Sequels Part 2

 Pages PREV 1 2

Isn't MarioKart 7 the 7th version of that series?

Previous versions:

Super MarioKart
MarioKart 64
MarioKart Super-Circuit
MarioKart Double Dash
MarioKart DS
MarioKart Wii

Am I missing one or has MovieBob made a silly mistake?

it is indeed the 7th version of the personal entertainment edition of mariokart
( there were two arcade versions, one was devloped mostly by namco and featured pacman as a side caracter )

overall, it is the 9th game to be called mariokart
personally i don't think arcade games count, especially when they did not come entirely from nintendo's coders

but you know bob, he likes his big pictures eh.

Mario Kart 7 is an upcoming racing video game for the Nintendo 3DS
Similar to other games in the Mario Kart series, it incorporates various characters from the Mario games racing with one another on Mario game-themed tracks
New additions to the game include hang-gliding attachments for karts and the ability to drive underwater

If anything it should be Mariokart: off the beaten track!

i guess 7 worked for microsoft, so why not eh.

ooh, i have a good one, call it M.a.r.i.o.k.a.r.t hey? hey? eh?


bam, there's a name for yah.

I think HBO shows generally have a good way of having narrative cliffhangers. They generally tie up any loose threads most characters have, but not in such a way as to have them too tight. And end with a satisfying conclusion that leaves the audience wanting more. A few good examples in my mind:

Rome: ends on a cliffhanger, except not really because ignoring the fact we know about history they very cleverly left every character in a place we were happy to leave them. Be it coming to terms with bad decisions in life or finding hope for the future. Totally open.

Sopranos & The Wire: Pretty much every season ended in a way that if it was cancelled the next day you could be happy knowing the plot was wrapped up. Maybe not the characters but the plot. Which is the absolute key to a narrative sequel: characters.

Carnivale & Deadwood: Same again but both were very obviously planned to continue but were cancelled. Carnivale in paticular felt like it needed more but ended in such a way that the audience could fill in the blanks themselves. Only one or two plot threads were really left open.

Lots and lots of other shows not just on HBO do this but I always admired this trend they seemed to have with ongoing series. New season = new status quo. Just look at Game of Thrones for proof of this (have not read the books)

Also why is extra credits leaving like this sites 9/11 or something? They are gone, get over it and move on. They are in another relationship now, don't be a creepy ex.

To respond to Jim Sterling's bringing in of books and cliffhangers:

In a good book series that ends in a cliffhanger, the reader doesn't have to drop 60 bucks to read the next book.

I don't have anything against cliffhangers as a concept. I do have a big problem about their execution tho.

Like already pointed out, most games prioritize gameplay over story and there's no telling if the same team will be around for a sequel IF it comes out. De facto this means you often get a so-so story with an open ending just so they can do more if the game is a monetary success. You don't get them because of story reasons and there is no telling what the sequel will be like - it can be a huge disappointment gameplay wise or have a very different writer that takes everything you liked so much in a very different direction. Maybe a change of direction is even dictated by an evil publisher forcing the studio to copy game X in order to maximize profit.
I really, really can't stand it if there's a perfectly fine ending around the corner, but it's obvious the devs put in a cliffhanger just so they have an option for making more money. Sadly I can't list examples because the mere mentioning of a game would spoil its type of ending.

The wolf in sheep wool concept is interesting, but it's also flawed. No spoilers for Human Revolution, but while I think it did a pretty good blend between working newcomers in and keeping parts of the old fanbase, the original had a really cheesy storyline, and it was part of why it was fun. Human Revolution, in my opinion, has a very different feel due to the stronger Ghost in the Shell and Bladerunner inspirations, and especially the end felt like trying to deliver very real political messages or at least food for thought.
My point is that Human Revolution still had to take the original storyline as canon and somehow combine the cheesiness with their own style. I think both of them have their place, but shouldn't be mixed. It's like eating chocolate with muscle cars.

Call me pessimistic, but I think a Sequel Ban would just mean more ripoffs, that's all. It's a sad age full of possibilities and ideas, and money is blocking the way of art - not the absence of money, but the suits wanting to make as much money as possible.

I know alot of good sequals, but most of them are in 90% story based games (like phoenix wright), and the only really good series I can think of that isn't mostly story is Assassin's Creed. Assassin's Creed 1 had a very meh ending, but think of the ending to Assassin's Creed 2. That was such a WTF plot point, that it actually improved the story because players had to wait a year in order to see what happened next. Also, they manage to get closure because, though Desmond's story always has a 'to be continued' vibe, Altair and Ezio get complete begining, middle, end story arcs in every game. This is all helped by the fact that by all appearences Ubisoft has fully scripted Desmond's entire story already.

I really don't get what the big deal is about sequels to tell you the truth. If people didn't want them, they would stop buying them, and publishers would stop churning them out. I kind of wish the whole conversation was about pricing (not just of new games but used games and dlc as well) because some of those practices are the biggest factors stunting consumer growth in this industry.
If it's innovation-stagnation we're worrying about, then instead of having a problem with the solid franchises that sell (and are usually made) well, we should have a problem with copycat games that are shorter and not as well refined (and yet still sell for the same $60) because those are the devs that should be trying new things and innovating.
It isn't anything new. Remember the NES? Most of the games on it were SMB clones because it was a big game on the system. Most of them were crap but the SMB sequels (the real ones at least) were great.
We didn't complain last gen when R* was making a new GTA every year but there were a shiton of GTA clones we could've done without. And then again, sometimes you get a clone that outshines what it was copying: everyone I know thought Saints Row 2 was far more fun than GTA4.
So I guess we can't say one practice or another is all bad, gamers just have to vote with their wallets and use their best judgmen...oh, I see the problem.

Video game sequels are neither inherently bad nor inherently good, though like movies they of course have tendencies to become worse with each following installment (as always, there are exceptions).

There's also a big difference between mostly story and mostly action driven games, as those are two completely different beasts in my opinion. A game that focuses on story, lore and a consistent fictional world can pull of a good sequel much easier than a game which greatest appeal is its gameplay and action. The latter are more akin to sports (or even *are* sports games) and if they even have a story mode, its secondary at best. Narrative driven games can continue their story provided the previous game ended with enough narrative room left, or tell another story set in the same world. Action oriented games on the other hand lack that justification, and instead must rely on improved technical aspects (graphics / physics / gameplay) alone to attract buyers.
In a very broad comparison, story driven games are like movies and novels, while action driven games are like a sport. You can (relatively speaking) easily relase a new installment that advances an engaging story every few years, but it's an entirely different endavour to release slightly updated football rules every year and still provide a meaningful sequel.

Another big thing to consider is player expectations. Someone else already mentioned Dragon Age 2, which was -understatement incoming- a pretty divisive game. A lot of fans of the original expected a bigger, better Dragon Age: Origins, and instead Bioware delivered a sequel that was "in name only" to some, with a very different narrative structure compared to it's predecessor (focus on one location and one character, instead of DA:O's more open world and event-driven story). To a lot of people, Bioware simply changed too much that didn't need changing, and didn't advance the story of the character played in the previous game.
On the other hand we have Mass Effect 2 (ironically by Bioware too), which also changed a lot of things from Mass Effect 1, like the complete removal of inventory management and greatly reducing the complexity of character advancement. Sure, there were a lot of critics of those changes too, yet still ME2 is regarded by the majority as a great game that is at least equal to or even surpasses ME1.
It is very difficult for a developer to know which changes are acceptable to the fans and which aren't. One man's innovation is another one's unneccessary change or 'jumping the shark'-moment, so there's a very delicate balance between changing just enough and not too much at the same time.

dammit make the article longer, I have the attention span to read more than two pages and this stuff is actually interesting

I have about 400 books and I have to admit I can't really think of one that ends in a cliffhanger. Oh except Colour of Magic. No Terry Pratchett apart from that really ends in a cliffhanger although there are a couple of sequel drops (which are different) in a couple of them.

No Agatha Christie ends in a cliffhanger, I can't think of an Asimov novel that ends in a cliffhanger. Even the foundation series doesn't end on cliffhangers. No Jane Austen, none of the Edge Chronicles, no Artemis Fowl, no Redwall, none of the leCarre that I own. None of my Jack Higgins, none of my Biggles (that takes you back :D)

I think one of the Mortal Engines has a bit of a cliffhanger. No Michael Crichton that I can think of, going back a bit no Hardy Boy or Nancy Drew that I could care to name.

Now Lord of the Rings, I think those end on cliffhangers ish. But they really should be read as one book to get the true experience :D

All the Harry Potters have pretty well defined self-contained stories, except maybe the sixth and certainly they all have proper endings where conclusions are drawn and events are finished, nicely delineated by term times.

I think maybe your authors are a little bit bad at doing self-contained stories properly :D I'd be pissed if I got to the end of the book and it didn't have an ending. There's no reward.

Also didn't Little Big Planet have a lower price than most games? And that turned out well in the end, they really should have learnt from that lesson

Oh man, would we Australians love to discuss videogame pricing.

A most interesting read... I tend to agree with Bob (like I usually do), but Yahtzee and Jim also raise good points as well.

Nalgas D. Lemur:

Extra Consideration:
Extra Consideration: Sequels Part 2

The much awaited sequel to the original with MovieBob, Jim and Yahtzee.

Read Full Article

Just a heads up, but the first link in "Again, I feel titles like Call of Duty is dominating while the games of Suda 51 and his eccentric ilk disappear without a trace." (in the last paragraph of the first section of the first page) is borked and eating all the text between it and the following link, so the entire section about Deadly Premonition and whatnot ends up missing/not displaying.

I noticed that too. There's a shorter one in MovieBob's last post on the second page, too.

What happened to this column? :S Really enjoyed them :/

Been just over a year now.
This column is officially dead

To anyone defending Cliffhangers as a concept for games, I point to Episode 2 and the awful way they ended with a cliffhanger that will never be resolved.

Cliffhangers are a cheap trick... they are only a marketing ploy to keep an audience captive. Books like Song of Ice and Fire are not good because of the cliffhanger, they are good despite them. Nothing would be lost if the books had a proper ending.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

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