miracle.flame: Looks like there is actually someone who understands the topic rather then focusing on adjectives used and messenger himself. I can see how there are many eager to respond out of topic while having no clue what is it really about.
rjbuffchix: I don't know why OP is getting low-rated because their point seems rather obvious to me and I agree with it:
Companies are capitalizing on nostalgia, using the names of classics (or at least personnel that worked on them) to entice people to buy the new games being made. Yet, the new games are lacking in comparison to the classics. So perhaps it is better to support totally novel games like Disco Elysium which arguably offer a better value proposition.
Another point being made here is that when a new game comes out and has been heavily marketed using nostalgia of the classics, if the new game with that marketing is disappointing, then people who haven't played the classics yet might not even bother, since they were disappointed with the newest iteration of that franchise.
miracle.flame: The word "lacking" used here is as subtle as my words were hyperbolic. Yet sacrificing names this way should be punishable. Just imagine The game Watch Dogs would be named The Matrix. Is it OK to introduce product of such quality targeting particular audience to be named that way? If you didn't watch The Matrix movie back in the day you would be equally clueless on the topic yapping those "if you don't like it, don't buy it" like a parrot or an ape incapable of meaningful and creative sentences of your own that would actually address the point.
I get what you are trying to say but I do not agree with your statement that you made in your original posting.
