Metal Gear Solid boss or if they've tried to make that secret raygun from Resident Evil 4 canon. I like seeing characters grow and change over the course of series, and steadily go from scrappy underdog to Shrouded in Myth in time for the Changing of the Guard.

Hell, i could even say I'd prefer a sequel to an old game to a new IP as general fact. I want my stories and worlds to keep growing, and just because they take place in the same universe doesn't mean they have to play exactly the same. Basic refinement, improvement and addition can always make a game better but there's nothing inherently stopping someone from Nintendo deciding they want to make a Zelda RTS.

The problems for me are Capcom Sequel Stagnation and the fact that they tend to be making sequels of the games i don't really like nowadays. Rereleasing the same game with a few additions is a bit of a dick move (I bought Ninja Gaiden more times than i care to admit.) and i can't even tell the goddamn difference between Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3.

edited 1st Sep '11 6:19:28 PM by ShirowShirow

Therein lies the problem. It just so happens that the things a lot of tropers like don't seem to sell anymore and therefore fewer large companies make them and focus instead on things that do sell.

And then we find scapegoats.

CCCCAAAAASSSSSSSSUUUUUUAAAAAALLLLLSSSS!!! Are killing this industry!

console world: yes. it's getting more and more expensive to develop a game for a console, due to increasing complexity and licensing fees. things like Xbox live arcade are helping, though. Large corporations want guaranteed revenue and better returns, sequels are just safe investments.

PC world: just check out "indie games" on Steam.

edited 1st Sep '11 8:01:28 PM by willyolio

In Nintendo's case, not really. They make sure to constantly freshen their I Ps up with new ideas (which is probably why we don't tend to see old power ups being exactly the same as we remember them), and the Mario series is pretty much a good IP for idea or genre experimentation. The one Mario thing that I do consider closest to this is the Mario Party series though.

As for most of the others, the answer is often yes, especially Capcom. However, even that is not set in stone, and there are sequels to I Ps, even in a long running series, that I consider better than the originals.

edited 1st Sep '11 10:38:29 PM by Folt

Thread Hop: No, it's not a valid criticism. Much like "no one appreciates the classics" it's general bullshit, but just a different kind.

No new I Ps is not a valid criticism.

Developers try new I Ps... no one buys them. That's why we get more sequels. They're safer. Don't boo the developers for it. You should be booing yourselves.

Even if you bought the new IP's game anyway? That doesn't make any sense.

While it is nice to have new I Ps, the issue I have is that new I Ps may find problems of being notice. Also sequels can be done well as noted via the Civilzations and Super Mario series. Still for a IP to be of great influence, it must be a new type of experiment, a new type of playing.

Nintendo should do an experiment for the next E3.

EVERYONE LOOK FRESH NEW IP!!!!!!11101!

Oh, and there's a new Mario by the way.

Then they can compare the relative amounts of press coverage to see where gaming journalists' priorities lie.

I don't have a problem with continuing old I Ps so long as each iteration is something fresh.

What I do have a problem with, however, is when the same exact games is released over and over and over. Yes, I'm looking at you, Ocarina or Time.

The Game Cube version included Master Quest, the Zelda: Collector's Edition included other games besides Ocarina of Time, and both were only given out in promotions or bundles. And let's be honest, we were pretty much expecting it to be downloadable on the Wii Virtual Console if we were to avoid a Ruined Forever. As far as I know, the remake has some differences too, Master Quest got mirrored and it included a Boss Rush mode in both, the Stone of Agony got replaced with an item that doesn't need Rumble function to be used, there is a Super Guide like feature, the Iron and Hover Boots got easier to use, The Water Temple was made a bit less confusing in the original (and I suppose Master Quest too), and there is an orchestral piece in it somewhere.

It's always good when a previously well regarded game is officially republished for a new generation who never got to play the original when it was common and would have to jump through legal/technological hoops to get an old first-run copy running. Sure, there's always the possibility of third parties putting out more copies but having even a carbon copy rerelease shows that the owner of the IP is aware of player demand.

All this does not count any extras that may be added in newer releases. Sure, it may be grating if more than one new version is released during the same generation but I personally feel that updating old games once or twice for every generation is alright and perhaps even commendable.

edited 2nd Sep '11 1:53:10 AM by Recon5

If a company has spent all of it's time make updates to the same game without much in the way of new gameplay, then asking for something new is valid. Why that has to be a new Intellectual property? If one game is a party shooter like Team Fortress and the other is a golf cart racers and they just so happen to be set in the same setting with the same tone but otherwise share a title then good for it. It could even have different characters and accomplish everything a new IP would give you as far as gameplay is concerned.

On the other hand, if the racer is to hang onto the Team Fortress label it should still have something to do with Team Fortress, otherwise it will feel like a Dolled-Up Installment and might as well have lifted the anchors and became a "new IP". This of course goes both ways. If they release what is barely more varied than a reskin of Team Fortress then it might as well be called Team Fortress instead of giving it a new name and hoping no one notices.

The original game can be fun though. Don't forget that.

And if it's fun, why shouldn't they re-release a game?