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

Funny how a simple mistake makes all the difference in the world

I understand that game company's want to try new things, and I like spinoff games like pokemon pinball or pokemon snap. I also get the times where there are big changes like adding the perk system to halo 4.

But when you completely change what it is and call in part of the main game is very rarely a good thing, you can call it a spinoff and if it turns out well then you can make it part of something bigger.

Star Fox Adventures wasn't a bad game, but creatively it was diminished, in part, by one of Miyamoto's less prudent decisions. SFA felt like an action-adventure that had Fox McCloud and a few shooting stages crowbarred into it late in development, for some reason. Which, as it turned out, is exactly what it was.

Rare and Nintendo weren't able to do a good enough job of making Adventures' main gameplay feel like an organic extension of the Star Fox series' history as a rail-shooter and its mystical, dinosaur-filled world didn't have much, if any, connection to the Star Fox universe. So it didn't really feel much like a "Star Fox" game, which let down many people that cared about the franchise, while, at the same time, it was burdened by not being allowed to be something a little more original.

There's a difference between a series and a franchise. A franchise establishes itself due to a well known character and universe, and it's something that Nintendo does very well. The most recognisable emblems of Nintendo are Mario, Link, the Mushroom Kingdom and the colourful characters which inhabit each. So mixing up the gameplay elements is fine as long as the characters remain the same (as Bomberman Zero would attest).

Meanwhile a series establishes itself due to unique gameplay elements within its genre. It wouldn't be Fire Emblem without support conversations and permadeath for example, and it wouldn't be Megaman without absorbing Robot Master weapons either. You can't mess with those things, because they are the core to the experience of the series itself.

And then there is the stuff which is kind of in the middle. Final Fantasy XV being an Action RPG for example still makes me shudder when I think about it.

What significant difference would it make whether it's labeled as a main game or a spin-off?

The series that jumped to mind with this topic was Mario vs Donkey Kong. That series evolved from the DK like arcade platformer to the newer games which are all about controlling the minis in more of a puzzle/platformer, which was an extension of the MM levels in the original game.

@Electricmastro I think that would be to completely change what the "main" games are. Pokémon and Mario are still turn-based RPGs and platformers at heart, despite having tons of games from different genres. I've mentioned these before, but I think, bad examples of changing genres are Crash Bandicoot and Spyro, which used to be platformers and are fighting games these days... They still contain platformer elements, but the games they're getting now are very largely focused on combat so much they don't feel like the original games any more, and that alienates original fans too much, even though they are still fairly good games. The point is, if you're going to change a franchise and its characters so much, that's going over a line where you may as well create a new IP instead. Otherwise, people will hate how the franchise they loved for X now does Y instead. "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

@Electricmastro Because then you can at least tell yourself that you weren't cheated out of the next once-every-five-years classic with some easy game where you take photos of Pocket Monsters (Pokemon Snap was fun, but it wouldn't have been as easy to like had it been a replacement for Gold/Silver, probably).

It's only bad when developers focus on the new genre at the expense of the old genre. Often the games turn out well in the end. But it's not fair to Classicvania fans for the series to become Metroidvania, and it's not fair to Metroidvania fans for the series to become God of War. Essentially I agree with Nibelilt.

I think Mario is a strange case, as both his most and least popular games deviate from established genres. Super Mario RPG gets a lot of love when it's just a Square game with Mario in it. Then people throw hissy fits at Super Paper Mario because it's not a regular RPG. You'd think Mario would stop surprising people by now.

Is it bad when a franchise suddenly changes genres?

I think it depends on what the franchise is

It can be a real disaster if it's changed in a very dramatic way like the Resident Evil series. Then again some people like Zelda 2 and I personally like Mario Bros 2 so IDKI guess it just depends on how well the changes still make the game feel like the original

For the Metroid series, all the genres that of been experimented with, have been good overall. The original 2D games were great, the Prime series was excellent, even Other M with its arguable narrative had a great gameplay style of 2.5D mixed with FP-elements.