Game People Calling: A Sequel Used to Mean Something

[Game People]

Game People Calling: A Sequel Used to Mean Something

Games turn into franchises and lose the will to invent anything other than what is expected of them.

Read Full Article

 

[AvsJoe]

I don't hate sequels. If they try something new and succeed (GTA 3): awesome! If they try something new and fail (Final Fantasy Tactics Advance): I appreciate the effort. If they don't try anything new (Vandal Hearts 2): I am usually happy to play more of what I enjoyed previously.

 

[BlueHighwind]

I thought video game sequels were created to replicate the experience of the original while improving the gameplay or graphics or story in some fashion. I don't think anybody has ever bought a sequel for a "genuinely fresh" experience.

 

[ArchAngelKira]

The same thing happens in move sequels as well as games.

1st game:awesome
2nd game:Nice
3rd game: WTF

 

[Jared]

I do mis how sequels often did follow on from one another...one of my favourites having been the Legacy of Kain Series, and the Resident Evil series...before they went so convoluted...

I mean, reboots are nice (Ie/RE4) but...sequels no longer have the same story string anymore

 

[Veldt Falsetto]

This is why I hate all these Final Fantasy arguments of late, at least in a few franchises a sequel does always mean something new, and like Timesplitters, Final Fantasy, even Mario until very recently, more games should be willing to experiment with things this way, even if its something a little bit different each time, that for me would be great.

 

[Dectilon]

Outside of sports games I'm not sure what you're talking about. I agree that sequels are starting to feel a bit soulless, but the examples you bring up as good are pretty much on the level of how sequels work today. Writing down whatever pops into your head isn't always the best practice.

 

[FloodOne]

This is why I hate all these Final Fantasy arguments of late, at least in a few franchises a sequel does always mean something new, and like Timesplitters, Final Fantasy, even Mario until very recently, more games should be willing to experiment with things this way, even if its something a little bit different each time, that for me would be great.

My thoughts exactly. Each FF game is held together on the franchise name alone. Each game could have its own name independent of the others, but I doubt that it would have sold and turned SE into the powerhouse that it is.

 

[Sephiwind]

This is why I hate all these Final Fantasy arguments of late, at least in a few franchises a sequel does always mean something new, and like Timesplitters, Final Fantasy, even Mario until very recently, more games should be willing to experiment with things this way, even if its something a little bit different each time, that for me would be great.

My thoughts exactly. Each FF game is held together on the franchise name alone. Each game could have its own name independent of the others, but I doubt that it would have sold and turned SE into the powerhouse that it is.

This is true of the Final Fantasy series. For the most part they all use a turn based system, but other then that each system is generally unique as far as the mechanics go. Also with the exception of a few games no story is the same.

One thing about games in general though is that after so many sequels companies forget what it was that made their franchise great. The really should take a step back and re-evaluate what it was that made it so popular.

 

[Jamous]

I also get -VERY- excited at the idea of TS4. TS3 is one of my favourites of all time so far, and simply the possibility (which there still is!) gets me really interested.

 

[Therumancer]

My thought is simply that the point of doing a sequel is to produce more of the same, any changes and improvements should be relatively minor in fixing/enhancing the product.

If your going to entirely re-do the game from scratch, or change core elements of the experience, you should be making an entirely new product like rather than trying to make it a sequel to an existing franchise.

It's sort of like what I say constantly about "Fallout 3", it's really a truely great game but it's NOT "Fallout". Bethesda should have started their own post apocolyptic franchise instead of sticking the name on it for a marketing gimmick... and really that's increasingly what Sequels are becoming since you can't rely on a consistant experience.

Spin off series are a general exception, since they can be done without confusing something with an actual sequel. Also there are a few labels like "Final Fantasy" which cover similar but unrelated media similar to oh say "Tales From The Crypt" that represent something of an exception to this general rule.

To me "Crackdown 2" was exactly what I expected, and more or less perfect as a sequel. It's pretty much more of the same... a true sequel. It carries on the storyline (somewhat) and included some improvements and updates without changing the fundemental game play.

Such are my thoughts. Basically if someone wanted to make a "supercop" game set in a sandbox that truely altered the formula and how things worked, then they should make a new franchise for it instead of calling it "Crackdown".

Honestly, I await a single player sandbox super-hero game where you can select powers like in "City Of Heroes" or whatever instead of being handed a pre-defined set like inFamous, Prototype, or whatever else. While the game itself had some problems I saw how it could be done with the Diablo-Esque "X-Hero" many years ago, but it seems nobody has wanted to really explore the potential. Perhaps because there is fear that it would be too complicated for the mainstream... simplifying everything as much as possible seems to be the industry's design goal nowadays.

 

[Irridium]

The Timesplitters games are truly fantastic. I'd say they're the best games ever made.
Since playing them I have not seen a series that encapsulates all the pure fun, the unique charm, or the damn-near perfect gameplay.

And like you said, each one is so different while being so similar. Each one offers a unique experience. Each one is fun as all hell and should be played by everyone. And if you haven't yet had the joy of playing the epiphany of awesome that is Timesplitters, then I pity you.

Oh, and if anyone at Crytek is reading this, please, please for the love of all that is holy, make a Timesplitters 4. Or at least create a bundle of the first 3 and release them on the PC.

I would gladly pay any amount of money for anything Timesplitters. Seriously, we need Timesplitters to save us from this rut of "gritty and realistic" games. We need Timesplitters to show everyone how to make an insanely fun and funny game. We need Timesplitters to show the world that 4-player split-screen isn't dead, and that playing with bots is still fun.


WE! NEED! TIMESPLITTERS!

Sorry, kind of went off there. Actually, I'm not sorry. I meant every, single, word.

 

[The Random One]

You know, this reminds me of how yesterday I was thinking about Scott McCloud's theory of creative thought and how it applied to videogames. He says there are six levels in which one understands a media, surface-technique-structure-idiom-idea-form, and the deeper is your understanding the better you control that art. Usually, you need to know at least down to structure to make anything worthwhile, and form is reserved only for those who reshape an entire media with their body of work.

My thought is that videogames only care about surface, which is the shallowest part of it. So we have sequels that look like their predecessors but don't play like it. That's why Bioshock 2 has dark environments and a political-sounding storyline but doesn't draw in the player like the first one did, because they tried to do something that looked like the first one (surface) instead of repeating its themes and motifs (idiom). And that's why the Bubble Bobble sequels mentioned felt like sequels, because they followed the idiom (or perhaps structure, it's hard to say without playing) then rebuilt the technique and surface on top of that.

The industry sees gamers as too dumb to notice anything more than skin deep, so surface-deep games and sequels are the norm.

The same thing happens in move sequels as well as games.

1st game:awesome
2nd game:Nice
3rd game: WTF

Not always. So far, the Saints Row series has defied that (3 is supposed to come out next year). SR1 was OK, 2 was godly. Mass Effect was Awesome, then Awesomer. Same for Assassins Creed. Both L4Ds were awesome, and the Half-Life series was Awesome, Awesome, Awesome, Awesome, Awesome and Awesome (1, BS, OF, 2, E1, E2).

I think that for games, more than movies, sometimes the first game doesn't come out exactly how the devs intended, because gameplay is a very tricky thing. So it gets pushed down the line: instead of awesome, nice, wtf it gets nice, awesome (when the first sequel nails what the first one tried to do), nice (when the third sequel just gives more of the same), wtf (when the fourth sequel tries not to stagnate and goes crazy). Saints' Row and TimeSplitters both seem to be on that path. And, of course, this is just a generalization, I say the Tony Hawk series went straight from awesome (THPS1-4) to wtf (THUG and what followed).

Also, I'd describe the Half-Life Series (including only what I've played, 1, 2, EP1, EP2) as Horrible, Horrible, Playable and Finally Getting the Hang of It.

 

[JonEire]

The greatest Sequel of all time is coming Starcraft 2 !!

 

[Not-here-anymore]

It's a no-win situation in many ways for the developers - make changes to the formula of the previous game, and people will complain that it's not part of the series any more, and is using the name as a marketing tactic; make no major changes apart from a follow-up storyline, and people complain that nothing's changed, it's the same game, and that the corporations involved are all evil money-grabbing bastards.

Example: Halo 3:ODST.
Critics complained that the halo franchise was being milked, and that it was an overpriced DLC pack rather than a new game
Fans complained that they weren't master chief, and they didn't like the vulnerability aspects. And also that it was an overpriced DLC pack.
(I actually really enjoyed it. Also, it had Nathan Fillion, who basically just played Mal again)

On the other hand, enough people buy every iteration of the 'triple-A' franchises that 1)someone will complain no matter what, and 2) the company will make a fuck-ton of money anyway, so long as they at least pretend it's a new game.

 

[FloodOne]

This is why I hate all these Final Fantasy arguments of late, at least in a few franchises a sequel does always mean something new, and like Timesplitters, Final Fantasy, even Mario until very recently, more games should be willing to experiment with things this way, even if its something a little bit different each time, that for me would be great.

My thoughts exactly. Each FF game is held together on the franchise name alone. Each game could have its own name independent of the others, but I doubt that it would have sold and turned SE into the powerhouse that it is.

This is true of the Final Fantasy series. For the most part they all use a turn based system, but other then that each system is generally unique as far as the mechanics go. Also with the exception of a few games no story is the same.

One thing about games in general though is that after so many sequels companies forget what it was that made their franchise great. The really should take a step back and re-evaluate what it was that made it so popular.

I can agree with that, but my favorite FF titles come from all over the timeline. 6 and 10 are my top two, followed closely by 7, 13 and 4.

I like that SE isn't afraid to drastically change the formula. not every swing is gonna be a home run, but SE isn't afraid to step up to the plate and try something different each time. I, for one, would be sorely disappointed if they just tried to make what they were making 15 years ago. I want the franchise to continue to push boundaries, even if the result isn't a timeless classic. It keeps the name from getting stale.