On Sequels

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

As much as I don't like to have complete hardcore people doing the Sequel because they will NEVER EVER change anything.
Try getting Counter Strike 1.6 people to change or Team Fortress Classic people to change.

But letting a person who do not like the game, make the sequel will do a lot of bad things.

For example, drastically change the gameplay to maybe something more noobish. Or get rid of key things that made the first one good. Change the story to something else.

Both TF2 and Counter Strike Source would receive so many changes that the people who originally liked the game might now hate it with a passion.

When a game have bad things in it, it can be fixed by the one who did it. Or even fans. But to rely on haters to fix it? :/ Sorry that's going bit a into the wrong way. You are most of the time going to doom the game.

No, these haters will not magically fix up the game so that it will be better. They will change it even more.

Quote - "Sequels should only be made by people who didn't like the original."

^ I find it hard to find a common term with this statement purely because if this law was to be taken seriously then movie/game sequels would have nothing to do with the original.

^ In a way that means Mr. Croshaw wins in his belief for a utopia of no sequels because they pretty a completely different thing.

^ Whereas if someone didn't like the way the original but like the concept in some way (characters, story etc.) they'd try to perfect it or portray in a better way.

^ I disagree because I KNOW sequels only fuck up when people go for something completely unrelated to the original. The sequel is only sparked/created by the success/satisfaction of the original anyway. That's why building on things, polishing and play-testing works because it's those improvements then put into the sequel that receive more approval.

Saints Row 1 had a good core gameplay to it and the options/availability to dick around and blow up sh!t. Then SR 2 perfected that by adding more options, objects and expanding on the sandbox map. This is an example of making better of whats there.

Grand Theft Auto had an awesome sandbox gameplay style to it with loads of options and didn't disappoint in color and caliber. Then Grand Theft Auto "4" screwed it up completely by taking away almost every reason why we play the damn series. This is an example of starting again from scratch.

I'd go with "sequels shouldn't be made by the fanboys... But then again shouldn't be made by the haters".

The only sequal that I can ever think of as being better than the original is Terminator 2. Every other one just seems to be the milking of a decidedly lucrative cash cow - you only need to watch the recently released "The Final Destination" to see how much milking that particular franchise has undergone.

Enjoying the columns more and more, but his argument here is invalidated by three words: Silent. Hill. 2. If one were to completely abolish sequels, it would remove the game he has come within a hair of describing as the best game ever. Between Silent Hill 2, Thief 2, Fallout 3 and Half-Life 2, there's enough examples of wonderful sequels to forgive the endless string of Tomb Raiders and Sonics and Metal Gear Solids.

That being said however, I do have to agree with the idea that giving a sequel to people who are complete devotees of the series has more potential for harm than good. A few references are fine as long as they're subtle, but bits like Pyramid Head's inclusion in SH: Homecoming just feel like baiting fans rather than rewarding them. You can't make a game for the sole purpose of inside jokes or paying homage to the original.

What there needs to be is an understanding of what made a game great rather than a devotion to it, figuring out how to hold the best concepts in for sequels and improving the tone. I cite Thief II as the best example of this - it replaced the ruined cities and undead with more urban settings like banks and rooftops, keeping combat to a minimum and enforcing the need to be quiet.

And an aside on Monkey Island as another point. I hold that "Curse of Monkey Island" is as good as 1 and 2, because it preserved the right things: the quirky islands with individual character, interesting puzzles, insult fighting (annoying but funny), the strongest recurring characters and managed to make the series feel like it had a happy ending as opposed to Monkey Island 2's somewhat bizarre ending. It had all the same elements but had a different spin on them, which I think is the right way to go. "Escape from Monkey Island" suffered both for its updated graphics (really hideous in reflection) and that its locales all either completely revisited the original game without variation or just weren't that interesting.

I find many sequels to be obnoxious, even if some are truly awesome. Can't disagree much with Yahtzee here.

LesIsMore:
Enjoying the columns more and more, but his argument here is invalidated by three words: Silent. Hill. 2. If one were to completely abolish sequels, it would remove the game he has come within a hair of describing as the best game ever. Between Silent Hill 2, Thief 2, Fallout 3 and Half-Life 2, there's enough examples of wonderful sequels to forgive the endless string of Tomb Raiders and Sonics and Metal Gear Solids.

Endless string of metal gear solids?

There aren't that many Metal Gear Solid games and every one of them so far has improved upon the last one greatly.

Not so much MGS4, but MGS1 was good, MGS2 smoothed out the controls, gave us a new character to play and made the enemies smarter. MGS3 had the best gameplay, the most responsive cntroles and another new character and story.

I simply refuse to allow Metal Gear Solid to be put on the same level as Tomb raider or Sonic. The series constantly improves and changes and has a great story.

I agree and disagree with Mr. Croshaw. On the one hand, letting fans create a sequel to a property in no way guarantees quality. But I don't think there is any correlation in the quality of a sequel and whether fans make it or someone else.

Making a good piece is difficult and sturgeons law of 90% of it being crap applies. With sequels, that percentage grows in power. So 902% of first sequels are crap, 903% for the second, and so on.

The reason why is because since a sequel follows a previous story, much is already in place. this hampers the quality. This seems unintuitive as one would expect that once the original establishes the major elements, it's then piss easy to just continue the story. And indeed it can be piss easy if you're willing to accept a decline in quality, or in the case of things like Friday the 13th where the original wasn't very good in the first place, and thoroughly mediocre series, this can be done. But any attempt at quality will by definition be difficult because of the constraints of the original property.

This is getting to be a bit long, so I'll just sum up my point. It's not because fans made Tales of Monkey Island that is sucked. It's just because they were talentless hacks. Which is likely to have been the case if the people who make this game were not fans. It would have sucked because they were talentless hacks.

Although i don't comment that much, Extra Punctuation brings some very interesting points.

I don't fully agree on the total ban of sequels. Sequels should try to improve on an existing fanchise. And it should be given to the people that think that way, wether they are fans or not. The problem is fans that think the way that were analysed this time around. If you think that a game is perfect, then don't add a sequel, don't even try it. But even as a fan, you want to try to improve your loved franchise go ahead. A fan that wants to improve the thing that they love can be very positive. Why? Because they know what they loved and keep it while try to get new things into the formula, not the extremes of only trying to replicate and to come with a completly new concept, which could be better in it's own game, without the burden of the name. I'm thinking of Metroid Prime or Silent Hill 2. Play the strengths of the originals, but do it your way. That is a good sequel.

And to those vocal about fractal dimensions. Yes they do exist, and are an important part of modern mathematics, but it is a pretty obsucure knowledge that a videogame reviewer shouldn't be asked to know. The normal dimensions are usually integers, and until after the first half of the past century, they were the only ones. It isn't the same as say getting wrong the location of the Mona Lisa, which a little research can avoid.

Perhaps a better sollution to this rather explosive topic would be to change the statement of "Only people who didn't like the game should make a sequel" to "People who made the sequel should have liked the premise but disliked the execution".

For all you fucks who think that listing off certain sequels are better then the originals, here: I'll list some bad ones.

KotOR 2

to the guy who listed Civ3: Civ2 outstripped that game, so saying that a sequel to a sequal has improved on what a previous game in the series has put out isn't really refutable.

Starcraft 2. Yes, it's starcraft. But, this is also from the company who is bringing out shit content in the "expansions" which should be improvements and, oh, I don't know, make things a bit harder are instead catering to the crowd who happens to be bad at the game. Case and point: Naxx at level 60 vs the crap that's now called Naxx.

While I'm beating on the Blizzard horse, the Warcraft series.

Star Ocean 3. Normally, this would be counted as a sequel to a sequel, but, considering the fact that the US didn't get to see SO1 until fairly recently, it was more a sequel to one of the best JRPGs there is out there in SO2.

Scratch that, SO2 is the ONLY JRPG worth even looking at.

Again, remaining topical, the entirety of the Final Fantasy series past the original one for the NES.

The Adventures of Link.

Lots of RAEG here.

But forget posting in forums. I'll make my own national monument, with rocket launchers, and hookers! In fact, forget the rocket launchers!

For all you fucks who think that listing off certain sequels are better then the originals, here: I'll list some bad ones.

KotOR 2

Keep in mind that I consider KOTOR 2 to be better than KOTOR 1. So do several other people. And Starcraft 2 ISN'T EVEN RELEASED YET!

Nice try though.

good points but you would have been better using the Dino Crisis series as an example. The first one was really good, kinda of Resident Evil like, the 2nd gained a bit more action and was different but still good. Then the 3rd was actually dinosaurs in space!wtf was that about!

I think the best way to see it is that sequels should be made by people who have something to contribute to the series.

If all we're going to get is a watered-down copy of the original, in some developer's failed attempt to replicate its success, then we're not looking at a sequel made with the right mindset. We're looking at a recycled game with a larger number stamped on the title, with no new and potentially interesting/enjoyable content and experience. That game can only hope to to aspire to the standards set by its predecessors, and even if those standards are fairly high, it will always be limited by them, running the same course but never reaching the finish line. That's what I would call a bad sequel.

Unfortunately, people will always try to replicate success. It sounds good on paper: if something was successful, then more of the same thing will garner more success. In a fanboy's mindset, it probably sounds a bit more like this: if something is good, then more of the same thing will be just as good or better. Either way, this kind of mindset would prevent a developer from taking a sequel in its own direction, rather it will leech off the success and quality of its predecessor to some varying degree.

Clones are all over the place, and they're not usually good. I don't like it when one game is merely the clone of another game, and whether its a sequel or not makes no difference to me.

I'd say Hellriser is a good example for a sequal continuation - nearly each movie bring new xenobites and the story was very diffrent. Call of Jhuarez could be called a good sequel since the story is good as Yathzee himself noticed - and I'm proud becuase this game was made by polish develpers which is also funny because what polish people know about being a cowboy except how to treat a cow properly - and it seems a lot XD

Some games like NBA, Pro Evolution Soccer and such are remade every year with slitly better graphics and new stats for all teams (or most of them). At least Mario games try new gameplay mechanics from time to time.

Because, much like the film industry, the people with the money (ie publishers) have little to no creative mojo and only see the numbers. If game-x made x then game-x2 with nobs on will make twice as much.

A game may start out as a great idea with some innovative hooks and a great storyline but by the time the army of muppet publishers has go their hands on it, it will be a shadow of its former self.

..... sorry is my industry experience / jaded bitter hatred showing again?

I almost always agree with Yahtzee, but not this time.

Sequels in general do suck. But it is not part of the way of the sequel. It is the way of the designers. Whenever someone makes a new game/move/book, they put a lot of effort into it but when they get the chance to make a sequel, they go "Well, most of the work is already done! I can just breeze through this and get paid."

I think you should change the law to "Whenever you make a sequel, don't be a pissant and actually work on the sequel."

Sequels exist because people want to partake in that world more or there was something in the original that was cool to watch/play. Take the Matrix (This is a bad example, since the sequels sucked, but go with it). The movie was cool to watch and I know at least that I wanted to know more about and see more of the Matrix's world. This is why I saw the second Matrix in theaters, but the crappy-ness of it made me watch the third one when it was on TV many years later.

There ARE good sequels that don't have to follow that silly trilogy rule (AKA- If there are 3 movies, then all 3 are good. Hence why you can't include Star Wars, Indiana Jones, LoTR, etc.) The Dark Knight was as good as, if not better, than Batman Begins. The Terminator movies and the Bourne movies have both received high marks on IMDB. (Note: Bourne movies are not a Trilogy because there is another movie releasing soon)

The same can be applied to games and books. Yes, more often than not, the sequel is just a cash whore. But sometimes developers can actually create something worthwhile.

And your entire point is moot. Your favorite game is Silent Hill 2. 2. TWO. AKA- Sequel.

Isn't it a bit ironic that you hate sequels when one of your favourite games, Silent Hill 2, is a sequel itself?

I'm not sure about no-sequels. Although there HAVE been numerous craptastic fan-wank there have also been many other great games too, Mother 3, Team Fortress 2, Half Life 2, Dragon Quest V, Silent Hill 2. I guess you'd have to earn a license for producing sequels first then.

Lord_Jaroh:
Instead of sequels, develop new games and add to the old ones. That's my take on the subject, and it's sad to see the gaming environment devolve itself into that of the movie industry all for the sake of money. No one takes pride in their work anymore, I guess..."

That's simply because game budgets devolve into hollywood budgets. New games simply have a hard time being made. Unless it doesn't cost millions which is exactly what's happenening in the indie scene.

Face it. Without sequels, next-gen wouldn't exist.

SilentScope001:

Keep in mind that I consider KOTOR 2 to be better than KOTOR 1. So do several other people. And Starcraft 2 ISN'T EVEN RELEASED YET!

Nice try though.

It's nice that stupid people have opinions, but, really, if you think that KotOR 2 was better then KotOR 1, you really need to reevaluate what you consider to be a "good game".

I also do realize that Starcraft 2 isn't released yet, but, again, this is from Blizzard. Do we really need to get into what they consider to be a good sequel (oh, sorry, expansion)?

Silk_Sk:
Note to self: DO NOT correct Yahtzee. Caring about his mistakes is just as bad as disagreeing with him.

I don't think he has a problem with people disagreeing with him, per se. It's my impression that he doesn't care all that much what everyone's personal stance on his reviews are, i.e., people disagreeing with him, but what he most likely IS annoyed by includes A) people idolizing him, and B) people being incredibly nitpicky regarding his mistakes. I say this not because I know him personally, but because it's only logical. Were I in his position I wouldn't want to be incessantly worshipped by fanboys and/or nitpicked by grammar Nazis.

That said, I found this article fairly interesting. I agree on most of Yahtzee's points, but I wish he could have defined 'fan' a little better. Just because a developer likes a game they're working on the sequel for, doesn't necessarily make them fans, does it? Or that they're putting the game itself on a pedestal? Or maybe I'm just misinterpreting things.

Hyperactiveman:
I'd go with "sequels shouldn't be made by the fanboys... But then again shouldn't be made by the haters".

Seconded.

Yhatzee - "If memory serves, it was the Fear 2 review where I dreamed of a world in which sequels are banned. And I still believe such a thing would be a veritable utopia..."

You called?

Also, gee, i wonder where he got the idea for Monkey Island in Space? *ahem* http://www.duelinganalogs.com/comic/2009/08/13/two-for-one-special/

I don't agree at all, as many of my favorite games have been sequels written\designed\built by the same staff or people who made the first game. I mean, I know it's funnier to say that all sequels are shit, and yadda yadda yadda but that doesn't really make it true now does it?

How about we just outlaw sequel hooks and cliffhanger endings then? That way we could at least be assured some fucking closure.
Anyway I've said it before and I'll say it again, there's nothing worse for a franchise then it's fans. It's why I don't write fan fiction, not that I haven't had an idea or 2, but I know I couldn't do it justice. It probably end up being a tongue bath as Yahtzee put it.

after watching a fair amount of your videos i would like to specify that you and i have the same taste if not i like a little bit more

yahtzee can u do a video on phantasy star universe i would expect you to enjoy it after watching your other videos and hopefully grasping what u like (not a gay joke) k thanx bye

Putting a little more thought into this, part of what can cause damage to a sequel is the developer needing to tweak or change a system that really doesn't need it. Tales of Monkey Island is one such case; play ToMI and then go and play Sam & Max or SBCG4AP and notice that TellTale well and truly fracked up a system that didn't need any improving.

Another example would be the seventh and eigth MegaMan games, which altered the items system (both) and the Rush Adaptors (8). Neither of them needed to be changed.

Lord_Jaroh:
I'll just post what I had in a similar thread:

"...Instead of sequels, develop new games and add to the old ones...."

I agree with you on this, it would add variety to games.

I'd like to disagree with you. Perhaps completely spontaneous sequels (for example, the Pirates of the Caribbean movie sequels) should also be abolished?

There's two kinds of bad sequels: bad sequels made by fans, and bad sequels made by the original developers who were forced by their publisher to make the bad sequels. Any good sequels are pre-planned, and also expand on the original material. Fan sequels don't expand enough; forced sequels expand too much (because they literally have to weave a new game right out of their asses).

I'd give both a chance to do it, but I'd set the fan as more of an advisor rather then giving him any real power over the influence of the game, from a person who hates the game or who even sort of liked the game but not to the extent of a fan boy. A person who hates or only moderately likes a game as an unbiased look on it, sure get a man who likes the genre, you don't get some one who only likes FPS games to make an Point and click adventure but don't get a guy who's desperately in love with the mythos that he wont allow radical change.

towelie06:
good points but you would have been better using the Dino Crisis series as an example. The first one was really good, kinda of Resident Evil like, the 2nd gained a bit more action and was different but still good. Then the 3rd was actually dinosaurs in space!wtf was that about!

Yeah lol. Conclusion: As soon as developers are making a "insert franchise name" in space...that's when they're out of ideas. Unless it's Mario...or the game is actually set in space (Dead Space).

If games were correctly authored with infinite replayability we would have no need of sequels, or dumb-ass stories that belong in B-Movies.

e.g. like Robotron 64

Which, in case you were wondering, isn't the 64th sequel, but the Nintendo 64 remake in 2/3D.

Ninja_X:

LesIsMore:
Enjoying the columns more and more, but his argument here is invalidated by three words: Silent. Hill. 2. If one were to completely abolish sequels, it would remove the game he has come within a hair of describing as the best game ever. Between Silent Hill 2, Thief 2, Fallout 3 and Half-Life 2, there's enough examples of wonderful sequels to forgive the endless string of Tomb Raiders and Sonics and Metal Gear Solids.

Endless string of metal gear solids?

There aren't that many Metal Gear Solid games and every one of them so far has improved upon the last one greatly.

Not so much MGS4, but MGS1 was good, MGS2 smoothed out the controls, gave us a new character to play and made the enemies smarter. MGS3 had the best gameplay, the most responsive cntroles and another new character and story.

I simply refuse to allow Metal Gear Solid to be put on the same level as Tomb raider or Sonic. The series constantly improves and changes and has a great story.

Okay, that was a little harsh I admit - even though I stopped taking the series seriously once the whole possessed arm subplot came along. My reply is more based on the fact that Hideo Kojima said that MGS4 would be the last in the series, and then all of a sudden he turns around and starts taking a firm hand in new games like MGS Rising. It shows an unwillingness to let go in my book.

LesIsMore:

Ninja_X:

LesIsMore:
Enjoying the columns more and more, but his argument here is invalidated by three words: Silent. Hill. 2. If one were to completely abolish sequels, it would remove the game he has come within a hair of describing as the best game ever. Between Silent Hill 2, Thief 2, Fallout 3 and Half-Life 2, there's enough examples of wonderful sequels to forgive the endless string of Tomb Raiders and Sonics and Metal Gear Solids.

Endless string of metal gear solids?

There aren't that many Metal Gear Solid games and every one of them so far has improved upon the last one greatly.

Not so much MGS4, but MGS1 was good, MGS2 smoothed out the controls, gave us a new character to play and made the enemies smarter. MGS3 had the best gameplay, the most responsive cntroles and another new character and story.

I simply refuse to allow Metal Gear Solid to be put on the same level as Tomb raider or Sonic. The series constantly improves and changes and has a great story.

Okay, that was a little harsh I admit - even though I stopped taking the series seriously once the whole possessed arm subplot came along. My reply is more based on the fact that Hideo Kojima said that MGS4 would be the last in the series, and then all of a sudden he turns around and starts taking a firm hand in new games like MGS Rising. It shows an unwillingness to let go in my book.

Well at least Solid Snake is done if not the series, MGS4 ensured he won't go the way of Nintendo characters and get tirelessly reused again and again.

Hideo said he was unsatisfied with MGS4 (I can see why) and that MGS Rising will be the series true ending.

Also the new games technically won't be Hideo Kojima. Rising will be done by some up and coming newblood apparently. Hideo will still be greatly involved I'm sure. But on top of new talent, we will be playing Raiden again but this time as a cyborg ninja. New enhanced Raiden along with the new talent ensures a completely new Metal Gear Solid is on the way in Rising.

In my opinion, as long as the games continue to be fun stealth games with new characters and stories then they can milk it as much as they want. Just as long as they continue to be great games, they can make as many of them as they want.

So far every MGS game has been an improvement on the last one while at the same time doing something different, except for MGS4. But if Hideo Kojima didn't like it then they probably won't repeat the same mistakes.

So I think most of us here agree to the original argument that fanboys can harm a sequel, but also that a sequel is best served by middle ground developers, people who appreciated the original without starting a cult over it, instead of people who hated the original as it usually leads to "complete makeovers" that basically turn the sequel into a new IP of its own (which can be either good or bad, but is usually not faitful to the original).

fallout 3, thief 2, warcraft 2, diablo 2, Bioshock, half life is debatable, duke nukem 3d, baldur's gate 2,although the thing to note about these as all of them went in substantially different directions.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here