3 Overrated Gaming Franchises That Have Survived on Hype More Than Innovation

by

Gaming has always been a hotbed of innovation, constantly pushing boundaries with new gameplay ideas and design choices. This willingness to take risks keeps the industry fresh and leads to exciting new games. However, some popular franchises prefer to stick with what works, leaning on their existing fans and strong marketing instead of trying new things. While these series are often well-established and successful, their lack of innovation can ultimately hold the entire gaming industry back.

Certain long-running series continue to sell well and stay popular even without changing much. They rely on their established names, while newer or smaller companies are the ones truly trying new things – though they often get lost in the shadow of these bigger brands. Currently, three franchises particularly stand out as succeeding more on reputation than actual new ideas.

3. Halo

When Halo launched in 2001, it revolutionized console first-person shooters. Before Halo, these games on consoles weren’t known for their quality, but *Halo: Combat Evolved* proved what could happen with a truly innovative approach. Bungie’s excellent gameplay and cinematic storytelling helped the Xbox establish itself and compete with giants like Sony and Nintendo. While the series initially thrived on new ideas, problems started to appear after Bungie was no longer involved. *Halo 4* was a key moment, as the franchise began to prioritize impressive visuals over meaningful content. The stories became less daring, the multiplayer felt repetitive, and 343 Industries, who now control the series, increasingly relied on familiar elements instead of developing fresh, original ideas.

Despite being hyped as a return to its roots – a clear acknowledgment that the *Halo* series had become predictable – *Halo Infinite* didn’t really revitalize the franchise. The grappling hook, while enjoyable, wasn’t groundbreaking; similar mechanics existed in games from the 1990s. Its open world felt uninspired and lacked the depth of similar games released years prior. *Halo* still gets attention thanks to its well-known name, but it hasn’t meaningfully contributed to the gaming industry in a long time, and hasn’t been a leader for over a decade. Instead of pioneering new ideas, it’s been relying on established trends, hindering the potential for a truly innovative evolution of the shooter genre. It’s disappointing, considering its history.

2. Call of Duty

Call of Duty has definitely left its mark on popular culture. Games like *Modern Warfare* and *Black Ops* were once leaders in competitive online gaming. However, the series has become predictable in recent years. Each new release from Activision feels very similar to the last, with minor changes being presented as big improvements. Ultimately, the focus seems to be more on earning money than on truly innovative gameplay.

The issue isn’t simply that the gaming landscape feels stuck, but that Call of Duty’s continued success puts pressure on other developers. It’s tempting for studios to try and replicate Call of Duty’s profits, but this is leading to a flood of similar shooters that prioritize flashy graphics over meaningful gameplay. Call of Duty has popularized systems like battle passes and constant cosmetic updates, and these focus on making money rather than enhancing the player experience. To make matters worse, players continue to buy these cosmetics, perpetuating the cycle. While new Call of Duty games still sell incredibly well, it’s not because they’re innovative – it’s because of strong marketing and hype, which unfortunately overshadows truly original games.

1. Pokémon

Pokémon is incredibly popular, but it hasn’t evolved much creatively. The basic gameplay has remained largely the same since the 1990s. While nostalgia and brand recognition drive sales, the lack of innovation is becoming increasingly noticeable. Recent games like *Sword and Shield* and *Scarlet and Violet* attempted new things, but technical issues and a resistance to updating the core gameplay revealed how much the series is lagging behind other RPGs. The problem isn’t a lack of ability to innovate; it’s that the market doesn’t seem to *need* it. People will continue to buy Pokémon games simply because they *are* Pokémon games.

It’s incredibly disappointing to see Pokémon underperform, especially considering all the advantages Game Freak has. They have years of experience, a dedicated fanbase, and strong financial backing. However, instead of taking risks and creating truly innovative gameplay, they consistently rely on familiar, safe formulas. They seem comfortable with this approach because Pokémon games always sell well, regardless of whether they push boundaries. This lack of innovation isn’t just a problem for Pokémon fans; it’s arguably hindered the entire monster-collecting genre, leaving other developers to lead the way in meaningful game design.

These popular game franchises actually *need* strong competition to stay great. When other studios push boundaries, it forces giants like Halo, Call of Duty, and Pokémon to improve and try new things. Halo was best when other shooters were raising the bar, and Call of Duty flourished when challenged to innovate. Now, Pokémon faces the risk of being overshadowed by new, creative monster-collecting games. Without that competitive pressure, these franchises will likely rely too much on past successes and marketing, hindering real progress and ultimately harming the gaming industry.

What do you think? Leave a comment below and join the conversation now in the ComicBook Forum!

Read More

2025-09-28 17:10