When are reboots ok, Holla Forums?

When are reboots ok, Holla Forums?
When might they be necessary?
What is the better option in any case? A soft reboot or a hard reboot?
Is something like the Zelda series just an example of a game that's rebooted all the damn time?
Why the fuck do fighting games have storylines?

A reboot is good when you've finished reinstalling your drivers.

Command and Conquer 4.

That shit only happens because OS developers are lazy.

That normally indicates the people who made a series good (assuming it was ever good) were run out of the company and that the game is a shitty corporate cashcow.
When they are good games.
Normally when a game is dragging along a pile of shitty lore that interferes with gameplay.

Never.

Never.

A reboot is good when technology has progressed far enough to make the reboot drastically better. See: Ninja Gaiden

Reboots are necessarily good if you want to still work with an IP or story, but for whatever reason cannot work with the base material in its entirety.
EX: Zeldo games where essentially they plop link in a different land every game, because while the core mechanics are good, the same locales would be rather exhausting to replay over and over with marginally improved gameplay.

Both hard and soft reebots are ok
They just need a heavy amount of time after the OG and the right design philosophies.

Soft reebot should streamline streamline not dumb down and improve even if just slightly over the OG while being faithful to the core mechanics and asthetics, with some creative freedom if theres space for it.

Strider and Double Dragon Neon are good examples of this.

Hard reebot should just be a good modern game with some references to the older titles and some fanservice.

Are you implying that the original Ninja Gaiden trilogy is anything else but amazing? Because those are fighting words.
Also aren't the NES games still sort of in continuity with the new games?

maybe you should consider why Double Dragon 4 came and went unnoticed?

sometimes, ninja gaiden black was pretty good.

anything related to the kernel is okay to reboot if you want the new shit to run.

Reboots are only okay if the original was utter shit.

This. I'de love to see a reboot of a lot of games that had some potential that fell flat. Reboots should expand on that potential and fix prior issues while breathing new air into older titles.

Fallout 3 then?

Oblivion for me but yea. If somebody got their hands on both of the titles and completely reworked them from the ground up while adding a lot of modding tools without a poc engine that could barely run shit without bugs and issues, I'de play the fuck out of it. Both games have solid ground work though. The ideas are there they just need better thought and direction put into them. And then they need to be applied as an RPG game. Maybe one day when making vidya is easy as hell somebody will get around to it. Most of the mods that completely remake the game are full of drama queens though.

whenever, as long as the final product is fun and not just a nostalgia cash grab

What does Double Dragon have to do with Ninja Gaiden?

Holy, I was making some poor attempt at bait and you actually agreed.
You unironically believe Fallout 3 and Oblivion are nothing but hot trash and that they improve on their predecessors?
For anything they added they removed twoce as much.

MK's 2011 reboot was probably the best thing to happen to the series

Too bad about X though

What? We're talking about games that are shit but could be brought up to greatness with better direction. I don't understand what you're getting at here, I never said the prior games were worse.

When they're necessary and well done
A series with a very long running continuity can benefit from a well handled reboot; shrugging off the existing canon while maintaining the world rules established in the previous entries. Another good reason would be if recent entries were so shitty they're toxic and soil the entire franchise. Usually in that case they'll let the property sit or a few years to give people time to forget. Silent Hill, Resident Evil, Duke Nukem, Command and Conquer, Fable, Dead Space, and most Tom Clancy series are some examples of franchises that could benefit from a reboot for one or both of those reasons. In the case of Prince of Persia it was tried twice I think and neither was a very big success.
It depends on how much of the existing material they want to keep. For example:
NuDoom is a soft reboot. It briefly acknowledges the previous games before diverging and doing its own thing. Same protagonist operating under more or less the same rules in the same setting but enough of a departure from the old series that it can't quite be called a sequel.
DmC is a hard reboot. The established universe has been almost entirely done away with and the aim is to cash in on a well known property create something new using the old foundation.
LoZ is an example of a series that isn't concerned with continuity. SMT is the same way. There are some direct sequels but generally instead of a continuous plot they're linked by themes, gameplay, and narrative structure. Link goes on adventures to defeat Ganon. Protagonist gathers demons and takes a transitory world in the direction he feels is best. etc.
People with little interest in multiplayer might still buy the game if there's the promise of a good amount of single player content.

Fallout 3 was pretty much a reboot and I mentioned it just as you and another user were talking about how reboots were only good when the previous games were shot.

I wasn't mentioning that Fallout 3 could be improved, I was mentioning that Fallout 3 improved over 1 and 2, as a joke.

Well I wouldn't put together Fallout 3 as a Reboot in the typical sense. It copies a lot from the original but it's ultimately it's own (worse) thing. Poe's law at work either way.

No. That's only spouted by casuals who don't actually play the games. Almost every one makes quite clear where it lies compared to at least one other game in the series before it. The closest it gets to not doing this is Link to the Past, and nobody ever claims that's a reboot.

Reboots in games are pointless because the story shouldn't be the focus, and you can't "reboot" gameplay. Mortal Kombat didn't do a real reboot anyway, it just advanced the story after going back in time and changing the past. Doing a true reboot is usually dumb because convoluted lore is fun, and it can't get in the way, like someone else here has said, because it's a video game, the story shouldn't be the focus anyway. You reboot because you want to do a story that you can't do anymore because of previous stuff, but if that's happening in a video game, oh well, do a different story, it's not like it's the main point or anything.


Except that's exactly what happens.

When you're a jew, because jews are soulless husks incapable of creativity, empathy, or joy. Poorly mimicking something done by a human being is the closest they can get to being alive, which allows them to briefly forget themselves, giving them a brief respite from their unending desire to commit suicide; or more commonly (since they lack the nerve to take their own lives), to be put to death by one of the many people they wronged. (This is why holocaust porn is hugely popular in Israel.)