Valkyria Revolution, on paper, looked like a good bet. Taking on more of an action-RPG style, part of me was thinking “OK, this’ll be like Monster Hunter with Valkyria Chronicles aesthetics. Alright, this’ll be fun!”
It...wasn’t. Lots of loading, excessive cutscenes, combat which was kind of crappy...I’ll admit, I didn’t even get to the first save point after starting a new game because I was bored out of my mind by it (that and I started playing the game at around half three in the morning and it took so long that I still hadn’t reached the first save point by four o’clock, resulting in me just skipping cutscenes out of boredom and finding that I’d had to skip about four cutscenes to FINALLY see the save point).
Thankfully, I know that Valkyria Chronicles IV will play closer to the original game, so this has taken some of the disappointment out of Valkyria Revolution (which can thank its lucky stars that I did not have a way to play it on release, because I would have torn it a new one!). However, this all got me thinking: when does a desire to innovate in franchises actually destroy what made them so good?
Well, this is a tricky question to answer, because it’s all very subjective: one man’s step too far is another man’s perfect decision. Plus, it would be a lie to say that all attempts to innovate a game are bad decisions: as fans of Resident Evil 4 and Sonic Adventure will no doubt be able to attest, innovation can sometimes result in a truly fantastic game which sets a new high level for the franchise.
However, there is certainly a grain of truth in the comment that innovation is a tricky thing to get right in an established franchise, as, even when you succeed, you sacrifice what made many people become fans of the franchise in the first place and risk alienating them even as your success pays off dividends. Since this is quite difficult to nail down and explain, I’m going to use a couple of examples from franchises which have very split fandoms to hopefully showcase how this can happen.
Let’s start with the obvious example: Final Fantasy. Many a Final Fantasy fan (or gamer in general) will be aware of the notoriously unpleasable fanbase the franchise has: merely mentioning some titles can bring out hordes of people willing to argue to the death as to why said game is the best/worst game in the franchise. Even getting a consensus of which games are the best to start with can result in VERY different answers: I asked this question among a few of my friends who know the franchise once and the answers I got were striking in that none of them agreed on where to start: one friend said III, one friend said VII, one friend said X and one friend said IV.
(Incidentally, I originally picked VII, then switched over to X because I noticed that the gameplay from it inspired The Lord of the Rings: The Third Age, a game I actually enjoyed a lot while growing up, and features a main character who is essentially a sci-fi basketball star. No regrets from me on that move!)
Having taken a quick bit of time to play a bit of every Final Fantasy game I could get my hands on (so, every mainline game available on Steam except for XI, XII, XIV and XV and the spin-off games Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions, Final Fantasy Explorers, Dissidia Final Fantasy and Final Fantasy Type-0 HD: I’m also counting Adventures of Mana, Bravely Default and Bravely Second as part of this, though their actual status as Final Fantasy games is very much in the “not actually part of it” vein of things) for research into this, it is VERY easy to see how this might occur...and, equally, how the Final Fantasy franchise can end up so split on everything. To say the franchise is diverse would be underselling it, but that comes with the problem that it is nigh-on impossible to please everyone because what some people want won’t be what other people want. Even going by just the classic games, you can spot shifts in how the series handled itself: Final Fantasy I is relatively simple in terms of how it works and the combat is reasonably straightforward, but, even as early as Final Fantasy IV, you can see the shift towards when the franchise is argued to have hit its peak in Final Fantasy VII (the slowly filling bars that judged when you can make actions mixed with real-time combat was introduced there, for one thing). So it is very easy to see why someone could look at even the classic games and not feel that they are what would be wanted by the player (indeed, as someone who doesn’t like the bars system in VII, I found myself disappointed to learn that IV actually used the system first, though, admittedly, for most European readers, this would probably have been a surprise when IV was originally released: remember, the entire PAL region, which includes Europe, did not get any of the mainline Final Fantasy games on their initial release until VII and piracy was INCREDIBLY difficult in those days due to the internet being in its infancy, meaning anyone who played any of the earlier Final Fantasy games before VII was released likely did so on a copy of the game imported from the US).
Once you start getting past the classic era, the games REALLY start getting controversial. Final Fantasy VII, ironically, can be seen as the cause of this, being the first game to explicitly break from the fantasy setting (not to say that the earlier games stretched fantasy credibility somewhat, like the metallic walkers in VI) and being so successful that, for Europeans, the Final Fantasy series became known for its sci-fi setting...NOT its original fantasy setting. As such, the shift back to a fantasy focused setting was inevitably going to cause controversy when it happened for Europeans because the sci-fi setting is what they first knew the franchise for...but sticking with the sci-fi setting would inevitably cause controversy for Americans and the Japanese, because the fantasy setting is what THEY first knew the franchise for.
Let’s start with the obvious example: Final Fantasy. Many a Final Fantasy fan (or gamer in general) will be aware of the notoriously unpleasable fanbase the franchise has: merely mentioning some titles can bring out hordes of people willing to argue to the death as to why said game is the best/worst game in the franchise. Even getting a consensus of which games are the best to start with can result in VERY different answers: I asked this question among a few of my friends who know the franchise once and the answers I got were striking in that none of them agreed on where to start: one friend said III, one friend said VII, one friend said X and one friend said IV.
(Incidentally, I originally picked VII, then switched over to X because I noticed that the gameplay from it inspired The Lord of the Rings: The Third Age, a game I actually enjoyed a lot while growing up, and features a main character who is essentially a sci-fi basketball star. No regrets from me on that move!)
Having taken a quick bit of time to play a bit of every Final Fantasy game I could get my hands on (so, every mainline game available on Steam except for XI, XII, XIV and XV and the spin-off games Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions, Final Fantasy Explorers, Dissidia Final Fantasy and Final Fantasy Type-0 HD: I’m also counting Adventures of Mana, Bravely Default and Bravely Second as part of this, though their actual status as Final Fantasy games is very much in the “not actually part of it” vein of things) for research into this, it is VERY easy to see how this might occur...and, equally, how the Final Fantasy franchise can end up so split on everything. To say the franchise is diverse would be underselling it, but that comes with the problem that it is nigh-on impossible to please everyone because what some people want won’t be what other people want. Even going by just the classic games, you can spot shifts in how the series handled itself: Final Fantasy I is relatively simple in terms of how it works and the combat is reasonably straightforward, but, even as early as Final Fantasy IV, you can see the shift towards when the franchise is argued to have hit its peak in Final Fantasy VII (the slowly filling bars that judged when you can make actions mixed with real-time combat was introduced there, for one thing). So it is very easy to see why someone could look at even the classic games and not feel that they are what would be wanted by the player (indeed, as someone who doesn’t like the bars system in VII, I found myself disappointed to learn that IV actually used the system first, though, admittedly, for most European readers, this would probably have been a surprise when IV was originally released: remember, the entire PAL region, which includes Europe, did not get any of the mainline Final Fantasy games on their initial release until VII and piracy was INCREDIBLY difficult in those days due to the internet being in its infancy, meaning anyone who played any of the earlier Final Fantasy games before VII was released likely did so on a copy of the game imported from the US).
Once you start getting past the classic era, the games REALLY start getting controversial. Final Fantasy VII, ironically, can be seen as the cause of this, being the first game to explicitly break from the fantasy setting (not to say that the earlier games stretched fantasy credibility somewhat, like the metallic walkers in VI) and being so successful that, for Europeans, the Final Fantasy series became known for its sci-fi setting...NOT its original fantasy setting. As such, the shift back to a fantasy focused setting was inevitably going to cause controversy when it happened for Europeans because the sci-fi setting is what they first knew the franchise for...but sticking with the sci-fi setting would inevitably cause controversy for Americans and the Japanese, because the fantasy setting is what THEY first knew the franchise for.
This alone would be enough to fracture a fanbase purely based on how radically different both settings are, but then you start adding the spin-offs, like Final Fantasy Explorers (like Monster Hunter/action-RPGs and Final Fantasy? You’ll enjoy this!), Final Fantasy Tactics (like turn-based strategy games and Final Fantasy? You’ll enjoy this!), the Dissidia series (like fighting games and Final Fantasy? You’ll enjoy this!), the Bravely Default spiritual successor series (like the artistic style of Final Fantasy IV through to VI, but want a turn-based system rooted in I through to III that is also unique? You’ll enjoy this!) and the not-actually-Final Fantasy-games-despite-being-released-under-the-name-originally like Adventures of Mana (like The Legend of Zelda and Final Fantasy? You’ll enjoy this!) and things start turning very messy. Like it or not, the Final Fantasy franchise is large enough and spans so many game genres (plus other media, like the movie and anime stuff) that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to make something that will actually please every fan of the franchise...and a vocal minority of fans WILL make their voices heard when Square Enix releases a Final Fantasy game, whether in praise or in condemnation of whatever their new offering is.
Since I feel like I’m roasting Final Fantasy fans really heavily despite the focus being on a more general discussion, let’s shift gears a little bit and talk about another JRPG franchise for a few minutes: the Shin Megami Tensei franchise. Most of you reading this will probably be scratching your heads a little bit and going “What’s that?”
Well...ever heard of the Persona franchise? Well, that is a sub series of the Shin Megami Tensei franchise, which is itself a continuation of the original Megami Tensei franchise that never left Japan (and marketed as such in Japan, but I’m gonna use the non-Japanese marketing title for ease). Now you know, and knowing is just the start of summing up the larger Shin Megami Tensei franchise: aside from the previously mentioned three series, there’s also the Last Bible sub series (none of which ever reached Europe), the Majin Tensei sub series (which never left Japan at all), the Devil Summoner sub series (which got the 3DS remake of one of the games and a PS2 action-RPG that hasn’t had a PSN re-release in Europe despite the U.S. and Japan getting the game on PSN several years ago), the Devil Children sub series (which never left Japan), various mobile spin-offs (which never left Japan), the Digital Devil Saga duo, the Devil Survivor duo, Jack Bros. (which never reached Europe) and a crossover with the Fire Emblem series. While the biggest of these connected series is easily the Persona series, there are a lot of fans of the original series...and not all of them are fans of the other. Even in the Persona series, there’s a split between fans of the first two games and fans of Persona 3 onwards and fans of the spin-offs of Persona 4 and detractors of those same spin-offs: throw that in with the larger Shin Megami Tensei franchise and fans of the other sub series who don’t necessarily like the other sub series and you have what I can only describe as like the axis forces in WWII: all of them united under the same larger banner, but not necessarily liking each other and all too capable of turning on the others if provoked too much.
Fortunately, Atlus are sensible enough not to diversify too heavily from what they are known for, so, while the new settings for games and additional elements to the core experience might differ from sub series to sub series, the games offer the game basic experience when you think about it. Some of the Persona spin-offs do break from this (Persona 4: Dancing All Night springs to mind) and there are non-video game media for the larger franchise to know about (including two stage plays for Persona 4...no, seriously, I did not make that up!), but you’ll generally have the same basic experience when you play a game in the larger Shin Megami Tensei franchise: an RPG where you play someone who has to face off against demons by summoning other demons. So the split isn’t quite as dramatic as it might seem in comparison to the Final Fantasy series.
None of this necessarily makes the Shin Megami Tensei franchise better than the Final Fantasy franchise, but the core point is that the Final Fantasy franchise is fractured because of how far the games can change on a gameplay level alone just following the main franchise, let alone the spin-offs. By contrast, you can pick up a game across the larger Shin Megami Tensei franchise and there’s relatively little on the gameplay front which will trip players of the other sub series up too badly or will leave them frustrated because it doesn’t play like what they’re used to.
Not all franchise problems are down purely to the games, though. Take the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise. Now, admittedly, the Sonic the Hedgehog games do have reasons why they can cause controversy today (the shift from 2D platforming to 3D platforming, the franchise having many games which are poorly received, poor attempts at storytelling, variety which actually detracts from what made the original games so beloved), but this doesn’t explain just how toxic the fandom has become on its own, because many well known franchises have gone through the same thing and do not have a franchise as vitriolic as the Sonic fandom (the Rayman franchise springs to mind: even when you bring the rabbids into the discussion, things don’t get anywhere near as bad as in the Sonic fandom). No, the Sonic fandom is also split because of how Sega handled the license outside of the games. For a good while in the 90s, there were MANY Sonic productions which had their own continuities and approaches to telling a story: several different comic series ran simultaneously and there were two different Sonic TV shows which were very different in terms of the details (this isn’t counting stuff like the anime movie, too!). So, the Sonic fandom essentially was split between all of these interpretations and liked and disliked them to various extents, but, united against a common enemy in the form of the Mario franchise and Sega continuing to keep continuity loose, this didn’t really cause any major issues.
Then Sega decided to change things with Sonic Adventure, essentially giving a canon personality to their characters at last through voice acting and stories, starting to put together greater creative control over the franchise by declaring many of these other media productions non-canon and then, due to the failure of the Sega Dreamcast hot off the heels of the gross mishandling of the Sega Saturn, financially collapsed, forcing them to leave console development and partner up with Nintendo, the makers of the Mario franchise and Sega’s nemesis during the era.
Needless to say, this essentially removed the uniting force that kept the franchise’s fans from tearing each other apart and poured salt into the wounds of those fans who had had their preferred interpretations of the characters declared non-canon, resulting in the franchise’s infamous infighting. While this infighting has almost certainly been exacerbated by the quality of Sonic games generally being less-than-spectacular and the changes in gameplay, this theory certainly explains why it tends to be those who did not grow up playing Sonic games from the start and weren’t massive fans during the whole “Sega does what Nintendon’t” rivalry who tend to be the more easygoing fans who are just happy to see the blue speedster doing his thing and enjoy the games for what they are. Not all of them, admittedly, but it certainly would explain a lot, as fans who don’t remember this rivalry don’t really have much reason to make a big fuss or have any reason to hold any grudge towards Nintendo over it.
Vocal fans of Sonic, though, tend to be remarkable similar to bronies in some regards. Now, as an ex-brony who got through a tough time thanks to watching the show and is aware that the show isn’t as popular as it once was, I am going to avoid being too critical of the fandom (especially because I know many people will see doing so as beating a dead horse). However, it is certainly true that vocal bronies and vocal Sonic fans tend to be very similar in that they both tend to be very hostile to criticism of their beloved franchise. Yet Sonic fans arguably have more right to do so: for bronies, this can be quite strange, since their franchise has a lot of good reason to be held up as a fine example of how taking a new approach to a franchise can work wonders.
Despite this, the My Little Pony fandom can also become very vitriol when it comes to comparing earlier instalments of the franchise to Friendship is Magic, even though, from a objective standpoint, it’s easy to argue that Friendship is Magic has the most effort put into making it a good show (whether it actually is good or not, I’ll leave up to reader interpretation). After all, earlier instalments of the franchise were focused purely on selling toy ponies to small girls (to be fair, Transformers was basically the same thing for guys) while Friendship is Magic aimed for a more universal audience that isn’t necessarily those interested in toy ponies. This makes it a show which isn’t purely a vehicle for new toys, but a show which can develop as the writers want it to, which, when you think about it, is an objectively better way of designing a show: instead of pulling a new character out of the hat every week and coming up with ways to explain increasingly broken powers mandated from on high, the show can make those decisions as it chooses and do so whenever it feels comfortable doing so.
So, why the controversy among the fandom if the show is objectively better handled? Well, basically, gen 3 of My Little Pony (for reference, Friendship is Magic, the spin-off Equestria Girls and last year's movie comprise gen 4...and that's just the animated stuff, too!) and My Little Pony Tales tend to see Friendship is Magic as too heavy on pop culture references, too heavy on the slapstick and being too dark while fans of Friendship is Magic tend to see those two as being too girly (as hypocritical as that might sound on paper, remember that, before Friendship is Magic, the franchise was aimed EXCLUSIVELY towards small girls, so there is a valid point there!) and basically being poorly done on every front. I’m going to avoid personally wading into this debate, but it IS worth noting that the slice of life stories upon which a lot of Friendship is Magic hinges on can be first traced back to My Little Pony Tales, so the likelihood is that My Little Pony Tales had some influence on Friendship is Magic (though this isn't something I've researched to check the truth behind). It is also worth noting that none of the critics of Friendship is Magic seem to argue that it is a poorly animated show!
All of these show that a lack of quality isn’t always a reason for fracturing a fanbase. Yet, as someone who has spent time doing creative writing in his free time, I can definitely understand why creators can feel a change in direction needs to be done even when things are working well: it’s all too easy to get bored of doing the same thing again and again, even if you know you can do it well and it’s what you enjoy doing. For the non-creative sorts, the best way I can sum it up is to ask you to try eating the exact same meal day in and day out, without variety and with nothing else in your diet except for that same meal every time you have something to eat. Doesn’t sound so bad when you’re looking at it, but trust me, after a week or two (maybe a month for the more set-in-your-ways sort), you’ll be craving ANYTHING different.
So, how would you go about doing something innovative with a franchise without this innovation becoming destructive? Well, first of all, identify what must NOT be changed under any circumstances. Sounds like an odd start point, but you’d be surprised how tempting it is to view “innovation” to mean “doing everything different”, which frequently results in an experience which doesn’t feel like it’s actually part of the franchise beyond the skin applied to it. So, identify the core themes that make the franchise what it is (which means, for games, identify the gameplay mechanics which help your franchise stand out as well) and make sure you keep a careful eye to franchise continuity so you don’t do anything which will go against what fans know (unless the entire point is to show how what the series has previously shown to be true is actually a lie, in which case, make sure the new explanation actually makes sense in terms of the impact it had and make sure there’s a good explanation for why the truth has never been revealed), then make sure you keep those in mind during all of the design stages. This will help fans to feel reassured that the creators know what makes the franchise what it is and will hopefully allow for the new elements to be accepted easier.
Secondly, don’t try to make too drastic a jump into something new at first. It’s very tempting to do it, but it’s usually worth making the shift to the new direction gradual so fans have some time to accept the new stuff and you have a better idea of how receptive the fanbase is to the new direction. Sometimes, this might be impossible to do (to use a deliberately ridiculous example, unless you are writing an anthology series or have established the sci-fi elements right from the start, you are not going to be able to shift from historical comedy to sci-fi horror in the same series, no matter how good a writer you are), but, if there is a reasonable overlap between what you are doing and where you are going (like shifting from a turn-based RPG to an action-RPG), then this is definitely the sensible way to go about things! As a good rule of thumb, a shift should ideally take long enough for people to get comfortable with your new direction, but you shouldn’t be making your new audience wait forever for it, so aim for three new instalments (assuming a yearly release schedule, though adjustments should be made based on fan reception and your own schedule) that gradually shift towards the new direction.
Thirdly, don't be afraid to have your innovation be its own separate thing if the new direction seems too much for what you think fans will want, but you still want to make it. To use my silly example earlier, say you want to have a historical comedy transition into a sci-fi horror, but you haven’t established anything that would verify that there is any futuristic side to the historical side or a greater sense of something horrifying behind the historical side in your current series, so the move will understandably look out of left field. OK, then: why not do a new series as a spiritual successor which DOES have those facts hinted at from the start and makes that transition as the instalment goes along? It’s a gamble as to whether that would be allowed in some media and there’s no guarantee it’ll reach the same audience, but it allows you to do that idea in a way which also leaves the original franchise safe from brand name value damage due to the departure of longtime fans if this new move flops. Throw in some mentioned in interviews about it being what you wanted to do with the original franchise, but opted to do as its own thing because you felt it was too drastic a change to go over well there and you could have the entire fandom give it a watch out of curiosity just to see what was so drastic a shift that you felt it had to be its own separate thing, which is exactly what you would want to have happen (especially if the original franchise goes on hiatus or takes a break while the spiritual successor is being made, though expect fan backlash just for not being the original franchise).
Fourthly, be prepared for the likelihood of having to backpedal if the new direction doesn't catch on at all. Now, I’m not talking fandom level here (though a bad fandom reception is certainly worth taking note of), but a more general level: say your new direction is commercially unsuccessful (obviously, in this example, I’m going to assume the flop is successful enough that you can still make follow up works). How you handle it should depend on what fans and critics generally say about it: if they liked it and the new direction just failed to be commercially successful, it’s usually worth sticking with the new direction, as you probably got unlucky through a poorly timed release date or a failure to capture a new audience (and word of mouth could mean that it will catch on during the time between instalments) or got screwed over by the higher ups through poor marketing or bad slot placement (in which case, try asking for permission to have a hand in them next time so you can make sure this doesn't happen again and planning your own marketing for it alongside what the higher ups are doing: even if the first suggestion is shot down, you’ll be able to get some buzz going even if the higher ups choose to ignore it!) and another shot will likely validate your new direction if handled well. Alternatively, if there’s indifference to the new direction (or, worse, strong dislike) on all sides, be prepared to shift back towards the original direction. If there’s a split between critics and fans, it is PROBABLY better to side with the fans and apply the appropriate choice from the above options: after all, they’re the reason you even have a franchise to begin with while there’s a good chance that the critics reviewing it are not fans of the franchise, so the critics won’t necessarily have the same appreciation of the franchise that the fans do and may make suggestions that aren’t what fans would actually want (though keep an eye out for reviews by critics who are fans: if they’re lining up with the other critics, they might have a reason for it which you’ll want to keep in mind for the next instalment!).
Finally, be aware that, even in the best case scenario, there WILL be fans who don’t like the new direction irrespective of how good it is from an objective standpoint. The sad truth is that every new instalment in a franchise will inevitably disappoint someone somewhere, so a minor break will always happen whenever you release something new (even if the reason is complete nonsense when you think about it). The real goal, as such, is to win over as many already established fans as you can (while still keeping things accessible to newcomers, of course). Remember: fans are the lifeblood of the franchise, so even a highly innovative new title which is rewriting the franchise from the ground up to provide something to encourage more people to try the franchise out NEEDS to appeal to these people. This is trickier than it sounds, but, if you approach the new instalment with care, understanding of what has come before and treat the past with respect, you’ll usually find that you’ll get longtime fans on board with it pretty easily!
That’s basically how to make sure innovation doesn't become destructive: move forward and keep seeking to convert a wider audience, but never abandon what made you beloved in the first place and treat your already established fans with respect. Sounds really simple on paper, doesn’t it? Well...need we bring up Fox’s attempt at a Fantastic Four reboot in 2015 or the VERY mixed reception that the DCEU has acquired from most of its cinematic titles? Just saying...
Thirdly, don't be afraid to have your innovation be its own separate thing if the new direction seems too much for what you think fans will want, but you still want to make it. To use my silly example earlier, say you want to have a historical comedy transition into a sci-fi horror, but you haven’t established anything that would verify that there is any futuristic side to the historical side or a greater sense of something horrifying behind the historical side in your current series, so the move will understandably look out of left field. OK, then: why not do a new series as a spiritual successor which DOES have those facts hinted at from the start and makes that transition as the instalment goes along? It’s a gamble as to whether that would be allowed in some media and there’s no guarantee it’ll reach the same audience, but it allows you to do that idea in a way which also leaves the original franchise safe from brand name value damage due to the departure of longtime fans if this new move flops. Throw in some mentioned in interviews about it being what you wanted to do with the original franchise, but opted to do as its own thing because you felt it was too drastic a change to go over well there and you could have the entire fandom give it a watch out of curiosity just to see what was so drastic a shift that you felt it had to be its own separate thing, which is exactly what you would want to have happen (especially if the original franchise goes on hiatus or takes a break while the spiritual successor is being made, though expect fan backlash just for not being the original franchise).
Fourthly, be prepared for the likelihood of having to backpedal if the new direction doesn't catch on at all. Now, I’m not talking fandom level here (though a bad fandom reception is certainly worth taking note of), but a more general level: say your new direction is commercially unsuccessful (obviously, in this example, I’m going to assume the flop is successful enough that you can still make follow up works). How you handle it should depend on what fans and critics generally say about it: if they liked it and the new direction just failed to be commercially successful, it’s usually worth sticking with the new direction, as you probably got unlucky through a poorly timed release date or a failure to capture a new audience (and word of mouth could mean that it will catch on during the time between instalments) or got screwed over by the higher ups through poor marketing or bad slot placement (in which case, try asking for permission to have a hand in them next time so you can make sure this doesn't happen again and planning your own marketing for it alongside what the higher ups are doing: even if the first suggestion is shot down, you’ll be able to get some buzz going even if the higher ups choose to ignore it!) and another shot will likely validate your new direction if handled well. Alternatively, if there’s indifference to the new direction (or, worse, strong dislike) on all sides, be prepared to shift back towards the original direction. If there’s a split between critics and fans, it is PROBABLY better to side with the fans and apply the appropriate choice from the above options: after all, they’re the reason you even have a franchise to begin with while there’s a good chance that the critics reviewing it are not fans of the franchise, so the critics won’t necessarily have the same appreciation of the franchise that the fans do and may make suggestions that aren’t what fans would actually want (though keep an eye out for reviews by critics who are fans: if they’re lining up with the other critics, they might have a reason for it which you’ll want to keep in mind for the next instalment!).
Finally, be aware that, even in the best case scenario, there WILL be fans who don’t like the new direction irrespective of how good it is from an objective standpoint. The sad truth is that every new instalment in a franchise will inevitably disappoint someone somewhere, so a minor break will always happen whenever you release something new (even if the reason is complete nonsense when you think about it). The real goal, as such, is to win over as many already established fans as you can (while still keeping things accessible to newcomers, of course). Remember: fans are the lifeblood of the franchise, so even a highly innovative new title which is rewriting the franchise from the ground up to provide something to encourage more people to try the franchise out NEEDS to appeal to these people. This is trickier than it sounds, but, if you approach the new instalment with care, understanding of what has come before and treat the past with respect, you’ll usually find that you’ll get longtime fans on board with it pretty easily!
That’s basically how to make sure innovation doesn't become destructive: move forward and keep seeking to convert a wider audience, but never abandon what made you beloved in the first place and treat your already established fans with respect. Sounds really simple on paper, doesn’t it? Well...need we bring up Fox’s attempt at a Fantastic Four reboot in 2015 or the VERY mixed reception that the DCEU has acquired from most of its cinematic titles? Just saying...
No comments:
Post a Comment