Note: This became a lot longer than I had originally intended. Wall of Text incoming: you've been warned.

It seems to me lately that Developers aren't happy with the fans of their established series, so much so that they want someone else's fans and badly. Who's fans are they after? Well, to be honest, I haven't quite figured that one out yet, and I don't think that the Developers have either. However, in attempting to gain new fans, they more often than not seem to be losing fans by changing their series to better appeal to a different demographic of gamers. This trend isn't new, however its becoming systemic and the rule, rather than the exception. What do we, the gamers, think about this? Is it good that Developers are trying new things, trying to bring more people 'to the fold'? Or, is it spitting in the face of fans?

As some of the more console friendly gamers here might know, Final Fantasy XIII was recently released on the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360. This marks the first time a Final Fantasy has appeared on a Microsoft console, and the first entry in the main cannon since XII, which was frankly despised by long time series fans yet hailed by critics. The key feature of any Final Fantasy entry has always been its epic plot, however XII's plot was almost universally labelled as boring and uninvolved. It also made serious changes to the long-established Japanese-RPG Turn Based Battle System by introducing a programmable series of "If/then" statements to automate your party's members in battle and allowed the player to only directly control the main character, who could also be automated if desired. This resulted in what has been labelled the worst entry in the series. This was thought to be a rare mistep from the beloved franchise, however XIII's reception has revealed that its repeated nearly all of the misteps from XII, and added a few new ones. Long time fans believe this is Square-Enix attempting to make the series more accessible in a bid to lure in non-RPG fans to the series, as the new battle system in XIII has been compared to a cross between God of War and the Turn Based systems of old, while the game is being universally agreed upon as one of the most linear games ever made, and one that appears to try to remove any confusion about where a player might need to go next in the story. One comment which has stuck out to me was when a series fan said XIII was like a Michael Bay movie: turn your brain off to enjoy a dumb and flashy piece of entertainment. Considering that Final Fantasy games survive or die on their indepth and, often, long winded plots, this seems counter-productive to what long time fans would want, at least to me.

Anyway, I've mentioned Final Fantasy so extensively for a single reason: Final Fantasy is simply one of the biggest names in gaming. Each entry in the series goes on to sell millions upon millions of copies, often debuting at number one in appropriate sales charts. As Final Fantasy is the most successful JRPG series of all time, and a contender for the most popular RPG series ever made, why have the Developers felt the need to make changes designed to 'expand the appeal' or make the game more 'accessible'? Wasn't it successful enough already? Considering most smaller JRPG's aspire to be Final Fantasy, often to their detriment, who is Final Fantasy trying to be, and why?

Another note-worthy release recently has been Supreme Commander 2. The original Supreme Commander was a hardcore RTS by design and made no apologies about it. It was a Real Time Strategy game with the focus on large scale conflicts to ensure players focused on the bigger picture rather than the moment-to-moment battles that other RTS games like C&C and Starcraft focus on. The sequel, however, has changed the design to ensure maximum accessibility, most note worthy in its economy, base building, unit segmentation and automation features. Supreme Commander alienated the mass-RTS-Starcraft loving crowd with its more cerebral brand of strategy, however this was clearly the developer's intention. It was successful enough within its own right, earned a stand-alone expansion pack, and is still played today with an active multiplayer community. The sequel appears to have in turn alienated the fans of the original in a bid to lure in the mass-RTS-Starcraft loving crowd that the original saught to exclude. Was this the right way to go?

I, personally, can understand the want of a Developer for their game(s) to succeed, both on an artistic and financial level. I can also understand the idea of improvement and change in a sequel - fans want bigger and better the second time around, or in Final Fantasy's case, the thirteenth time around, and Developers probably want to try new things. None of this is something new and strange and shouldn't come as a suprise to anyone with an understanding of the games industry as a whole. Developers have a successful game, clearly the fans want another because they enjoyed the first one so much and so they make another game and improve upon it, adding in new bits and pieces and take out stuff that didn't work or wasn't favoured. Makes perfect sense. The problem I've mentioned above seems to arise when Developers either change too much, or try and appeal to new markets or more people.

Now, change isn't a bad thing. Resident Evil is one of my personal favourite series, yet after the three original games on the Playstation One the series was in serious danger of stagnating and dying off. Then comes along Resident Evil 4. Before it was released, I was a neigh-sayer.: a focus on swarms of Zombies instead of each one posing a massive threat? Change to over-the-shoulder gunplay? I was ready to burn Capcom to the ground for destroying my beloved Resident Evil! Then, I played it. Resident Evil 4 now stands as one of my personal favourite games of all time, and is my favourite entry in the series. They changed so much and yet clearly knew what they needed above anything else to remain true to their fans: feeling, and they nailed it. When Resident Evil 5 came along, I was excited as all hell to see what they would do with 4's way of playing on today's hardware. Then, I played it. Resident Evil 5 is, in my opinion, one of the worst games ever made. It plays very similar to 4, however by focusing on multiplayer - and forcing an incompotent A.I. partner to destroy the single player game if you don't play multiplayer - they destroyed the most important aspect: feeling. This, to me, is the main area that Developers fail to recognise when re-designing their series for the next instalment.

Re-invention can be a good thing, as previous reinventions have shown, however it must be done with care and grace and perserve the feeling invoked by the series. When Developers create a sequel to a game, they do so to use the name of the previous instalments. Final Fantasy's numerous entries have little to no connection beyond a few running themes or cameo characters - the name Final Fantasy, however, means a lot. It's not the continuing adventures of one character or another, but rather the continuation of the design principles of the previous entries - when I say Final Fantasy, people know exactly the kind of game I'm talking about. This is what was changed in the unpopullar entires, and this is why they lost the feeling of the classics - and pissed of their fan base in turn. Supreme Commander 2 is the same - it changed the 'how' of the game without capturing the feeling of the previous 'SupCom' games by trying to make 'SupCom 2' something it clearly wasn't.

Trying new things is the way our industry moves forward, and all Developers should try new things. However, when doing new things with beloved entries, such as the case with the games I've mentioned, I feel Developers need to appease their established fan base first. Why? Without their fans, they simply wouldn't be in business to create the sequel, and a little love goes a long way. The way to show that love isn't with flashy graphics, radically re-designing the game or adding features that no one asked for (side note: seriously, who thought multiplayer is what survival horror needed to stay fresh?) or things that alienate established fans. Its a fine line to walk - however Developers long ago discovered the escape goat for this; the sub-title. Calling an entry in an established series something else affords you both the use of its established name and room enough to go crazy with new features. Final Fantasy: Tactics, Civilization: Revolution, Starcraft: Ghost (cancelled, but the idea is the same). I'd rather a hundred spin-off titles I can ignore (Resident Evil: Survivor, anyone?) than a numbered entry in the cannon that is a blemish that will remain, and possibly cost the Developer dearly enough that a redeeming entry isn't financially viable.

Maybe I'm just a fanboy, who wants more of the same. I don't think I am, but it's difficult to have an opinion on one's own opinion - so, what does everyone else think? Should Developers be a little more careful with our favourite franchises? Do they owe us, their fans, anything at all to warrant such care? Or should Developers be free to go crazy with their series and add or take features as they see fit, radically changing things to achieve better financial success or bring in new fans or do anything that pops into their heads - they are their series after all, are they not?