And why can't Forza 3 out-perform GT5?  Why can't Killzone 2 go toe to toe with Halo 3?  Why is Splinter Cell a MGS clone?

I like coining phrases, so here comes a new one:  "Crown Prince Syndrome".  Final Fantasy has it.  Metal Gear Solid has it.  Halo has it.  And now, most prominently, Grand Turismo 5 has it, over Forza 3... despite a CNET poll rating excitement for Forza over GT, and a TheSixthAxis story questioning the credibility of CNET.  (Of course, Turn 10 might be skewing the results by offering exclusive content to voters.) Anyway, some people might call this CPS the "halo effect" (unrelated to Halo the game) when the game actually comes out, but I classify the phenomenon as being distinctly different prior to release.

Just because a game has been awesome in the past has only a probabilistic effect on the performance of future iterations.  The fact is that Forza 3 MIGHT be better than GT5.  Of course, I would still put my money on GT5 being the more popular... and even being measurably better.

But what I'm getting at here is that these royal lineages... games that are automatically "great" as soon as they are announced... really have to stop.  Genres don't have a royal lineage any more than US Presidents or UK PMs do.  Each entry in each genre should stand on it's own and be evaluated on it's own.  You can certainly be a fan of a specific game and use that as a reason to buy it, but that shouldn't curb your enthusiasm for another game in the same genre, especially to the point that any other game is an affront to the monarchy.

Furthermore, continuing my hypocritical war on the "armchair analyst", you probably aren't a paid analyst and probably aren't a stockholder in these companies, so you should chill out and let the people who get paid for their analysis be the ones sicking their necks out.

Why be possibly wrong when no one is breathing down your neck to pick a side in the first place?

Written by :

edgeofblade

 

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites