1. What does the idea of a franchise "returning to its roots" mean to you?
Honestly, nothing. Hearing someone say that is more likely to get an eye-roll from me. It means nothing. It usually comes up when a franchise has either a divided fanbase or is universally considered terrible. It's a platitude dragged out to try to appease long-term fans without actually having to do anything. "Oh good, they're going to make the next one like the old ones." Sure, but in what way?
Like
@Spirit talked about, what makes a thing good is different to everyone who enjoys it. Taking Resident Evil since it's getting singled out here, what aspects of the original game should the devs return to exactly? For people who enjoyed it for the game design then you could say returning to its roots would involve a game set in an isolated location with a recursive design. Well, RE4 has that. You could say it would involve the player teetering on the edge of not having enough ammo and healing items. Well, Revelations has that. You could say it would involve a small inventory that requires careful management. Well, RE5 has that. For players who enjoyed the original for the horror aesthetic then you could say returning to its roots would involve traditional horror tropes and concepts. Well, RE4 has that, too. So does Revelations 2. For players who enjoyed the original for the characters and story elements then you could say a return to its roots would involve a game featuring many of the series best-loved characters and resolution to long-standing plot threads. Well, there's RE5 and RE6 for you.
All of the Resident Evil games I've mentioned are derided en masse for 'straying from the series' roots', but in what way? Depending on what it was about those early games you loved, the new games haven't strayed at all. The most significant difference between pre- and post-RE4 games is the core gameplay and level design, yet when people say the post-RE4 games have strayed they specifically cite the lack of horror, by which they usually mean slow-paced, atmospheric tension. But all post-RE4 games have slow-paced, atmospheric tension. It's easier to level these criticisms at RE6 because it has a lot more in the way of pure action set-pieces, but Leon, Ada, and Sherry's campaigns all have plenty of tenser moments. Even Chris's has them, just not as many. All pre-RE4 games have fast-paced action bombast. Hell, literally all of them end with a mad dash against the clock with plenty of weaker enemies to mow down before one, or several, set-piece boss fights, usually involving rocket launchers and in one case a rail gun, before the building you are in explodes. Neither 'style' of Resident Evil game is purely one or the other, they have always been a mix of both horror and action, with some skewing the balance a bit further than others, but a balance always being there nonetheless.
So when Capcom said RE7 would return to the franchise's roots, what did that mean? Did it mean RE7 would have no action? Did it mean RE7 would be about the surviving STARS members? Did it mean RE7 would be set in a mansion that loops in on itself? What did it mean?
Most people will tell you RE7 does return the franchise to its roots, but I will make the argument that the series never strayed from those roots in the first place, that the core of what made Resident Evil a franchise worth playing to begin with was maintained in RE4's transition to a third-person shooter, maintained in RE5's introduction of co-op, and maintained through every helicopter crash in RE6. So when Capcom said they were "returning to the franchise's roots" it meant nothing to me because it told me literally nothing about what RE7 would be like. They may as well have not said anything.
2. Do you/do you not find that franchises that do this usually succeed in their efforts? Why or why not?
I don't have too much to say on this point because my first-hand experience of franchises that have very self-consciously done this is not terribly extensive. With regard to Resident Evil, the series has seen a renewed perception of quality since RE7 and the RE2 remake have been released, so it's worked tremendously there. Zelda also had a similarly monumental renewal with Breath of the Wild.
But then you could look at something like Star Wars. The sequels are something of a return to the series' roots, an idea solidified by the fact that The Force Awakens is basically a straight remake of A New Hope. The sequels have divided the Star Wars fanbase between those who hate these new films for various reasons, those who love them for various reasons, and plenty of whack jobs on either side whose sole purpose in life now seems to be disagreeing with the other side as vociferously as humanly possible. Sales of Star Wars merchandise is down, the brand is a laughing stock in certain circles, but it's expansion seems to be ongoing regardless. For Star Wars, it's not been a huge success, but it hasn't been an outright failure, either.
As for why/why not, I could only speculate. For Resident Evil I'd say it was Capcom addressing largely aesthetic issues that served as easy fodder for criticism. The RE2 remake and RE4 are so alike in most ways that to say one is a betrayal of the franchise and the other its saviour is incomprehensible to me, yet it seems Leon not being able to roundhouse kick his enemies and more blood on the walls is enough to shift public perception in the opposite direction. For Zelda, they reimagined a central pillar of the fantasy and gameplay of the series, exploration. To be brief, I think BotW was successful because it catered to the very
idea of what a Zelda game is about, exploring a world to stop evil. Technically they all have been, but BotW translated that into gameplay in a purer form than anything since the original certainly, arguably A Link to the Past. For Star Wars, most people just wanted a coherently told story after the prequels. The sequels didn't deliver that for many fans, and in some ways corrupted those very roots, and so the "return" has been a failure for them.
Obviously, the success and failure of these franchises involves more than just those points, but I'm boiling them down to my central feeling on the matter.
Thank you for coming to my ZeD Talk.