Welcome to an impromptu Duel Shock, named so because Shiggy and Pants were having a normal conversation, suddenly Assassin’s Creed 4 was announced, and what followed turned into a full discussion about reboots, sequels and new IPs in gaming!
ShiggyNinty: Assassin’s Creed 4 was literally just announced. Whaddya think? So are you excited for it at all? I know how much of a fan you are.
Pants: I think the series needs a break. This is the fifth console game in as many years. Assassin’s Creed 3 was kind of a let down. To be fair, there was some pirate-ish stuff in Assassin’s Creed 3 and it was really fun. It was probably the best part of that game, in fact, so more of that could be a good thing. I’m just going to say I’m definitely curious about it, but we need more information first.
ShiggyNinty: Yeah, I’m curious too. Assassin’s Creed 3 looked like a nice change of pace and scenery. But this game…I’m not sure yet.
Pants: It’d probably be more interesting without the Assassin’s Creed name tied to it, if it were a new IP instead of another sequel.
ShiggyNinty: Exactly!
Pants: That’s what I think about the new Tomb Raider, too. Make them new characters and they’ll be more interesting! New IP’s are awesome!
ShiggyNinty: Tying it to already existing IP’s causes problems, I think DmC would have gone down way better if it wasn’t tied to the old Devil May Cry games. The same goes for a lot of reboots in general.
Pants: I really liked the DmC reboot because I knew nothing about the series before it, but I’m super tentative about the Tomb Raider reboot because I have all those past game experiences tied to it. So where I’m saying ‘eh, Dante has a different hair colour, whatever’ I’m also going ‘what they changed Lara’s clothes those MONSTERS!’
ShiggyNinty: What if they said ‘this isn’t an origin story, this is an alternate universe. This isn’t tied at all to the other games and this is just all set in an alternate universe, the only thing the same is her name, Lara Croft’?Would that change your mind at all?
Pants: Probably not! Which is really stubborn, but I don’t like how they’ve completely changed the character.
ShiggyNinty: To a point it is, but I can see your side of it.
Pants: I find it difficult going from 15 years of experience with this absurdly confident, somewhat over-the-top Lara Croft, then seeing this new version that’s always scared and screaming and has the developers talking about making the player want to protect her like she’s weak and useless. To me it feels like they’re changing the character in a negative way.
ShiggyNinty: So, say it wasn’t Lara Croft, it was Sandy Rambo, without the Tomb Raider name, you’d understand the character design? And what about the multiplayer in the game? Do you feel that’s shoehorned in, because it’s never really been a part of Tomb Raider? Or you won’t know until you get your hands on it?
Pants: Personally I still wouldn’t be that keen on the whole ‘player protecting the character’ thing, but it wouldn’t be as big a concern. It’s not the fact that they’re changing the character that bugs me, I like change! It’s specifically what they’re changing her into that’s troubling. I actually don’t know anything about the multiplayer though, but if it’s done well, I think it’ll be cool to have something different there.
ShiggyNinty: I guess it’s an attachment to the series. It’s like Legend of Zelda fans. Every stupid fucker wants full on voice acting. Imagine Link finally having a voice! Awesome, right? Not for me. It’d ruin my perfect voice for Link. There’s a reason why there’s text and not full dialogue. People add the details in themselves with that sorta stuff I think, and it helps add a personal touch to it all. A similar thing happens to me when I go from a book to the movie adaptation. Hogwarts in my mind is nothing like the Hogwarts in the movies! Its’ terrible!
Pants: I’ve felt that way about Game of Thrones, as well. You read a lot of reactions from people saying ‘that didn’t happen that way in the books! That isn’t how this castle should look!’ But with books and film, you’re adapting to different forms of media. Things change in part because film incorporates vision into the storytelling.
I think it’s just a natural thing that people don’t like change in general, sometimes. You grow to love something for what it is and hate to see it changed into something else. But change is important, otherwise a series becomes stagnant, which is probably why reboots are a really good thing. Especially under new developers. Simultaneously what I like and hate about the new Tomb Raider is seeing all the changes, because for everything I might not like there’s something else that sounds really good.
ShiggyNinty: Isn’t the new Tomb Raider developed by the original developers? Or did I misread something?
Pants: The series was originally developed by Core Design, then the games that came to Xbox 360 and on, including this new one, are by Crystal Dynamics. So the series has already had an almost reboot before this one.
ShiggyNinty: With Underworld, right? Or was that Legend…I don’t even know!
Pants: Legend changed her backstory, then they did a mostly faithful remake of the first game and incorporated elements of that into Underworld. I think that went over a bit better originally because the character and the story didn’t change as drastically as this.
ShiggyNinty: Some developers though, even if they originally made the game and decide to reboot it, totally miss the point. Look at Sonic ’06! Terrible. But they built up from that game to Sonic Generations.
Pants: Sonic Generations is considered one of the better ones, yeah? What’s the appeal (I’ve never really played Sonic, so…) And what’s so terrible about Sonic ’06? Is it meant to be a reboot? I’ve watched a few Game Grumps videos and seen that some of the design and gameplay is bad, but in terms of series lore is it a problem?
ShiggyNinty: I haven’t played Sonic since Adventure 2 on the Gamecube, I go back to the original 3 every now and again and they’re timeless just like Mario. I guess because it’s somewhat of a polar opposite to the little plumber. Generations was a perfect blend of old and new. Taking the best bits of each and making something great to both old and new fans. It was fan service done right
With Sonic ’06, well…Sonic has a relationship with a human when it’s always been Amy, it’s weird…and Robotnik, SORRY I MEAN EGGMAN, a lot of things are done to be ‘mature’ I guess and they don’t really come across as that. And I think the gameplay and general design don’t need to be revisited!
Pants: What do you think a fan is meant to do in a situation like that? They’ve suddenly changed Sonic’s relationships – should you accept that, or should you make an outcry about it? I guess I’m asking what input do you think fans should be able to have when a series they really like gets a reboot? Or should they have none at all, and just go with what’s given?
ShiggyNinty: The internet is glorious, it allows a lot of things and one of them is direct feedback with a company or a developer. I mean, look at Randy Pitchford at the moment with all the Aliens stuff…I think, that yeah, people should make criticism. I don’t want to say the word outcry because people will take that as an invitation! I think it’s the same thing like when a bad video game is released.
Take Black Ops: Declassified on the Vita. I rag on the Vita even though I think it’s great hardware, then they release that game which isn’t a good game at all and people defend it just because it’s on the Vita. No! Don’t! Be upset and critical about it! You don’t want crap released on the system and devaluing it! It’s the same with reboots and changes, some changes can be done right, some aren’t. But when you can’t admit that maybe it was the best choice for your series, that’s when people should make an outcry.
I think reboots and re-imaginings and such are fine, but sometimes…just stop!
Pants: Let’s say Tomb Raider, DmC and Assassin’s Creed 4 all released as new IPs. Do you think they’d sell well? What they are now is much safer business-wise because they already have an audience to sell to.
ShiggyNinty: If they were marketed and the audience was told that the games were influenced by those games, I could see them selling just out of curiosity!
Pants: Kind of like the idea that Assassin’s Creed has its roots in Prince of Persia? That’s interesting!
ShiggyNinty: Exactly! It wouldn’t sell as well, but it’d do okay! New IPs are great because they allow creativity to flow. But, tying it to an existing franchise limits that creative flow sometimes, I think.
Pants: There are some people who expect Watch Dogs to be an Assassin’s Creed game set in the modern day. But it doesn’t seem like Ubisoft are marketing it that way, at least.
ShiggyNinty: I can’t see that at all. Imagine Assassin’s Creed 4, though…as a swashbuckling pirate game where you can explore islands and be a proper pirate!
Pants: I just wish it was a new IP. The reaction to Watch Dogs shows that consumers want new things, but more often than not we’re getting sequels and reboots.
ShiggyNinty: Which is okay. But sometimes a new idea or series is fantastic because it feels fresh, new and exciting to explore!
Pants: What do you think of DmC and Tomb Raider as the most recent reboots?
ShiggyNinty: Well, the outrage is dumb. Just deal with it and be a bit more open, you might be surprised! CONTEMPORISE MAN!
Pants: Yeah, I think it’s been really grounding this year to look at the approaches to both of these games. I actually haven’t heard a lot of negative responses to Tomb Raider regarding changes from old fans, other than what I’ve been thinking myself. And despite some of my objections, I’m really keen to try it out, especially after the reviews it’s been getting. I guess it’s about trying to keep an open mind.
As for Assassin’s Creed 4, perhaps it’s a bit ridiculous to be hesitant about something when we’ve only seen the cover, but it sparks discussion like this, and that’s great. I’m looking forward to hearing more details because I want this to be good, but as it stands now I’m just hesitant and wish it had a longer development cycle. Either way this discussion has given me a lot to think about regarding the way I approach new entries to series I like.
Potaku 
I don’t understand Pants’ problem with young Lara Croft not being a total badass.
She had to start somewhere, or did I miss the back story where she burst forth from her mother’s womb with double D’s, short-shorts, duel wielding pistols and raiding tombs? (I could be wrong)
Also, shut up, it’s Robotnik.
It was the specific way it appeared they were doing it (at least in the trailers, gameplay demos etc) that was putting me off. I get that she wasn’t going to be a badass in her origin story but the flailing, stumbling, constantly screaming Lara they were presenting was just jarring.
Pretty happy to see I was wrong about it all though, now that I’ve played the game.
The way I saw it was that Lara went through Hell to become the character we’re familiar with.
If she took it all like a trooper it wouldn’t seem as torturous and thus the transformation would be less dramatic.
I would expect a young, inexperience and fearful person to stumble and scream in those situations.
Definitely. I was being pretty irrational about it!