Video Game Franchise Codifiers

"Codify" is a synonym for "establish the formula". The formula was established by the first game. However, that's so overwhelmingly common it's not noteworthy, which is why we have a trope solely to document entries that codify their franchises despite not being the inaugural entry.

It's the same reason Trope Codifier is different than Trope Maker, even though the Trope Codifier pages says many Trope Makers are also Trope Codifiers.

I think what you're asking is, why are the "elements" mentioned the trope description limited only to aesthetics?

My answer is that they're not. It can incorporate both aesthetics and mechanics. The issue is that a franchise can only be codified once, at the point it becomes cemented as "that franchise". The Mario franchise was codified in 1985 with Super Mario Bros., a game that cemented both its aesthetics and its mechanics in one fell swoop.

Are Mario Kart and Mario Party part of "the Mario franchise"? Or are they separate enough from it to warrant receiving their own codifiers, despite their aesthetics building off of a series codified in 1985? Do mechanics alone mark them as something different from the franchise they otherwise share all their aesthetics with?

Edited by WarriorsGate on May 20th 2023 at 12:51:59 PM

Franchise Codifier is not limited to aesthetics and doesn't even mention them. "elements" = "aesthetics" is a weird assumption nobody else seems to share.

Meanwhile, I agree that logically there can be one Franchise Codifier. If there are more, it's some sort of Depending on the Writer.

I'd also consider Mario Kart and Mario Party separate franchises because they have own sequels and are effectively (and believe legally) count as own brands.

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup

Buh... huh????

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I don't think we need to be strict with what "franchise" means here, there is such a thing as a sub-franchise within a larger one. I think Mario Kart and Mario Party are distinct enough mechanically to count as that, and Smash Bros is a Nintendo crossover that just happens to feature Mario as a part of it, and is very much its own thing. Meanwhile Wario, Yoshi, and Donkey Kong all developed their own aesthetics and mechanics in their solo games, becoming separate (but still connected) franchises in their own right.

Meanwhile aesthetics are a little harder to pin down: Mario's "house style" didn't arrive fully formed until the Gamecube era of the early 2000s, and before then Mario's aesthetics could range based on both the technical limitations of hardware (it's why he has a mustache and hat after all) and the artist drawing/modeling him in promotional material and adaptations in other mediums. In that sense, it's much harder to pin down Mario's aesthetic codifier than other examples. Even today Nintendo can allow certain spinoffs to have their own aesthetic, like the more "extreme" look of Mario Strikers or the cutout feel of Paper Mario. Point is, aesthetics can't be pinned down to just one installment in cases like this, and I don't think this is something we should be strict about.

Edited by harryhenry on May 20th 2023 at 8:09:33 PM

Logically, non-interactive media cannot have gameplay mechanics, which is what I explained immediately after the part where you took the first quote out of context.

While I'm willing to let the issue of sub-series like Mario Kart and Mario Party slide (under protest), I think we will need to be strict when it comes to main series games, since the trope definition specifies there can only be one codifier. Considering Nintendo to this day are releasing sidescrollers where Mario stomps Goombas, collects green mushroom 1-Ups, listens to the overworld and underground themes, and runs right until he reaches the flagpole, I think that clearly it's the first entry from 1985. Everything past that was either an iterative refinement (Super Mario Bros. 3) or a Retool (Super Mario 64).

But we're talking specifically for a video game context, and I don't see why "elements" wouldn't be broad enough to cover anything. No, I'm not referring to the "mixed" version of aesthetic plus gameplay — I'm saying pure gameplay alone. It's also an "element", and you're the only person who keeps claiming that aesthetic has anything to do with this instead of just "the aspects that make the work what it is".

And yes, it's extremely confusing for you to first argue that "elements" referred to aesthetic specifically, and then to say no, it's also broader, except only in a way that still requires it to focus on aesthetic.

"Elements" doesn't have a specific meaning. It's literally any aspect of the work. We can sit here and argue all day over what an "aesthetic" is or whether or not the interactive part somehow makes certain works different, but at the end of it, you're interpreting a purposefully broad word to fit your specific standards instead of going with the broadest possible definition, which is how I assume it's meant to be.

Edited by WarJay77 on May 20th 2023 at 4:48:58 AM

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

Non-interactive media: "Elements" refers to aesthetics.

Interactive media: "Elements" refers to aesthetics and mechanics.

I am already using the broadest possible definition, for the media category in question.

Except the broadest definition would also include a scenario that lacks aesthetics. And I've already said time and time again that I disagree with your compromise definition because it's still needlessly limiting for the examples.

Anyway, I have to sleep at some point. This will be my last post in the debate.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

just so it's clear, is it okay for me to trim down the kirby entry again? that wasn't tied to the earlier deletions; it's generally agreed among kirby fans that super star is the game that codified kirby, and the others on the entry just list gradual minor improvements

• While Kirby has long been known for its diversity in direction, it was the fourth main installment, Kirby Super Star, that defined the series going forward. Taking the basic Power Copying gameplay established by Kirby's Adventure, it introduced the series-staple hats for Copy Abilities and greatly expanded their movesets, setting the stage for more focus on combat and action. It also has a unique "compilation" format with multiple smaller games rather than one big game — while this format hasn't been repeated, the series would take inspiration from it to introduce additional side modes in later games. Lastly, it codified the series' recurring Boss Rush mode, The Arena, where you're given your choice of Copy Ability at the beginning and a rest area with healing items between each round. Later Kirby games would take heavy influence from the template set by Super Star, especially from Kirby's Return to Dream Land onward.

Edited by NoUsername on May 20th 2023 at 2:01:28 AM

Sounds fine to me.

Macron's notes

I do want to get the OK on re-removing the following entries because I don't think they're great.

• Doom II: While the original Doom has thrilling battles against hordes of demons, its levels also have a fair amount of exploration as in addition to some horror-inspired sequences and soundtracks. The sequel features levels that focus more heavily on combat and fast movement, which became the series' trademarks.

Doom II is a textbook Mission-Pack Sequel (It adds a new gun, some new enemy types and some minor improvements to the underlying engine. That's it.). The game still features plenty of "slow paced", exploratory parts and wheter one agrees with the statement or not, it's a rather poor example of setting a standard: both Doom 64 and Doom 3 after it go back to be 2 sp00ky, "slow paced" (heavy emphasis on the quotation mark there) entries and the 2016 reboot is ostensibly more "combat-focused" but does so many major changes and additions it seems odd to say "Yeah they were definitely going back to Doom II and not Doom there".

• Wario Land II would go on to completely redefine and give the Wario Land series its own identity by ditching the Mario inspired gameplay of the first two games in favor of open-ended puzzle platforming. The game also introduced Wario's transformations, produced by enemies and obstacles instead of power-ups, which would become a staple of the series going forward. Also, while the previous two games were not without their weird moments, this is the game that truly codified the grotesque, absurd and bizarre style and humor that would define the Wario franchise going forward, carrying over even into WarioWare.

This one I don't like because Wario Land games come in pair (WL 1 and VB Wario Land are the "Mario-inspired" ones, WLII and WL 3 are the puzzle-focused ones, WL 4 and Shake It are the "Hit the switch and go back to the start" ones) and the claim about the style is extremely arguable to me. The previous games have plenty of weird and grotesque imagery (This is the final boss of the virtual boy game for instance)

so yeah, can I kill 'em?

I don't think Doom II is an example because it doesn't do much different from Doom and it lasted only one more installment before the reboot. Can't really comment on Wario since I'm not familiar with it, but by the sound of it the series isn't very consistent.

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup

I agree with removing Doom II. I'm not familiar with the other example (I have only played Master of Disguise and currently playing WL 3), but if it's agreed to not fit, then go ahead and remove it.

135 - 169 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300

x5

As a lifelong Kirby fan, I can confirm this is the case.

Kirby is awesome.

The Doom entry needs to go, because that's just absurd.

Does anybody want to go to bat for the Pokemon entry, which lists a bunch of minor gameplay tweaks for a game which looks and plays identically to the first entry?

I added the Gold and Silver one, but if we had to keep just one Pokémon entry, I'd choose Ruby and Sapphire. It defined not only the under-the-hood mechanics, but also the look and plot formula.

agreed that ruby and sapphire are the codifiers for modern pokémon; they made the most significant changes to the series that have stuck going forward, and there's a clean divide mechanically (gen 1 and 2 are compatible with each other, gen 3 is compatible with all future generations, gen 2 and 3 aren't compatible)

Yeah, gen 3 introduced a lot of things that still carry over today.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

A franchise doesn't need a codifier, though. This is for a "significant turning point", i.e. the franchise was doing something weird and different beforehand, it hits the codifier, then it does what is expected of the franchise.

You don't "have to keep one". You can just say the formula of RPG battler with Mons was established by the first entry, and it evolved from there, in which case it doesn't need an entry at all.

With regards to mainline Pokemon, I agree that the formula was more or less codified with the first pair of games, even if the first four generations iterated on the formula to get to the point where the Generate 5 and higher have largely differentiated themselves with their version specific gimmicks (Gen 5 having an entirely new collection of Pokemon, Mega Evolution in 6, etc.).

I don't have a strong opinion on the matter though and can see how Ruby and Sapphire represent the turning point for the series with an informal Dexit, entirely new region being firmly split from Kanto, laying the groundwork for Abilities which contribute highly to a Pokemon's identity, etc.

I don't think conceptually Pokemon is much different now compared to the first game, which is the reason why Arceus became such a big deal.

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup

Let's look at Grand Theft Auto for comparison. The first game and its sequel were modest successes, but couldn't really be said to be a "franchise". Then it radically reinvented itself with 3, and its new iteration became so popular and influential that it became "the Grand Theft Auto franchise".

I think that is the essense of this trope. What is the cutoff point where the changes become so inconsequential that it stops being noteworthy?

I feel like a lot of examples are written with the approach of "which is the best game in the franchise?" but that's not really the point of the trope. As I mentioned before, Mass Effect 2 and Halo 2 are direct sequels to their first games; they changed things, yes, but overall they stay on the same path as the originals. I think the same thing happens with Pokemon.

Valdo

IDK, Gen 1 and 2 were kinda wonky in a lot of ways. Sure, they invented the basic format, but Gen 3 was what inspired a lot of specific attributes: the villains having ambitious plans involving legendaries, the regions being more exotic and varied landscape wise, the requirement to face a legend before winning the game, the friendly rival archetype, the battle frontier (which is gone now but inspired things like the battle subway and tower), the sidequests and minigames, abilities and natures, the inability to transfer cleanly to the newest generation and back...

Pokemon had a lot of things figured out from the start, but I think Gen 3 did introduce the most permanent changes and altered a lot about how the storyline and characters went.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness