Is nothing sacred anymore? Do our childhood memories mean nothing to those trying to make a quick buck? Have they no respect for the good old days? The answer is no on all counts. The games industry is an industry and first and foremost out to make money. In a market that has grown increasingly bipolar: we want new titles every year, but complain of franchise fatigue, we want new IPs, but only purchase titles from established franchises, we want everything to be like the past, but at the same time different. In a market as volatile as that how can one hope to navigate those perilous seas in a manner that appeases both publishers bottom line and consumer satisfaction.
One way which has been growing in prevalence are reboots. In my books, reboots can be thrown into two categories. The first being, you take a classic franchise that has overwhelming good will from the community and you update it with a modern take. This approach has the most to benefit both publishers and gamers, but has recently been replaced with the common method of HD re-releases. The second approach to a reboot is to take a franchise which has fallen out of grace with the community at large, and reset the counter to zero, banking on consumer's hopes and dreams that a franchise can be returned to former glory. This has a far more cynical application that I find borderline exploitive, but in a market that simultaneously bemoans more of the same, yet lines up year after year with money in hand, whats a developer to do.
I would much rather focus on the first use of a reboot and its ability to both keep the integrity of an existing franchise intact without compromising its history, but to keep it short and sweet. Gamers who are calling out for a Resident Evil reboot after the RE6 debacle, are part of the problem. Plain and simple, if you are no longer happy with the direction of Resident Evil you should first and foremost not spend you money on it and furthermore, let it die so that it may eventually be resurrected as the first type of reboot. If you want a franchise to stay the same and bemoan major changes, yet still buy it YOU are the reason that the game is tied to the franchise. A game with different fundamentals couldve been given a different story and characters and released as a new IP, but you wouldve have been less likely to buy it. If you buy something you are approving of the decisions made whether you approve of them or not. Publishers know that by reformatting games under a major franchise that would have otherwise been a new IP, they can target an extra group of consumers, you dont want to be the guy theyre targeting do you? Because if you look at it one way, you who buy every entry of a franchise and complain about the changes are the reason the object of you affection has been tainted.
Getting back on track I would like to address the benefits of the first kind of reboot. Gamers are a nostalgic bunch. This likely stems from the fact that gaming is a past time many of us adopted as kids. We tend to look back on the games we played in our yesteryear with rose-tinted glasses firmly atop the bridge of our noses. But just as an adult walking the halls of their elementary school, not everything is always as we remember. Likewise, games dont always age as well as a fine wine. It is here where developers should look to reboot series that will be most successful at appeasing both gamers and publishers.
From a business perspective, it is in these scenarios the unfortunate answer has become, make an HD re-releases, and not try to stir the pot. Gamers cant hate what they already love right? However, this is spoiled potential. As we have seen just this year modern takes on classic franchise can pull on the heart strings of nostalgia, revisit our favorite locations and mythos of the past and still deliver a new experience. The best reboots in any media are distinct enough to establish its own following without alienating fans of the original series.
By trying to build upon rather than copy the past everyone can come out winners. One trend which has encapsulated this mind set to great effect is what I have heard been called the Christopher Nolan effect. Taking a classic franchise, and changing the lens from which it is seen. Nolans Batman Trilogy took a darker approach to Batman and you didnt see too many people up in arms. The last three Daniel Craig James Bonds have done this as well, stripping the humor out of the series in favor of more mature themes. This isnt exclusive to movies. As mentioned earlier, Tomb Raider, seeks to tell the origin story of Lara Croft from a more mature lens to great effect. Arguably, the new Tomb Raider achieves in adapting Lara Croft to a modern sensibility. Publishers are happy because it sells; gamers are happy because is manages to be both refreshing and similar.
Are game reboots necessary? No, Crystal Dynamic could have substituted Lara for any character and had a new IP on their hands. Most people are crying foul over Tomb Raiders similarities to Uncharted more than its predecessors. But, game reboots of classic franchise provide a path for companies to walk the ever thinning line between innovation and reproduction. These reboots have an additional financial benefit to companies. For someone who only slightly follows the industry seeing Killzone 3 on a shelf, immediately prompts the question, Do I need to play Killzone 1 and 2 to know whats going on? A reboot allows this counter to reset providing hesitant buyers a ground floor to enter on without feeling left out. This doesnt mean the game has to explain everything anew, but if they do they can easily provide easter eggs for franchise fans that enrich the experience.
Reboots done right are great for all parties involved, but consumers need to embrace the power of their wallet and speak up. This applies to many industry trends, but in this instance, if your not careful with your wallet you can be inadvertently poisoning your favorite well. /end semi-coherent rant.