At 12/2/12 10:04 AM, Bahamut wrote:
At 11/28/12 12:22 PM, Ihatedapatriots wrote:
Most of them do, but Sonic and Silent Hill have been particularly bad.Silent Hill was the first games series on my mind before anything else. I can still say stuff like Final Fantasy, Crash and Spyro went downhill but if there's any that have fallen so hard after their classics, it's Silent Hill. At least I'll always have the first three games to play whenever I want.
The problem with Silent Hill compared to the others is that the original developers stopped making them, which really should have been the end of the game, not have idiot Americans with no understanding of horror dig it up and attempt to keep it alive.
I do have to agree with Spyro and Crash a lot, as Spyro 2: Gateway to Glimmer was one of my first and favourite PS1 games and probably the first to get 100% on, it was so fun and then when it came to the PS2 Dragonfly one I just really couldn't stand what happened to it, it was just like they ripped all the fun out of the games, which was weird since it wasn't that different but it was just like the heart of the game wasn't there. Crash was similar with Crash 2 being the best again but then by the time it got to PS2 it was meh.
I find it really odd that there are people going on about wanting new games in franchises that are years old, even to the point of having a petition. I saw once a petition for a new Medievil game...I really can't comprehend why anyone would want that, sure the first game was amazing, the second less so but still good. But do they honestly think that after 10+ years shoving a petition into the hands of the designers to tell them to make another would make it any good? They would have made another one if they thought it would work...