Jimquisition: Sequel or Slaughter

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Ubisoft could at least have the decency to end one shriveled up husk of a franchise when they move on to another. Is there any need for MORE Assassin's Creed at this point, especially when all they've done is stray further and further from what made Assassin's Creed Assassin's Creed in the first place? I can understand not officially ending Assassin's Creed just in case Watch Dogs bombs (sure looks boring as fuck, I don't want to play it) and they need to go back to it to make more easy money, but is there any reason why AC couldn't have had the year off so the focus was on Watch Dogs? Instead they're shoving another rushed and completely unpolished game out to maintain the one a year thing they have going because for some reason they want to obtain the same scorn gamers have for Call of Duty but without making the same amount of money as Call of Duty.

Speaking of Call of Duty, stop making new engines for everything. People may whine about how Duty uses the same engine over and over, but it keeps development cheap and that's part of how they make money.

It really just amazes me how bad all of these big publishers are at doing their jobs.

Johnny Novgorod:
I like to see Shadow of the Colossus and ICO cited but I'm not sure they deserve to? Shadow was marketed as a "spiritual prequel" to ICO after all. And Sony's making Last Guardian, the third in a trilogy of similarly-themed games. So why cite them as examples of one-off stand-alone games, Jim?

Maybe we watched different videos, but I didn't see Jim mention any of those games.

Wenseph:
It is ridiculous that the hobbit, a children's book much shorter than LoTR was turned into a freaking trilogy. I don't even care to watch it, because they're overdoing it. Simpsons should have ended long ago too.

Damn it, I hate it when people call The Hobbit a kids book. Have you even read it? Let me tell you that although it may not be as long or elaborate as the Lord of the Rings doesn't make it any less of a great story. Just because a game is rated E doesn't mean only children can play or like it. Lord of the Rings was thought to have been impossible to film before Peter Jackson adapted it and if anyone can do it for the Hobbit, he can.

mjc0961:
Ubisoft could at least have the decency to end one shriveled up husk of a franchise when they move on to another. Is there any need for MORE Assassin's Creed at this point, especially when all they've done is stray further and further from what made Assassin's Creed Assassin's Creed in the first place? I can understand not officially ending Assassin's Creed just in case Watch Dogs bombs (sure looks boring as fuck, I don't want to play it) and they need to go back to it to make more easy money, but is there any reason why AC couldn't have had the year off so the focus was on Watch Dogs? Instead they're shoving another rushed and completely unpolished game out to maintain the one a year thing they have going because for some reason they want to obtain the same scorn gamers have for Call of Duty but without making the same amount of money as Call of Duty.

Speaking of Call of Duty, stop making new engines for everything. People may whine about how Duty uses the same engine over and over, but it keeps development cheap and that's part of how they make money.

It really just amazes me how bad all of these big publishers are at doing their jobs.

Johnny Novgorod:
I like to see Shadow of the Colossus and ICO cited but I'm not sure they deserve to? Shadow was marketed as a "spiritual prequel" to ICO after all. And Sony's making Last Guardian, the third in a trilogy of similarly-themed games. So why cite them as examples of one-off stand-alone games, Jim?

Maybe we watched different videos, but I didn't see Jim mention any of those games.

The video shows clips of both games while Jim's talking about original IPs near the beginning.

Arnoxthe1:
Jim, you keep having this misconception that these games are cheap to make. Cliff B. mentioned a great video on used games in one of his recent blog posts and I think you should watch it. It may seem disconnected from what I'm saying at first but trust me, it will all connect in the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G_f8YBy39M

You have a misconception that games have to be expensive to make. That's part of the point of this video and many of his other videos: games cost to much to make because publishers suck at their jobs, not because games are actually expensive to make. Jim himself made a great video on this and I think you should watch it.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7121-Dark-Souls-and-Dark-Sales

Johnny Novgorod:
The video shows clips of both games while Jim's talking about original IPs near the beginning.

I guess he shouldn't have mentioned prawns in this video either, right? There's also a part where he specifically mentions Sony and doesn't bring up Team Ico at all. I think you're reading a bit too much into video clips and not paying enough attention to the words.

As per usual, Jim has a fantastic point, and the ever appreciated apreciation for Dynasty Warriors.

Also, guilty. I want a Remember Me sequel, a sequel to Tomb Raider, and so forth.

Still, there is room for both one shots and sequels.

RJ 17:
Ohhhhhh GOD! It's dripping! xP

As a fellow lover of Dynasty Warriors, I know exactly where you're coming from Jim. On the other hand, that's kinda a guilty pleasure seeing as how the DW games are almost all exactly the same, therefor failing your "need to be made" test. I like the improved graphics, the new characters, the various tweeks in interpretation to the stories and characters, but in the end if you've played one DW game you've pretty much played them all.

I'm not too sure I can agree on this. Yes, when you get to the root of the series, it's basically the same hack and slash, but having played since Dynasty Warriors 3, and branched out into other Warriors series, I can safely say that experiences will vary from game to game, even if it is slight.
I think more changed than actually changed than stayed the same. Heck, Dynasty warriors started as a 1 on 1 fighter.
Then considering the difficulty tweaks, deepened fighting system (ex attacks to say the least), the various weapons, the changing musou systems, the ability to switch to and use near any weapon, the ability to customize your loadout, the ever improving roster, the new items/items system, the new game modes like Conquest Mode, online mode, 3d graphics option, the adjustments to the battlefield tactics, the evolving sound track, and so forth. There's been a lot of changes that few seem to notice.
Then there's a few of the concepts that didn't stay like the occassional arena/cage duel between officers.

It's safe to say that the series is evolving slowly and steadily, and Tecmo-Koei are willing to experiment without changing the core concepts of it revolving around RotK, being a brawler, and the ever welcome X-treme Legends, and even more welcome Empires standalone/DLC content, and the idea that if you have the original game, that the extra content can merge, thus kinda rewarding consumers.
Dynasty Warriors -deserves- sequels. Each one is justified in having enough alterations around the core concepts. While at the very basic, the gameplay and story are the same, Koei does not stagnate.
Lets not forget the Strike Force spinoff of Dynasty Warriors.

Frankly I think Koei has one of the best strategies for sequels. Don't fix what isn't broken, but add ingredients and season to taste.

Another video where Sony are the heroes of gaming? I mean, yeah sure they are, but still...

Jimothy Sterling:
Which all goes back to the wanton waste that feeds into overspending. Meanwhile, the makes of Unreal, and CryEngine, and Source are doing quite well making and also licensing their engines, so they can make money rather than just cost it.

It gets to the point where I'm gonna have limited to zero sympathy for a company that makes disposable, expensive engines.

I'm not 100% sure why you have any sympathy for them now. You're too good to them, Jim. A company that doesn't understand budgeting or leveraging existing assets in new projects deserves to lose the money they foolishly throw at a problem they've already solved. Feeling sorry for them is like feeling sorry for a bankrupt person who bought a new car to get to work just because he's forgotten it's in his garage and ready to go.

Not to Jim in particular:
Some of the most successful companies already understand this. Bethesda's a nice example of a company that makes good use of licensed engines.

Example: Morrowind, Fallout 3, Oblivion, Fallout 3: New Vegas (made by Obsidian, published by Bethesda) were all made on the Gamebryo engine. That's a pretty impressive spread of time and quality while being a great example of a company who can work wonders with licensed engines.

Skyrim was developed by an in-house engine and it looks like they're going to try and use some other titles in it. Either way, once the cost of the engine is sunk, making more games on that engine is significantly less. If you can spread the cost of an engine over multiple games then it's a good investment. If you can't then licensing is the way to go, not engine creating.

The best company would be able to create an in-house engine that is good enough to also license out.

orangeapples:
Another video where Sony are the heroes of gaming? I mean, yeah sure they are, but still...

Haha, it is interesting what kind of things they invest in. I'm really happy that they support little games and seem to see value in it. But with recent successes like Journey that they've published, they'd be stupid not to see the value in it.

It's funny that I had such a very different opinion of them four years ago. Hopefully they don't revert if they become drunk with power this coming gen.

Rebel_Raven:
Snip.

I never said they didn't change anything at all, in fact I'm pretty sure I covered just about everything that you brought up, albeit in a much less detailed manner.

What I was getting at is what you say is the strength of their formula: all they do is tweek each new incarnation a little. Slap on a new feature, change the map layouts, add some characters, swap in some new moves. You're still playing the same game though. You're still hitting X a bunch and occasionally Y (for me, at least, as an Xbox player). You're still fighting through the Yellow Turban Rebellion, taking down Dong Zhou, engaging in the battle of Chi-Bi. It's all the same, just with little tweeks here and there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm up-to-date on my DW franchise, I've been with it since 4 and I'm up through 7 (having heard that Strike Force sucked, I skipped that one, and I haven't had a chance to get 8 yet). I've even got all 3 Orochi games and Samurai Warriors 2 (never could find 1). Look at the core gameplay mechanics of all of them, though, and they're all essentially the same just with minor alterations from one to another (i.e. the weapon-swap in 7). The biggest innovation that they've had in a LONG time was actually continuing the story all the way out to it's actual end with the establishment of the Jin Dynasty, and that just happened in DW7.

Personally I was one of the few the liked the continuous motion of the Renbu move system in DW6, but then they actually took a step backwards and returned to the system of having 6 normal attacks with the choice to throw in a charge attack somewhere in there. I'm not saying I don't like series because of the rather straight line it's taken, but to deny that all the games are essentially (that being the keyword, not "exactly") the same is just na´ve.

Oh come on Jim, you can't even pretend the taste of jizz would make you gag ;D

I mean, what is a god that cannot stomach the taste of his own seed?

Amirite?

Quiotu:

WashAran:
Love that you included the consumer as a part of the problem.

He pretty much has to. This wouldn't be a problem if people didn't mindlessly snatch up the next FIFA or CoD or Assassin's Creed. I like these games, and I wouldn't mind wanting to play another game in their world again. But for FUCK's sake, I don't need one every year. Give me some time to appreciate and grow fond of the goddamn thing before you push the next one in my face.

It's why some series get a bigger pass than others. GTA4 had a load of problems, but it still sold over 20 million copies because people waited 4 years and longed for it again, and GTA5 will sell just as well because it's been another 4 years. This is why Rockstar can also try out other ideas and give others chances, throwing out games like Manhunt or Bully or RDD... or hell even LA Noire. They try those out because they know GTA will bring in a mountain of money, and they can experiment in between the iterations.

Assassin's Creed I'm done with, because they're pushing too many out for me to grow fond of them again, and the more they throw the same tired gameplay at me the more I see its problems and loathe them.

This was pretty much exactly what I was going to say. Even though I feel R* games have gotten a little pretentious this gen I like the fact that they have continued to do new things. Sure it's almost always some sort of open world GTAish thing but at least it's not the exact same thing.

Assassins Creed, CoD, I like these games but I don't have time to play every one they come out with.

You know what would be cool? If they still did all that re-using of assets and engines from ridiculously expensive AAA games, but used it to let developers make weird, interesting things unrelated to the original game instead of just churning out sequels.

Actually, I'm pretty sure this is the model that gave me Blood Dragon for $15. I would generally describe myself as a fan of business models that give me a game like Blood Dragon for the price of a particularly good sandwich.

Now I totally agree, some games even blur the lines like bioshock who just uses the name and more or less reworks a new story entirely(yes i know they nod to the original but it wasn't something you had to get) but in general variety is the spice of life, don't close a door just bacause you like it easy, its just lazy. Anyhow cheers Jimkeep on truth saying.

tehpiemaker:

Wenseph:
It is ridiculous that the hobbit, a children's book much shorter than LoTR was turned into a freaking trilogy. I don't even care to watch it, because they're overdoing it. Simpsons should have ended long ago too.

Damn it, I hate it when people call The Hobbit a kids book. Have you even read it? Let me tell you that although it may not be as long or elaborate as the Lord of the Rings doesn't make it any less of a great story. Just because a game is rated E doesn't mean only children can play or like it. Lord of the Rings was thought to have been impossible to film before Peter Jackson adapted it and if anyone can do it for the Hobbit, he can.

I've read it twice. I called it a children's book because that's what it is. That's what it was written as, and marketed as. It doesn't matter what you think. It is a children's book. Although you clearly think less of things for children, doesn't mean everyone does.

Anyone could do the hobbit, without turning it into a trilogy.

Jim these the episodes of your that I love. When you discuss a very important topic for both the industry and the consumer not just the industry.

And truthfully speaking many of the games are one offs just as many being a sequel or a prequel, such as Deus ex HR.

It about Varity and moderation, not black or white all or nothing, something that most people seem to get wrong...

RJ 17:

Rebel_Raven:
Snip.

I never said they didn't change anything at all, in fact I'm pretty sure I covered just about everything that you brought up, albeit in a much less detailed manner.

What I was getting at is what you say is the strength of their formula: all they do is tweek each new incarnation a little. Slap on a new feature, change the map layouts, add some characters, swap in some new moves. You're still playing the same game though. You're still hitting X a bunch and occasionally Y (for me, at least, as an Xbox player). You're still fighting through the Yellow Turban Rebellion, taking down Dong Zhou, engaging in the battle of Chi-Bi. It's all the same, just with little tweeks here and there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm up-to-date on my DW franchise, I've been with it since 4 and I'm up through 7 (having heard that Strike Force sucked, I skipped that one, and I haven't had a chance to get 8 yet). I've even got all 3 Orochi games and Samurai Warriors 2 (never could find 1). Look at the core gameplay mechanics of all of them, though, and they're all essentially the same just with minor alterations from one to another (i.e. the weapon-swap in 7). The biggest innovation that they've had in a LONG time was actually continuing the story all the way out to it's actual end with the establishment of the Jin Dynasty, and that just happened in DW7.

Personally I was one of the few the liked the continuous motion of the Renbu move system in DW6, but then they actually took a step backwards and returned to the system of having 6 normal attacks with the choice to throw in a charge attack somewhere in there. I'm not saying I don't like series because of the rather straight line it's taken, but to deny that all the games are essentially (that being the keyword, not "exactly") the same is just na´ve.

Call me na´ve if you want, but I still think you're being too hard on the series. I get what you're saying in that it retreads the same story, and at the very base, is the brawler we've all come to know, and love, but pretending playing Dynasty Warriors 7 is the same as Dynasty Warriors 4? I think that's a bit of a leap.

I wouldn't call weapon swap a minor alteration, nor the perks system, nor the ability to have improved attacks based on affinity with a weapon. The ability to jump differently based on your weapon can be something of a game changer.
EX attacks might be a minor addition, but a second musou added recently, and I hear a 3rd Musou in DW8?

I played Warriors Orochi 3 recently after a stint of DW7 Empires, and it was, aside from the very very basic combat ideas, very diffirent from 7 and it's expansions. Yeah, I was still hitting people with combos, but the mechanics beyond that was what made the game practically something else.

I'm not sure what they could do to the story since it's based on the historical novel, and history, "what if" missions aside. It's like WW2, except it's probably more sacred in Asia. Granted Koei does take considerable liberties with characters, I think they're trying to be careful about it.

Dare they change the game into a FPS, or something so the base gameplay isn't the same? Though they kinda did for Samurai Warriors Katana, though I never played it.
At the point it's at, asking Dynasty Warriors to change gameplay is like asking Madden to stop being about football.

I'm not saying all the changes are in your face, and obvious, but Play one Warriors entry long enough, and go to another, and there will be a difference you can feel, IMO.

Strikeforce series was okay, but I wouldn't try it for full price. It is a real departure from traditional Dynasty Warriors.

I'm looking forward to getting my mitts on Dynasty Warriors 8 as every character is supposed to have a unique moveset, and possibly weapon which seems pretty amazing for 70 some odd characters.

But opinions are opinions. You have yours, and I have mine. :P We'll prolly have to agree to disagree on this one.

Side note about the argument Jim;
MovieBob did an Overthinker episode a while ago about while things are getting more expensive in the video game industry. He noted like you that it's part of it greed in the industry, and the consumer eating it up then asking for more. However, most of what he talked about was the part of it I don't hear about most often.

The blame of the game designers. The artists. The episode is called "Starving Artist". http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.com/2013/05/episode-84-starving-artists.html

Basically what he talks about is how the artists sometimes in the games industry want the newest(and most expensive) tools to make there games. For some reasonable reasons, and some kind of selfish ones.

Also, one question about this whole "we can't afford to make games that just end after one" thing.
For the sake of argument, lets say what Ubisoft is saying is true for at least them. That they just can't afford to make a game that just ends the story.(I agree with you that they more than likely can, but don't want to, but again for the sake of the argument lets go with this hypothetical).

Anyway, if they can't afford to do that, I have to ask; Can they then afford to make only games that can be turned into franchise?

I don't just mean can they take the risk over and over again and put lots of money into new IPs hoping to make them into franchises, but even if they do make very cool games can they support themselves with that system if they can't afford to make a game on a budget? For example; say they have five game franchises, but only 2 are selling really well(and seeing as some say selling 5 million copies is a failure my guess would be having 2 out of 5 selling well would be optimistic).

They would have some of their franchises doing well, but the others suffering and costing them A LOT of money. Video games are expensive to make, and buy. It's not reasonable to expect all of their fans to be able to buy every one of there games, or even want to.

I really liked Assassin's Creed, but I didn't buy every game, and I'm not likely to be buying their yearly installments. To much of a good thing makes you get a bit sick of it eventually. Especially if you don't get enough time away from it to miss it.

Thank God For you, Jim.
Sorry about the long post.

Rebel_Raven:
Snip.

I'm not trying to come off as being hard on the series, as I've said a couple times now, I absolutely love it. In fact, it's the story itself that I love the most. Sadly I've never had a chance to get my hands on the actual novel, but back on the NES there was an RPG-like game called Destiny of an Emperor which is based off the 3 Kingdoms story. You start as Liu Bei with Guan Yu and Zhang Fei making the oath in the garden, you go on to fight the yellow turbans, and it basically follows Liu Bei's quest to bring peace to the land.

And it is true, all the changes do add up in the end. DW7 is VERY different than DW 4 because there's been time for the tweeks to pile up. But getting back to the point of this topic: look at the Assassin's Creed series. Sure, there's different things from game to game, but are any of the games really that different from one another? I'd argue that the DW tweeks are going in the right direction, for the most part the changes they make actually do add to the game rather than keep it neutral or make it worse unlike the AC series, I'm just saying that I don't deny that fundamentally the DW games are all very much alike.

>.> there was one change in DW 7 that I absolutely hated though: no special horses in the campaign. Like I said, I really love the story, that's one of the main reasons why I happily play through it game after game after game. But to stick you with either walking on foot or having a bottom-of-the-barrel garbage horse in the campaign? That was a horrible idea! I fought my way through Conquest mode all the way to the bottom of the map to get the Red Hare and you can only use it in Conquest Mode. That really chapped my caboose...it takes forever and a day to get anywhere in the campaign, and there's way too many battles out there where you'll be all the way across the map and all of a sudden *AMBUSH!!!* and 6 guys are beating the crap out of your leader. You hurry back only for him to die because you couldn't get there in time. Would be nice if I had a horse that could actually run faster than I would walk... >.>

Big_Willie_Styles:

KungFuJazzHands:
We as consumers need to face facts: IPs these days are made specifically to line pockets, and we're the ones willfully handing them the money.

And how is that a bad thing? It takes money to make new IPs. If said companies have investors (i.e. public companies,) they have to show profit. That's how American accounting standards work.

Look, if you can't see how the quest for higher profits can have a noticeably negative effect on the quality of any particular piece of long-running work, then I'm not sure exactly what that says about your personal taste in movies, music, video games, or art.

Profit over artistry is what gives us a constantly-flowing river of soggy shit like the Assassin Creed and Call of Duty series. It's what gives us brain-dead ADHD crap like the Transformers movies. It gives us the Twilight books. It gives us late-career Metallica. When ingenuity takes second stage to profit, the final creative result can suffer greatly.

Are there exceptions? obviously. But they are -- far and away -- the exceptions, not the rule.

The motive behind a game is to explore something, a new idea or new take on a character or whatever. The game requires, usually, some sort of investment to make. Said investors expect a return on said investment. That's just how things work. Without start up capital, a game never gets made.

Capital isn't the problem. Overbudgeting and unrealistic expectations on the part of shareholders are certainly issues, however.

Wenseph:

tehpiemaker:

Wenseph:
It is ridiculous that the hobbit, a children's book much shorter than LoTR was turned into a freaking trilogy. I don't even care to watch it, because they're overdoing it. Simpsons should have ended long ago too.

Damn it, I hate it when people call The Hobbit a kids book. Have you even read it? Let me tell you that although it may not be as long or elaborate as the Lord of the Rings doesn't make it any less of a great story. Just because a game is rated E doesn't mean only children can play or like it. Lord of the Rings was thought to have been impossible to film before Peter Jackson adapted it and if anyone can do it for the Hobbit, he can.

I've read it twice. I called it a children's book because that's what it is. That's what it was written as, and marketed as. It doesn't matter what you think. It is a children's book. Although you clearly think less of things for children, doesn't mean everyone does.

Anyone could do the hobbit, without turning it into a trilogy.

If it's kids book regardless of what I say then I can take that logic and fire right back at you. It's not a kids regardless of what you say--regardless of anyone says. It doesn't matter what you "think". No, not anyone could do the hobbit. Or at least, not anyone could do it well. I don't think less of children's stories. In fact, I think every story, regardless of the age it is usually told, is in fact for all ages. My mother read the giving tree to me when I was young but she still cried at the story's end the most. I'll argue that I respect children stories more than you. The Hobbit is more accessible, not for children. And you're a child for thinking accessibility is a measure of what makes a story mature.

RJ 17:

Rebel_Raven:
Snip.

I'm not trying to come off as being hard on the series, as I've said a couple times now, I absolutely love it. In fact, it's the story itself that I love the most. Sadly I've never had a chance to get my hands on the actual novel, but back on the NES there was an RPG-like game called Destiny of an Emperor which is based off the 3 Kingdoms story. You start as Liu Bei with Guan Yu and Zhang Fei making the oath in the garden, you go on to fight the yellow turbans, and it basically follows Liu Bei's quest to bring peace to the land.

And it is true, all the changes do add up in the end. DW7 is VERY different than DW 4 because there's been time for the tweeks to pile up. But getting back to the point of this topic: look at the Assassin's Creed series. Sure, there's different things from game to game, but are any of the games really that different from one another? I'd argue that the DW tweeks are going in the right direction, for the most part the changes they make actually do add to the game rather than keep it neutral or make it worse unlike the AC series, I'm just saying that I don't deny that fundamentally the DW games are all very much alike.

>.> there was one change in DW 7 that I absolutely hated though: no special horses in the campaign. Like I said, I really love the story, that's one of the main reasons why I happily play through it game after game after game. But to stick you with either walking on foot or having a bottom-of-the-barrel garbage horse in the campaign? That was a horrible idea! I fought my way through Conquest mode all the way to the bottom of the map to get the Red Hare and you can only use it in Conquest Mode. That really chapped my caboose...it takes forever and a day to get anywhere in the campaign, and there's way too many battles out there where you'll be all the way across the map and all of a sudden *AMBUSH!!!* and 6 guys are beating the crap out of your leader. You hurry back only for him to die because you couldn't get there in time. Would be nice if I had a horse that could actually run faster than I would walk... >.>

The novel is avaliable for free in an online web page based version. Not sure I can link it here, but an internet search should unocover it.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in you not wanting to come off as hard on the series.

I grant you that the story mode retreads the same story, but in diffirent ways.

I agree with you that the tweaks in DW have piled up a lot over the years, and that they are going in the right direction. I'm not denying DW games, fundamentally, are the same, but I think it underselling all the changes that were made is a bit much.

Yeah, I think they changed that in 8 having seen Red Hare in gameplay vids, but that might just be free mode.

Sequels are not inherently bad.
When you've got a story that you want to tell that is very long and interesting (upwards of 70-80 hours of gameplay), it makes sense to split it into 2 games. I don't get trilogies in this respect, but 2 games that tell one story seems OK to me. Anyhow, I'm thinking of a smaller development house that, after the first ~40 hours of gameplay are finished, needs money to come in to keep itself alive.

This doesn't make sense with big dev houses and publishers like EA and Ubisoft though... it really doesn't. Those two are companies that can take a risk, and they should, seeing as their stock market value is dwindling. They've got tons of money they could give to developers to develop good games to sell, broadening the audience they can reach (more different games means more genres get covered, not just action-adventure) and the audience that plays and enjoys playing games. Further, they could thus risk making games that don't sell very well, because some other games are bound to become popular.

Getting back to my original point now. Sequels aren't inherently bad, but a needlessly drawn-out story with a shit ending is (See Mass Effect for that, without the padding and with good mechanics from the start, the game would be an enjoyable 50 hours long[1] ).

I find that a sequel that explores a well-made world with a different character and a whole new story is very interesting and very much enjoyable, because it presents us not only with a new story, but a new story in a universe whose rules we know, that has locations we know about and are happy to revisit again, and a story that actually has some fucking closure. Also a smaller, self-contained story means that the focus must be on the characters, forcing devs to give us some interesting characters again and also giving us an opportunity to experience the game's world from a completely different perspective.
I don't mean the Bioshock 2 way of doing it. More like the Bioshock:Infinite way of doing it. It must always be the same team doing the sequel in this case, and it's actually better if it's more tangentially related to the story of the first game than directly following it or asking for prior knowledge of the first game's events.

Another good way to do sequels is the Far Cry way of doing it. Making games with more or less common mechanics and a common theme, but with a new story and a new location every game. It is interesting, allowing people to immediately recognise what the game is about in today's "action-adventure" genre. It is easy to say that this type of sequel is not very good too, but I think it's quite the opposite: The gameplay is more polished and enjoyable every game, and this type of sequel gives the artists and writers a chance to explore a broader concept with as many different approaches to making a story or environment design as they please.

[1] Please don't get me wrong - I love all the Mass Effect games. There are just some things about them that I need to get off my chest. I'll probably do a review some time, when I can actually play the complete ME series back-to-back so I can actually rate the story as a whole, and not just as the parts I remember + the parts I replayed

I have a game for you: FarCry and GTA, well that is in fact two games. You get the point right? It's about branding. I know what I get in Farcry series. Open world shooters. I know what I get with GTA open world crime dramas. The sequel is not the issue. The bad using is not even an issue. I agree with you that the issue is doing a game to be a sequel without that game even being on the market. It is like saying Universal transformed Fast and Furius in a franchise due to the quality of it's first two movies.

That is what irritated me about BioShock. It was an amazing game, with a gripping story throughout and a satisfying enough ending for Rapture. We saw Fontaine die, we saw the Little Sisters being saved, and we saw our character escape the 'utopia' which had been a piece of his past and the place that had prospered and had fallen underneath all its ambition. All of that was explored, all of that was discovered by the gamer and there was no need to go back there. Yes, I would have been happy to see how Rapture fell, but it was unnecessary because we all know how Rapture fell.

Instead, 2K commissioned a sequel. Not a prequel like what was wanted by the fans, but a sequel. It was unnecessary due to the ending of the first one, and the story just wasn't interesting because, I repeat, of the first one. It was an intriguing idea, stepping into the boots of a Big Daddy, but it was one we experienced a bit of in the first game, and it wasn't a concept which could have carried over well to a full game. They improved the gameplay, I will give Irrational that, but it wasn't a good game. It was not what the BioShock fans (from what I could see) wanted from the franchise following the first one. This kinda reminds me of Jim's video about the perfect pasta sauce - people were intrigued about how the Big Daddy came to be, or liked the idea of controlling one, so they took that idea (and not the prequel idea and made a game out of it...THROWING IN MULTIPLAYER.

However, BioShock Infinite exists, and for that I am grateful. It is an exception to the rule, as it doesn't explore Rapture, but a different city. It takes the franchise name and goes to different places with it. Hell, it could have lost the name and could have been something else, and it would have still been as amazing as I believe it to be. It wasn't a sequel, but something that took place in the vein of the original. It worked, which is more than I can say for BioShock 2.

Imp Emissary:

Side note about the argument Jim;
MovieBob did an Overthinker episode a while ago about while things are getting more expensive in the video game industry. He noted like you that it's part of it greed in the industry, and the consumer eating it up then asking for more. However, most of what he talked about was the part of it I don't hear about most often.

I could point out that if the game developers are doing it,
and the gamers are going for it It's rather patronizing of jim to say "there's a problem."

I understand Jim's point. But again I intend to agree with him most of the time.
I am one of Jim's sheep (and proudly so).

If the people making the game want to make sequels, and people want sequels,
on the other hand,
what are you gonna do? He makes a fantastic well made point, but that won't even get
you seconds at the soup line. What can we the fans do?
stop asking for sequels even though we want them?

who's patronizing who.

Fappy:
Oh come on Jim, you can't even pretend the taste of jizz would make you gag ;D

I mean, what is a god that cannot stomach the taste of his own seed?

Amirite?

maybe it's his diet.
(Feel free to call that a troll, and not look on why that might be a valid response lol).

Movies are JUST as bad and I hate it. I DON'T NEED A SEQUEL TO FINDING NEMO. I DON'T NEED A SEQUEL TO THE LAST OF US.

Magog1:

Imp Emissary:

Side note about the argument Jim;
MovieBob did an Overthinker episode a while ago about while things are getting more expensive in the video game industry. He noted like you that it's part of it greed in the industry, and the consumer eating it up then asking for more. However, most of what he talked about was the part of it I don't hear about most often.

I could point out that if the game developers are doing it,
and the gamers are going for it It's rather patronizing of jim to say "there's a problem."

I understand Jim's point. But again I intend to agree with him most of the time.
I am one of Jim's sheep (and proudly so).

If the people making the game want to make sequels, and people want sequels,
on the other hand,
what are you gonna do? He makes a fantastic well made point, but that won't even get
you seconds at the soup line. What can we the fans do?
stop asking for sequels even though we want them?

who's patronizing who.

Firstly; I see what ya mean, and as for what's wrong with it? Well, you saw today's Jimquisition.
Sequels aren't always bad. Hell, sometimes a bad game can get a sequel that is really great. Jim's saying that the developers should be making the games because they want to, and they think the players will find it fun.

The problem with having all new games be the first of a line of sequels is that it is limiting. You always have to put a lot of money into them so you can make it good, and get sales(not always the amount of money they put into some AAA games, but even the ones made on a budget need a lot of money). This can lead to them always playing it safe because if they take a risk, and fail, they'll be screwed.

It's also limiting from a story perspective. You always have to end the games so that you can have another one after it.

Again, Jim's point isn't that there should never be any sequels, but having ALL games made for sequels is a bad idea.
Having all games have sequels, and having no games have sequels are both bad ideas because they both limit what you can do with the game and story.
As for what we, the fans, can do? We can tell the people in charge that we don't like what they're doing, and make a fuss.

Secondly.

I disagree on The Last Of Us point. I've seen nothing but condemnation at the idea of a sequel and flat out pleading for Naughty Dog to let the story end where it ended. From what I saw that game is one of the few times the idea of a sequel seems flat out scarey to us.

I'm also amused by just how long the Dynasty Warriors footage lasted at the end there. It's like Jim wanted to show off how much fun he's been having with DW 8 or something XD

Article:
Art and business, despite what they tell you, aren't mutually exclusive. Not until they make it that way.

This is the lesson learned. Many gaming stories deserve multiple games, just like many written stories work best in a trilogy or extended series (take The Lord of The Rings or A Song of Ice and Fire). But imagine a book publisher declaring that they wouldn't even consider printing your material unless you left your ending open. Almost every classic would have been lost to us were this to have been the mainstream publishing bias.

The story is what brings me to any form of entertainment. Profit may be paramount but diversity is fundamental.

I think that if a company goes into a series knowing exactly how it will play out, then planning sequels beforehand is okay. Assuming they do it for artistic reasons and not just out of greed.
This said, I would be lying if I said that a lot of games I really enjoy are unnecessary sequels. The Kingdom Hearts series has many sequels they most certainly haven't planned on since over ten years ago, yet I love them. Fallout New Vegas is pretty awesome, even if the use of "Fallout" is unnecessary. Things like that.
I'm also cautious about the upcoming inFamous game, however. inFamous 2 had the perfect ending, and I can't help but feel that they're going to ruin it.

People are asking for a sequel to The Last of Us?!?! ARE THEY HIGH?! The story wrapped up really nicely, why would they want a sequel?! I mean, you can't even make an indirect sequel since the whole world is kinda...not that special when you think about it.

Seriously anyone asking for a sequel to the last of us insane or has no idea what they're asking for. What they SHOULD be asking for is more well crafted games with good stories. That will scratch the itch much more than a freakin sequel.

Also, the ending to this episode had me nearly rolling on the floor laughing. XD

I think the problem with sequels and prequels is that the developers forget the REASONS people liked the first game somewhere along the line in their pursuit of widespread appeal. They turn a game praised for it's horror elements into a bland action shooter, they turn a story driven RPG into a shooter, (they seem to turn EVERYTHING into a shooter) and so on. They miss why people bought the first game, as a result they alienate the fans, losing them as customers, and then because so many games are going to "widespread appeal" there's too much competition for it have much of a chance without an already stable fanbase to hold them up, and since they've destroyed that the game will only manage to do mediocre at best.

Really though, there's only 2 things that need to be done to make a good sequel/prequel:

1. Find out what most people liked about the last game(s) and keep it in as best as they can manage.

2. Find out what most people hated about the last game(s) and at least TRY to fix it.

The worst that can happen is they'll only make a game that was just as good as the last this way.

I've also never agreed with the idea that a game "doesn't have room" for a sequel/prequel, that the previous game(s) have tied up all the loose ends so there's nowhere for the future games to go from there. All that idea shows is a lack of imagination on the part of the audience, nothing more.

So, Jim, when are you going to get a decent camera and a backdrop that doesn't suck?

The things you say are pretty good, but the technical execution is just terrible,,, is that supposed to be part of the shtick? It really doesn't add anything.

I don't even think that games designed to have sequels are bad by default. Sure, sometimes it's just a company milking their audience, but that's not always the case. Look at the Legacy of Kain series. Blood Omen 2 aside, each of those games was a wonderfully fun game(assuming you like puzzles), but what made the series stand out for its time was the voice acting(of which it was one of only a handful of good examples at the time) and the storytelling. That series just would not have been as good had it just stopped at Blood Omen.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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