What's the deal with Pac-Man as a franchise?

Despite being the first character-based mascot of gaming itself (unless you're willing to count the Pong paddles), Pac-Man hasn't really grown and evolved in an enduring way past the original and the Midway's unauthorized Ms. Pac-Man mod.

Unlike other iconic names Mario or Halo, Pac-Man really doesn't have a crapton of games that come to mind when those names are mentioned. Just the original and Ms. Pac-Man.

From the fourth to sixth generations, Namco went and adopted all the unauthorized character-based spinoffs that Midway made and tried to create a Mario-like universe around it. Pac-Man had a family consisting of his wife, two children, and an unspecified relation with Professor Pac-Man. None of the games released were huge, enduring successes, though. Pac-Man World was the most successful of the bunch, but the series ended with declining quality.

Now with the Seventh Generation, Namco has seemingly swept that universe under the rug and completely focused on the original Pac-Man and its maze roots. The only "adopted" Midway game that they're pushing nowadays is Ms. Pac-Man. The old universe made by the mixing Midway with original characters has been abandoned.

This is best seen with Pac-Man's portrayal in Smash: Namco had input on how he was portrayed, and they decided that the World games weren't worth representing, instead focusing on their forgotten and ignored classic arcade games instead.

So what do you think? Do you dislike Namco's current handling of Pac-Man and wish they'd develop the World universe a bit more?

Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.

I don't think there's much point to maintaining Pac Man as a franchise at all. The characters are recognizable but not well liked enough to be a draw on their own, and the gameplay hasn't aged well

Pac-Man just isn't something that's suited to being a franchise. The Pac-Man World series was decent, but the only things that made it Pac-Man were aesthetic- and even that was weird, since Pac-Man himself had arms and legs.

The reason Mario worked is because Donkey Kong had very simple, but distinct, mechanics that still exist in every Mario game that's come out since. They may have changed, but at the core, it's always "Run and jump"

Like, you can't take Pac-Man's mechanics and really apply them to anything else and have it be noticeably Pac-Man.

It's like if you took Tetris and made it into some weird RPG or something.

"It's so hard to be humble, knowing how great I am."

What about this?:

It's Ms. Pac-Man, and it was made during the ill-defined universe period of Pac-Man, but it's as close to a modernization (at the time) of the maze formula as possible.

Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.

Fair enough, but it's still basically the same game.

"It's so hard to be humble, knowing how great I am."

The problem there is that the Pac Man elements are the worst part

No it's not: it's way more linear, and grabbing all the dots is now an optional 100% challenge.

It's like the transition from 2D Mario to Mario 64 and Sunshine until they brought the linear style with Galaxy and moreso 3D.

Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.

Pac-Man, by which I mean the game, was an iconic game. But, see, this makes it awkward to continue as a franchise, because Pac-Man isn't a real character, or at least is not seen as one. Pac-Man is, in the eyes of most, a near-circle who goes around gobbling dots. He doesn't look like this, he looks more like this◊. And simply put, Pac-Man's design, as an actual character, is very uninteresting — simple, but still unappealing. Ms. Pac-Man similarly is viewed as that old sprite with a bow on top, more a joke than a real character these days.

Mario, on the other hand, is a character whose franchise has successfully built around him, and that was a lot easier from the start. Even when he was a little sprite, he had some unique appearance, even under the confines said spritehood, and he was human. And when the franchise did make sequels, this was developed, and each supporting character managed to get their own distinctive personality and appearance. There's a reason Luigi, even if he is somewhat inconsistently written, got a year to himself. Such development is harder for someone like Pac-Man, because they are pretty much just outright a tool from the start.

It helped, of course, Mario's future games would also become very iconic on their own merits, with 64 being considered one of the first "real" 3-D platformers.

edited 5th May '15 3:21:50 AM by Lavaeolus

Show me one person who is unironically invested in the deep lores and likable characters of the Pac-Man franchise.

One.

Pac Man doesn't even really have a lore to be invested into...so that's just impossible.

YO. Rules of the Internet 45. Rule 45 is a lie.

At least Namco tried to build a lore around the unauthorized Midway characters, even though only World was the only remotely coherent part of that period.

Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.

Pacman's design being too simple doesn't sit right with me. Kirby has an equally simple design.

I'll give Miss Pacman being treated like a joke. I knew we're supposed to respect "her" as arguably the first female protagonist in a video game but I never got the point. Pacman with a bow? I'd rather play Super Pacman, I'd rather have an explanation regarding exactly what Pacman was, what he was eating and why he's feuding with ghosts before we touched on "females".

I figured that if Binky, Pinky, Inky, Sue were ghosts, that would mean they had become predators of what passes for a protoplasmic being in the next life. Maybe the ghosts where themselves summoned by the things he's eating as a kind of defense mechanism, they way wasps are attracted to caterpillar enzymes mixing with certain plants? Maybe the "food" was part of a ghost summoning curse and Pacman was a counter spell? Maybe the ghosts were glitches in a computer system and Pacman was a debugging program, clearing away the mistakes that lead to their generation?

But we got a bow? I'd argue that the difference was more care was put into fleshing out something like Kirby, and Kirby's not terribly fleshed out, either in character(eats when hungry, sleeps when tired, defends world when attacked) nor setting (it's a country on an alien planet named after a fountain) but it's still mountains more depth by comparison.

Thankfully someone's already linked to a video showing there are many ways to expand on the basic gameplay, though as stated, Super Pacman had already shown one, I just don't think the effort was there. Luck might have also had something to do with it, video games are a competitive industry and something hot might have just been getting more attention in the intended market around the time Namco was trying to reinvent Pacman. But I maintain that if something more than a bow had been the staring point for that reinvention, that expansion, that Pacman lore, Pacman world, Namco would be as willing to show that off as it would those classic arcade games, a few of which actually added depth(even if it was only a single new mechanic, Super added no story, no new characters, but did give the ability to turn giant, giving you another means of safety.

That's why he wants you to have the money. Not so you can buy 14 Cadillacs but so you can help build up the wastes

It isn't that Pac-Man's design is too simple, note I said "simple, but still unappealing". Take Mario, his design is honestly pretty simple but yet it's still pretty appealing. Being simple enough can help be appealing, and is definitely preferable to being overdesigned. Kirby's design isn't exactly a unique masterpiece — Kirby being essentially a pink sphere with feet and a face — but I'd argue it's still a lot better than Pac-Man. Kirby is pretty cute, he's a small thing, bright pink, big eyes and a smile on his face even as he eats everyone. Pac-Man honestly just looks a bit creepy, at least now◊.

You don't necessarily need characters to create a franchise, of course, but I think it helps. Having just any sort of mood, motifs, or artstyle can also do it. Mario also has the mushrooms, the... clouds with eyes (?), and vibrant blue sky with vibrant green grass. Look at anything Mario and you can probably tell it's so at a glance — and this also works for the spin-offs, like the Paper Mario RPG-things. Focusing only on gameplay is possible, but it's easier to start a genre than a franchise that way. Pac-Man is also pretty vibrant, and it has the ghosts, but I don't think it ever carved out a unique identity for itself after the first arcade game.

Frankly, if it hasn't, after a bunch of games I think it's probably too late to do it now.

There's a TON of Pac Man games crossing about a dozen genres. There's what? Dozens of maze-like Pac-Man games? (Pac-Man, Ms. Pac-Man, Super Pac-Man, Pac-Man +, Baby Pac-Man, Pac-Pals, Pac-Man Jr., Pac-Mania), then there's platformers (Both 2d and 3d), then there's tetris clones a la Dr. Mario (Pac-Attack), the Racing game (Pac-Rally). I could continue on.

Seriously, In what world "Pac Man really doesn't have a crapton of games" ? Coz that sure as hell ain't planet Earth.

If you actually mean why there's not a lot of games that are considered classics, I'd say it's coz the non-Pac-Man style pac man games are all AWFUL. Seriously, don't play them. They suck. Pac Man is like Mario in that he appears in a ton of stuff, but unlike Mario, there's no regards for quality. That's it. It has nothing to do with character design. It has to do with awful, awful games for several videogame console generations. The Platformers? They suck. The racing game? Terrible. The Tetris clone? Derivative and boring. Like seriously, having Pac-Man on a non-Pac-Man style game is pretty much a seal guaranteeing the game within is gonna be shit.

I guess you could also add that the original Pac-Man and such are arcade games who don't necessarily transit well to home console. Even most 3rd generation games are often far more complex and involving than Pac-Man was.

You ARE aware Pac-Man currently has a CGI cartoon right now? It's like in its 2nd or third season. Has like two video-game tie-ins - one a weird JRPG on mobile. Sure, features some new characters (Mrs. Pac Man is pink now and has an actual name and the kids are gone, but on the bright side the ghosts sort of have a motivation now). But still, far from the "All they are pushing is the original game!"

edited 6th May '15 3:50:28 AM by Ghilz

While the games are the overriding thing here, the simple thing is I don't think you can take the original Pac-Man and, even with pretty good games, reasonably turn it into a franchise, and even if you could that ship sailed ages ago and not just because the games were awful. It's not something that should be done, you can make similar games under a different label and should probably just abandon the series as a whole. The guy's not a good mascot, and his original game should just be left on its own as an important part of game history, nothing else.

On a side note, apparently in that TV show Pac-Man is the Last of His Kind and the main overarching villain is some guy named "Betrayus". Not sure what to say there.

edited 6th May '15 4:00:00 AM by Lavaeolus

I've seen franchises formed on shakier grounds honestly. If anything, I'd say the cartoon has the good idea - ditch everything but Pac-Man himself and the name. I honestly see more an issue with Pac Man's face on game being almost equated with "Bargain Bin games". Doesn't help that Pac-Man was one of the cloned game ever too.

That said, I don't believe the character, on his own, can't be made into a franchise or whatever. Again, I've seen it done with less. Heck, look at Mario, who's verse and cast are outright schizophrenic and who doesn't even really have much of a world or lore beyond "Peach Good. Bowser Bad. Something about mushrooms?" Mario at least could fall back on most of his games being at worst decent so the brand keeps pushing and holds a dear place in gamer hearts.

Most people's good memories of Pac-Man is based on a game 30+ years old. There's been NOTHING to keep the flame alive gaming-wise (Till the new cartoon I guess?), and more than enough to make gamers wary of a game with Pac-Man's face on it.

edited 6th May '15 4:20:32 AM by Ghilz

The comparison to Mario is actually an interesting point— Mario has accumulated a number of different elements over the years, and all of the successful spinoffs mean that people are willing to accept it when the franchise tries something new. Pac Man, on the other hand, is locked into public memory as the first game alone, which actually makes people resistant to attempts to franchise it

Agreed and the awful spin offs have only exacerbated that trend.

Quite true. It's definitely a franchise by this point. Well, unless it only has cartoons and games...

None the less, I've only played the original arcade style games, Pac-Man 2, and that's it. While Pac-Man 2 is honestly okay, I didn't feel really that disappointed. It was a unique take on it. I've also seen the latest cartoon, and considering it stars Pac-Man's son, the differences work in that case. It's a little better than I expected, but only because it has a working storyline. While it's true that Paccy's design came from the latest Pac-Man design(note that Paccy is a different character altogether from Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man in the show), I think it makes him stand out from the original enough. It also makes me glad they used his older design for Smash 4. Less confusing for both players of those games and watchers of the show.

edited 6th May '15 4:38:21 AM by Irene

...It's weird having so many websites and no way to properly display now, lol.

Slightly? I don't think most people are particularly aware of them. I mean, just look at the posts in this thread

edited 6th May '15 4:36:25 AM by Hylarn

There was a time when Pac-Man was the biggest video game franchise on the planet, with games other than the original being somewhat popular, a cartoon series based on the show being beloved by children, and a hit song being written based on the original game's popularity.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

Why is that? That's the real question.

SMB1 is the best-selling 2D platformer ever and one of the best-selling games ever, and it put console gaming back on the map (with the assistance of ROB), yet Mario has never suffered from First Installment Wins.

Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.

Well, that really depends on what generation you're talking to. I don't think you can expect someone who's, say, 60 years old and hasn't really gamed since the halcyon days of Atari to be familiar with Super Mario Galaxy.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

Because Mario's series kept pumping out games that were well received, and quite frankly had more depth. Though, as you linked to the Ms Pacman game maze madness, I guess there were some exceptions to that. Luck and maybe poor marketing probably had a role too.

But I'm sticking to what posted originally. I don't think much care was put into crafting Pacman as a franchise. It wasn't intended to be one from the start, just an experiment to see if a game about eating could get girls to go to arcades(it did). When Nintendo decided to do more with Mario, the thought process went something like "This jump man's a hit? What else can we put him in?" and lots of different games were made about jumping, and climbing ladders and eventually growing with mushrooms. New hardware was tested for him, his world expanded in a(comparatively)logical fashion.

Pacman's "world" came about because a foreign company completely missed the point and put a bow on his head. Pacman was already a game meant to target girls and succeeded. I thought the bow was pointless even before I knew that. Still there was some air of mystique there. What exactly were these creatures? Why were they being pursued by ghosts? Where they spies, criminals? And then we got no more data after "Junior".

And how did they follow that all up? A beach vacations with a legion of "juniors"? Before you knew it, Pacman was a bumbling dad. You know, it was a much more gradual but deliberate shift as Mario went from climbing girders and flying on the back of a dinosaur. Also, Mario was riding on the back of a dinosaur. A dinosaur with a frog tongue that could swallow virtually anything, with a cape that could cause a screen killing earthquake.

Also, Mario more quickly established himself on home and handheld consoles. Pacman was probably hit harder by shrinking arcades. What happened to Asteroids, Gauntlet, Centipede, Outlast, Sinistar? They all got new games too.

That's why he wants you to have the money. Not so you can buy 14 Cadillacs but so you can help build up the wastes

Er, that's more like a foreign company made a fan hack of the original game (one which is arguably a massive improvement over the original) and then brought it to the rights-holders and said, "Hey, you guys wanna release this?" And then they said, "Sure, but we gotta make it somewhat distinct yet still recognizable as the same basic game. How about doling him up in lipstick and a bow and changing the fourth ghost's name for no apparent reason?"

And thus, the greatest and most successful arcade game on the planet was born.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.