Gaming Critical Hit: Hitting Reboot

Columnist Richard Cobbett writes about the spate of reboots on the horizon at the moment.

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2011/08/23/critical-hit-hitting-reboot/1

 

Movie industrial wannabe's?

 

Given enough time (I'm going with ~15 years) a reboot is ok if technology has moved on enough that a story can be told in a much more meaningful way, but I'm not a fan of the reboot in general. Even in the case of Tomb Raider, which I think does look good, it would still look just as good if it wasn't called Tomb Raider. I don't need her origins to be told again, and I don't want to envisage future Lara (who is a pretty crap character) the whole time I'm playing either.

Comic book based media is the worst at this though, even when it isn't a reboot, anything Batman related has to feature a moment with his parents dying. It's terribly repetitive. And don't get me started on how ludicrous it is to reboot Spiderman movies again.

I think if you aren't doing a straight remake/upgrade, it says a lot about the quality of source fiction. If it's so bad that you're better off with a reboot, maybe you would be better off with an entirely original story instead? Sure you have to up your marketing budget, but it would make a stronger, less dilute, brand in the end. Also, you don't have to deal with fan expectation and nerd rage until you make a sequel.

 

Since when are they making a Syndicate remake?! When is it coming out? I am Joe's Sense of Excited Nostalgia.

 

Oh, that's where you went then.

 

Its on the cards, but its going to be a MMO Train Simulation game.

 

Reboots are for cowards, a way to justify the initial funding for a project... Comic Books adapted into films are another example... Game/IP 'blah' once was a success/made money/has a fan base. If you provide the funding we'll do it again.

Reboots are also completely pointless, as previous Critical Hits have mentioned no-one apart from the old fashioned and obtuse goes into games blind anymore, there's always a glut of information out there. You can call it whatever you like and still have dozens of previews, trailors and write ups promoting the S@#T out of it everywhere.

You don't need a brand to sell it to anyone but the original money man, all that effort to placate fans, twist back story to make sense, force elements into a game the developer probably doesn't want to use... just to please a fat man in a suit.

Just out of curiosity how many Indie games, where the developer uses his own money are reboots?

 

Getting money to develop videogames it's hard. With reboots they get some kind of security for the investors. They don't want to lose some hundreds of Ks funding every game.

 

Small companies are making interesting and original games, the big boys are punting sequels...the only people doing reboots are the medium size developers that could get the money anyway.

Sure it helps nervous investors cough up initially, but how many reboots have been a massive success? Name one... I 'm not exactly a typical gamer but nothing on my shelf/steam is a reboot.

Sure it would be harder, and require some balls. You wouldn't get much thanks and when it goes wrong your job would be toast... but it would make me happier, and that's what matters when ranting on the net... lol

 

None. But how many have made profit? probably all. Its risk free as far as the "big boys" are concerned, they aren't interested in whether we like it or not, they just want to see nice numbers at the end of each fiscal year.

 

I do hope you get the actual reference but yes, I am keeping a hold of it for when you might actually find a game that requires it once again.

 

Difficult to say what fits the definition of a reboot. The GTA series certinaly fits, particularly when it went from top down to 3rd person but also Half Life 2 was almost a reboot of the original game. So a reboot isn't always a bad thing

 

Don't agree. Tomb Raider as a franchise is souly successful because of Lara Croft (obvious really). The character was unique to the time and hitting off as well as it did, nobody dare copy the same forumla. The same applies now. I'd much rather play through the origins of the character (ridiculous as she is) that I grew up playing with (tehe), then somebody entirely new that I'd never heard of - which would quite quickly be branded a Lara Croft rip off regardless of the content.

Infact Tomb Raider is the perfect example of a great time to reboot a franchise. All of the games up until now have worked on the same formula, which to be honest grew old way before Crystal Dynamics had gotten hold of it.

I'm going to throw out something that i'd personally like to see rebooted, Interplays Descent (It wouldn't work in this age, but I would definitely buy into it )

 

Reboot is such a dumb word applied to games. The show was great, but everything else that gets rebooted gets broken. It's a double dose of laziness, not only are they rehashing used ideas instead of coming up with new IP, but they can't even do that properly.

 

I think you're mixing sequel up with reboot.

Reboots generally are from a dead IP a good while ago. X-Com for example has been dead for years, I'd even prefer to forget about enforcer and inteceptor, but that was 1998 so the series has been dead a good 13 years now, Microprose have been bought out about 3/4 times since 1998 as well, so the term reboot is generally for a game that is nothing to do with the original team, office, company, idea, etc.

GTA and Half Life were both active IP's, and both done by the same companies, GTA III vs I & II was just a progression of technology, not a reboot.

 

Critical Hit is pretty much the only article I read on B-T these days. It's awesome.

 

x-com interceptor ? x-com enforcer ?

not played the latter but the former was pretty fun, ropey graphics (and those bloody invisible ships near end of the game made some missions near unwinnable when you had them on the ropes and they perma-cloaked) but the research and base building plus interception was much like x-com and quite a lot of fun.

i liked some of the UFO games (better narrative and multiple endings whether you attempt to understand or just kill the alien) but loved x-com for the management and building side as terror missions started to become a chore. if the new x-com games can give us strategy and management while mixing it with a greater of variety of missions/more scripting and some actual characters makes me think it being a FPS isn't necessarily bad.

 

"Critical Hit is pretty much the only article I read on B-T these days. It's awesome."

Thank you! Glad you enjoy it.

"not played the latter but the former was pretty fun"

Enforcer was an obscenity. There's no defending it on any level.

 

But yes, this made me play Enemy Unknown (Defence) again still get that same feeling of dread when a cyberdisc first turns up in a terror mission... usually next to petrol stations >.<

 

+1 for Interceptor not being that bad. I finished it once and that was enough, but the management side was OK. Enforcer was utter poo though. Personally I tend to find reboots disappointing -I prefer to just play the originals yet again.

And just in case the XCOM guys are reading this: look, it's simple, UFO: Enemy Unknown but with better graphics = enormous sales.