Game Series That Jumped The Shark

Somath Cegem wrote:

zombieliquidocelot wrote:

Personally, I never made it through silver or gold. I tried, but I just couldn't get into them. I tried to return to the series briefly when they came out with, what was it? Leaf and ruby, I think. It just didn't have the same magic as the originals, even though it was the same game.

On an unrelated and highly controversial note, I feel that the Legend of Zelda games have gotten rather trite. They could still salvage it, but putting out a new game every twelve months is probably not going to work. I am still hopeful, though. I used to love those games.

I realize that this particular topic is sacred to many, and I don't mean to offend anyone. You all are welcome to disagree with me, and I will respect your opinions.

I don't know, if you one of these morons that hold up Ocarina of Time to be the greatest Zelda game ever that nothing has ever touched since then yes, Zelda has indeed Sharked jumped, it will never reach that hight again and any attempts to do so will fall flat.
Now if your like me and think ever Zelda at least attempted to improve on the last and did have it's own unique twists and turns along the way, then no, Zelda Hasn't sharked jumped because it keeps improving, keeps changing in small ways and never stops being fun.

I sceond Somath on this. I personally liked Twilght Princess in both GC and Wii form.

I also have to agree with that Pokémon has NOT jumped the shark. Added factors to improve gameplay, sure...but they haven't done anything to deviate from a formula that's proven to work. Granted we've got about a brazillian Pokémon to catch now...but that's supposed to be part of the charm of these games.

Japanese video games rarely stray far from the formula that made the franchise a success.

Somath Cegem wrote:

I don't know, if you one of these morons that hold up Ocarina of Time to be the greatest Zelda game ever that nothing has ever touched since then yes, Zelda has indeed Sharked jumped, it will never reach that hight again and any attempts to do so will fall flat.
Now if your like me and think ever Zelda at least attempted to improve on the last and did have it's own unique twists and turns along the way, then no, Zelda Hasn't sharked jumped because it keeps improving, keeps changing in small ways and never stops being fun.

Hey. It's not that clear-cut, I'll have you know; I regard Ocarina of Time as the best Zelda game and that nothing has managed to top it (Twilight Princess might have if it hadn't been so disappointingly, ridiculously easy)—but at the same time I fully realize that each Zelda (that isn't a direct sequel) at least tries to improve and add new stuff.

Besides, jumping the shark doesn't just mean that the quality in general has declined; it's the point where the series changes from its roots in order to stay 'new'. The point where it's obviously run out ideas. (Using this definition, Spirit Tracks would probably be the moment of shark-jumping, but I actually haven't played that one so I can't opine.)

GamemasterAnthony wrote:

brazillian Pokémon

For once I am thankful I don't have a relevant image macro.

Does NiGHTS count as a series now? The Wii sequel was so bad i think it gave me cancer.

There was this article I read a long time ago about the current modus operandi of Sonic Team, where they have a set-in-stone deadline for projects, and it's usually absurdly short. That's why everything they've released since 2002 has been a soulless mockery of entertainment.

*snerk* I'd better explain the "brazillian" thing. A while back a joke circulated during the Bush era that went something like this:

While the war was going on, President Bush was told that 3 Brazillian soldiers died during the last skirmish. Bush looked absolutely shocked as if someone had kicked him straight in the gut. He then turned to the person who gave him the news and asked...

"How much is a Brazillian?"

Basically my statement refered to the fact that we now have a lot of Pokémon to catch. I just used the word "brazillian" to represent an indeterminate large number.

Soul Calibur is the only serie I can think of that definitely is going down the drain. Soul Edge, SC1 and 2 were very good. SC3 oversimplified fighting (moves and combos, specials, etc.) but at least it had interesting elements added to it as a redeeming factor. Like many, I was pissed they took the friggin' Team VS out. SC4 wasn't any better than SC3. Some characters lost a lot on the personality aspect.

So many DD breasts too. What's with figthing chicks catching 'gigantitis'? I'd like to keep some games less DD-staurated kthx.

Speaking of terrible games: apparently Sega is going to 'de-list' every 'bad Sonic game' (sic). You can read the story here. Oh, Sega...


Edit: NiGHTs'Wii version was supposed to be more like a port, but they killed the game. I'm scared of what they could do to Samba de Amigo, as much as I'd like that game to have a sequel.

Jak and Daxter.

The first game was a fun platformer based on the silent protagonist/loudmouth sidekick format.

The second game went darker 'n' edgier and took the "silent" out of the protagonist. And added guns.

The third game was a WTF mindscrew, but it lightened the tone and was still reasonably fun.

The fourthish game was a sketch of a plot slapped on some terrible racing.

The fifthish game was a great platformer, but really hurt the fanon view of the sidekick.

The newest game is the point of shark-jumping for me. I stopped playing about half an hour in, when

Spoiler:

I has an irate.

myeerah wrote:

Jak and Daxter.

The first game was a fun platformer based on the silent protagonist/loudmouth sidekick format.

The second game went darker 'n' edgier and took the "silent" out of the protagonist. And added guns.

The third game was a WTF mindscrew, but it lightened the tone and was still reasonably fun.

The fourthish game was a sketch of a plot slapped on some terrible racing.

The fifthish game was a great platformer, but really hurt the fanon view of the sidekick.

The newest game is the point of shark-jumping for me. I stopped playing about half an hour in, when

Spoiler:

I has an irate.

I watched this retrospective of the games and wanted to play. Knowing the spoilers of the game anyway, I kind of understand your irritation. Still wanna play them, though.

In my opinion the Castlevania series did this right after "Symphony of the Night".

I'm sure my experience of the Castlevania games are limited... I played the original NES games, Super Castlevania on the SNES then on to 'Symphony'. Beyond that I've only played the Castlevania games on the PS2 and PS3, both of which I returned. (God only knows why I bought the last one... I should have just watched the trailers...) And from what I understand, the Gamecube (& N64?) games were along the same lines...

Either way, 'Symphony' was fucking awesome, anything beyond that was just gonna fail.

WD40 wrote:

In my opinion the Castlevania series did this right after "Symphony of the Night".

I'm sure my experience of the Castlevania games are limited... I played the original NES games, Super Castlevania on the SNES then on to 'Symphony'. Beyond that I've only played the Castlevania games on the PS2 and PS3, both of which I returned. (God only knows why I bought the last one... I should have just watched the trailers...) And from what I understand, the Gamecube (& N64?) games were along the same lines...

So... none of the GBA Castlevania games? None of the DS games? You really ought to look into them, I'd describe them as "Symphony of the Night with a bit more polish".

TheHermit wrote:

So... none of the GBA Castlevania games? None of the DS games? You really ought to look into them, I'd describe them as "Symphony of the Night with a bit more polish".

Skip Circle of the Moon, though. It was rather forgettable.

TheHermit wrote:

WD40 wrote:

In my opinion the Castlevania series did this right after "Symphony of the Night".

I'm sure my experience of the Castlevania games are limited... I played the original NES games, Super Castlevania on the SNES then on to 'Symphony'. Beyond that I've only played the Castlevania games on the PS2 and PS3, both of which I returned. (God only knows why I bought the last one... I should have just watched the trailers...) And from what I understand, the Gamecube (& N64?) games were along the same lines...

So... none of the GBA Castlevania games? None of the DS games? You really ought to look into them, I'd describe them as "Symphony of the Night with a bit more polish".

The GBA and DS can do more than Sudoku and Pokemon?


izkiddin. I might track them down, but I doubt it. In my, probably unpopular, opinion: Consoles > Handheld.

Here to agree with a Britfag.

Seriously, handhelds have their uses (something to do while traveling). But, whenever their use is halfway practical, consoles are far better.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

TheHermit wrote:

So... none of the GBA Castlevania games? None of the DS games? You really ought to look into them, I'd describe them as "Symphony of the Night with a bit more polish".

Skip Circle of the Moon, though. It was rather forgettable.

Pistols at dawn.

Nah, I'm fine with being one of three people on Earth that actually like Circle.

Anyway, I recommend checking the handheld Castlevanias; the console iterations past Symphony hit the Polygon Ceiling hard, but the original 2D style was kept alive through the portable games.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Seriously, handhelds have their uses (something to do while traveling). But, whenever their use is halfway practical, consoles are far better.

Agreed. Although I'm loving the hell out of P3P right now.

Spoiler:

myeerah wrote:

Jak and Daxter.

The first game was a fun platformer based on the silent protagonist/loudmouth sidekick format.

The second game went darker 'n' edgier and took the "silent" out of the protagonist. And added guns.

The third game was a WTF mindscrew, but it lightened the tone and was still reasonably fun.

The fourthish game was a sketch of a plot slapped on some terrible racing.

The fifthish game was a great platformer, but really hurt the fanon view of the sidekick.

The newest game is the point of shark-jumping for me. I stopped playing about half an hour in, when

Spoiler:

I has an irate.

Apparently, these days "retconned some trivial detail" means "jumped the shark"

WD40 wrote:

izkiddin. I might track them down, but I doubt it. In my, probably unpopular, opinion: Consoles > Handheld.

You can't take your console with you while you take a shit.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Here to agree with a Britfag.

Seriously, handhelds have their uses (something to do while traveling). But, whenever their use is halfway practical, consoles are far better.

Handhelds are also the only gaming systems marketing to every player of every genre, hence why the DS outsells everything else by a huge margin. I find myself playing handhelds much, much more than consoles these days simply because it's so rare to have enough time to sit on the couch and play for a few hours.

At the end of the day, though, FPS games on a DS are a terrible idea.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

WD40 wrote:

izkiddin. I might track them down, but I doubt it. In my, probably unpopular, opinion: Consoles > Handheld.

You can't take your console with you while you take a shit.

>Implying that I haven't, through creative use of extension cables and surge protectors, hooked up a TV and X-Box in my bathroom.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Penny wrote:

At the end of the day, though, FPS games on a DS are a terrible idea.

This.

Usually, due to limited controls with which to do fast paced shit like shooting someone in the head before they jam a grenade up your ass, 3D shooters don't work gloriously well on handhelds. 2D sort of shooters (say, the old Metroid games and whatnot) can work well, or crap you can take your sweet time with (and turn based game).

But really, with handhelds you either need to be able to do what you need to do with only very simple controls (D-Pad moves left/right, A to jump, B to shoot), or you need some time to do it.

The Castlevania spirit lives through handheld, and is doing a great job at it.

Not sure if that serie actually jumped the gun but Crash Bandicoot used to be awesome. What happened to it D:

Penguin wrote:

myeerah wrote:

Jak and Daxter.

The first game was a fun platformer based on the silent protagonist/loudmouth sidekick format.

The second game went darker 'n' edgier and took the "silent" out of the protagonist. And added guns.

The third game was a WTF mindscrew, but it lightened the tone and was still reasonably fun.

The fourthish game was a sketch of a plot slapped on some terrible racing.

The fifthish game was a great platformer, but really hurt the fanon view of the sidekick.

The newest game is the point of shark-jumping for me. I stopped playing about half an hour in, when

Spoiler:

I has an irate.

Apparently, these days "retconned some trivial detail" "completely altered a fundamental block of canon" means "jumped the shark"

FTFY.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

You can't take your console with you while you take a shit.

Play the game or take a shit, don't do both.