Topic: Is it bad when a franchise suddenly changes genres?

I've seen some games that I believe shouldn't get criticized solely because it changes to a genre that's different from the genre from previous games in the same series such as Zelda 1 to Adventure of Link, Castlevania to Simon's Quest, Pac-Man to Pac-Man 2, Toejam & Earl to Panic on Funkotron, Starfox 64 to Starfox Adventures, or Banjo-Tooie to Nuts & Bolts. Does the disappointment come from the quality of the game itself or is it because you expected it to be a like the previous games, but it wanted to try something new?

I'd assume it's more of the latter. Many fans don't want a series to change...and many do want it to change. The problem is you can't please everyone.

Here's the thing with Nuts-and-Bolts: it wasn't build like a racer. The worlds and game structure were too open for the racing genre (what I mean is that they lack a good proper linearity needed in those kinds of games).

I think it depends on the franchise. A lot of series have completely different genre spinoffs (Mario&Luigi, Pokemon and its countless spinoffs, Mario Kart, Final Fantasy Tactics, etc). As long as the option to play what lured us into a series in the first place is not compromised, then I think people would be more willing to accept the change.

Stairfax Temperatures was a good game, it's just that it didn't mix well with the space shooter genre that was in 64. Same thing with Nuts and Bots. I am going to have to agree with @LzQuaker on this one. It makes sense though. People fall in love with a game series because of the genre. If it changes, it is not the same game they fell in love with.

It depends. Nintendo gets away with it because a lot of their series started as an 8-bit sidescroller and can change easily because of that. Newer series at more set in a genre and there is a point where it may as well just be a new IP.

I think usually it's fine when a series changes genres, as long as it's more of a spinoff or minigame than part of the main series.

A series changing genré doesn't bother me as much as a series drastically changing tone.

For example, the Mario & Luigi series, while a different genré than the Super Mario series, still feels like a Mario game.

Meanwhile, Ace Combat: Assault Horizon on the PS3/360, while still being a dogfighter, abandoned some of the things that made Ace Combat what it is, all to appeal to the Call of Duty crowd (emphasised by the fact that they stuck a review quote "it's like Call of Duty in the air!", on the box's cover). Gone were the unique lore of it's fiction settings, in favor of a generic real world story about fighting terrorists, and gone were the fantastical super weapons you'd have to take down (like a device originally meant to shoot down asteroids), in favor of more grounded in reality missions. Gone were the somewhat campy anime style characters & story, in favor of a generic realistic war drama.

a bit of both.

But the only thing that really matters if people enjoy it and buy it.

Assault Horizon is awful. Ace Combat was my favorite series and they completely killed it.

I had forgotten about that too, and now I'm angry again. /rage

Let's ask BK nuts and bolts along with Sonic labyrinth...

Yah I didn't think so....but back on topic, a change in genre is good when the game is good, it might be different but as long as characters still have their personalities/looks/abilities I say it's alright..._{why was sonic in a game where he was in a labyrinth and could only move so slow?}

Have you played Assault Horizon Legacy on 3DS?

Despite the name, it's traditional AC goodness, and it reminded me of playing AC4 on PS2 (from what I understand, AHL is a remake of AC2).

Great question Electricmastro (By the way, I've seen your Youtube videos and liked them). If a game can keep that quality found in its original genre, and put it into a new franchise, flawlessly I'm fine with that.
For example Persona 4 Arena was known to take that same great universe from Persona, and put it in a completely new genre without flaw, and has won multiple fighting game awards for it.
Super Smash Bros. is also a great example. There are characters in the game, that play almost exactly like how they play in their original titles, and thats what makes the game wonderful. Each series the game dips in gives the series the homage it deserves, and gives it more respect to spare. Its why people like it. They can relate to at least one of the games, and see that it has everything that series has to offer.

Of course, there are bad examples too. Mostly from Sonic.
Sonic Labyrinth, Sonic Spinball, and Sonic 3D Blast has almost nothing to offer from Sonic. That feeling of rush? Gone. Vivid levels? Gone. Rewarding secrets? Gone.

Metroid Prime, Resident Evil 4, and (to a lesser extent) Kid Icarus Uprising say hi.

Aren't Metroid NES and Metroid Prime both sci-fi action-adventure platforming shooters?

Truth be told, I didn't even know that game existed. lol

I'll check it out though. If its like AC4 I will be happy.

No... Metroid NES/SNES were plaformers. Prime was an FPS. Entirely different.

Metroid Prime was Metroid in First-Person. Still a shift in Genre, yet it still wasn't much of a change in terms of overall feel and gameplay. If nothing else, it was a genre shift that makes sense, which is the key thing most people, even developers, seem to miss.

Why don't you go ask Jak & Daxter? They went from open world next gen(at the time) 3D platforming to becoming a sci-fi GTA knockoff. There only game for the PS3 was an HD collection of the PS3 trilogy.

It seems like many of the mid-80's releases were successful enough for sequels, but didn't know what to do with them at the time, Mario, Zelda, Castlevania, Metroid, Kid Icarus, etc.

Well, we got this from genre changes

The problem is, for every Symphony of the Night, how many Simon's Quests or Other M's are out there? (Sorry to anybody who enjoys those games) For the most part though, aside from spin-offs, I think if developers want new genres, they should probably just try new IP's.