Sequels Part 2
The much awaited sequel to the original with MovieBob, Jim and Yahtzee.
Read Full Article
The much awaited sequel to the original with MovieBob, Jim and Yahtzee.
Read Full Article
Sequels Part 2
- Thread starter Extra Consideration
- Start date
I do have to agree with Yahtzees last statement. Trying a in theory banning of sequels will be interesting. Because the shit of sequels will out weigh the good and people will stop looking for sequels to make quick n' easy money and use their brains for once.
I would like to point out that us nitwits the publishers kindly refer to as customers tend to get stuck to a storyline we think is good then stay with it until it finally ends. I think this can be observed much better in literature rather than games, because literature tends to take longer to complete in terms of a sequel.
On a side note, would like to see a discussion on game pricing. Should be interesting even if they all agree.
On a side note, would like to see a discussion on game pricing. Should be interesting even if they all agree.
The problem is that creating a sequel is the easiest form of marketing that there is; people see a game with a 2 on the end, remember the original and pick it up, even if said original was only okay.
Another problem is IP ownership; a developer is going to genuinely care about their IP, and if they think they can't carry on a series in a good way, they probably wouldn't make another game. But the publisher almost always gets the right to the IP, so if something will sell because is it part of an established franchise, they know the game can be awful and still sell. Although I never like the series myself, I'd state Halo as an example. Bungie made their Halo games and then decided to move on, but because Microsoft owns Halo they're giving it to another developer and making THREE MORE BLOODY GAMES.
Another problem is IP ownership; a developer is going to genuinely care about their IP, and if they think they can't carry on a series in a good way, they probably wouldn't make another game. But the publisher almost always gets the right to the IP, so if something will sell because is it part of an established franchise, they know the game can be awful and still sell. Although I never like the series myself, I'd state Halo as an example. Bungie made their Halo games and then decided to move on, but because Microsoft owns Halo they're giving it to another developer and making THREE MORE BLOODY GAMES.
On cliffhangers... HL2:Ep2 anyone? le sigh.
On pricing... I know it's not the point of this article (as Yahtzee points out) but I still go "wtf" when I walk into any games store and see a boxed Portal 2 for PC with a RRP of $90AU, when I swear I saw it on steam last night for under $30US - with currency parity atm, it's a bit of a joke. And an extra bit of hilarity, when an uninformed person purchases said boxed copy, intalls it (and steam), fires up steam to launch the game, and the first thing they see is an ad saying "Congratulations! You paid 3 times the price, how do you feel?" - Yeah. Pretty poor.
I assume this is more a publisher thing than a developer thing, business as usual in the land down under. ><
On pricing... I know it's not the point of this article (as Yahtzee points out) but I still go "wtf" when I walk into any games store and see a boxed Portal 2 for PC with a RRP of $90AU, when I swear I saw it on steam last night for under $30US - with currency parity atm, it's a bit of a joke. And an extra bit of hilarity, when an uninformed person purchases said boxed copy, intalls it (and steam), fires up steam to launch the game, and the first thing they see is an ad saying "Congratulations! You paid 3 times the price, how do you feel?" - Yeah. Pretty poor.
I assume this is more a publisher thing than a developer thing, business as usual in the land down under. ><
I don't know if that's fair. How much pull would David Jaffe have in terms of the game's pricing? Somehow I think that if he actually could make it less than $60, he would. But isn't his job just to make the game so that Sony can sell it at whatever price they see fit? Maybe I'm thinking too small, but I don't see how he would be able to do anything more than make a comment or two about it.
The point about cliffhangers is an interesting one too. I'm fine with good cliffhangers. I'm just sick of games that end too early and feel like there's still a part of the current story missing. I want a cliffhanger ending to make me get excited and start speculating about what happens next and have me on the edge of my seat waiting for the next game, not make me think "Hey, where the hell is the rest of this game? The story isn't finished yet! Augh. Do I have to wait a few months for DLC or a few years for the next game? This sucks."
Oh ho ho, the "I hate Jim Sterling" crowd never gets old.Keslen said:
Or maybe it's just that it's been old from day one, thus doesn't appear to be getting old because there was nothing funny or clever that would start getting old and tired. Yes, I think this is far more likely.
My contribution to the whole sequel dilemma is that the sequel is only good if it was planned from the beginning AND the separate parts still have a functioning beginning/middle/end.
But I do like the point about how we commonly mislabel sequels and franchises. Sequels are a continuation or addition to the plot whereas a franchise just has similar elements and possibly no plot connection whatsoever. Sometimes a franchise can be a sequel in name only *cough*Xcom*cough*
If I had to pick games that i know of that fit those molds best I'd say that Kingdom Hearts is a sequel series (I'll be honest the Kingdom Hearts story is a mess because it doesn't seem to have been planned out from the beginning) and Legend of Zelda is a franchise series.
But I do like the point about how we commonly mislabel sequels and franchises. Sequels are a continuation or addition to the plot whereas a franchise just has similar elements and possibly no plot connection whatsoever. Sometimes a franchise can be a sequel in name only *cough*Xcom*cough*
If I had to pick games that i know of that fit those molds best I'd say that Kingdom Hearts is a sequel series (I'll be honest the Kingdom Hearts story is a mess because it doesn't seem to have been planned out from the beginning) and Legend of Zelda is a franchise series.
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,162
- 130
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
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?
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?
I completely agree with this statement. I don't understand why people think cliffhangers are a problem in and of themselves; it's entirely possible, and not uncommon, for a cliffhanger ending to be a great ending. The Empire Strikes Back? Back to the Future 2? Both of them end on huge cliffhangers that make it very obvious another film is coming, but they're both fantastic endings. Even the much-hated Halo 2 cliffhanger is, in my opinion, sufficiently well-done to not really bother me. Well, apart from the fact that you then needed to buy a new console to finish the story, but that's a different issue.Jim Sterling said:
Yeah, Jaffe wouldn't be able to do much. Bethesda on the other hand, they'd probably be able to do something. And if not them, then EA could definitely do something. They have their own store selling their own games. They recognized the problem 4 years ago.mjc0961 said:
And yet they don't do shit. No, wait, they ***** about used games and are pushing DLC and whatnot to get us to pay more after the hefty $60 investment.
Selling Battlefield 3 for $40 would be the best way to try and outsell call of duty.
Or even Skyrim. Selling the games at $40 would be game-changing. Because then people would start going "why should I pay $60 for your game, when I can get something like Skyrim/BF3 for $40?"
Ninja'd. I can't think of any others, so yeah, I'm pretty sure this is the 7th. Time to look at Wikipedia...JoJoDeathunter said:
Ah, there's two arcade games, too. But when do publishers EVER count arcade-only releases when numbering their games?
I'm thinking back to all the Dragon Age 2 hate. That was a decent game in and of itself; it just wasn't a direct sequel to Dragon Age: Origins. Rather, it was a somewhat different game in the same world setting. It was also billed as a game about a "rise to power" rather than a game about being "swept along by events". Cue massive nerd rage flowing from frustrated entitlement.
Maybe the problem isn't sequels, it's lazy marketing. As long as you know what you're getting, you can't complain when you get it.
Maybe the problem isn't sequels, it's lazy marketing. As long as you know what you're getting, you can't complain when you get it.
To Jim:Extra Consideration said:
If you're aware of the origin of "cliffhanger," than you're probably also aware that it was a combination stall tactic and marketing device. And most importantly, it was used in small scale serials. Scheherazade was just buying one more night. Hardy was just putting things off for one more month.
Games don't generally have episodic content with a fast enough turn-around that cliffhangers really work to build the suspense. Half Life has proven that even the best of intentions can't keep good games coming fast enough.
Of course, there is a difference between a cliffhanger and an open ending. The difference, really, is that an open ending still has an ending. There's a payoff of some sort, and it's substantial and satisfying... and then there's a nod to some unresolved story elements that may have more significance than we originally though. That can be as simple as having a few unanswered questions, of which you may or may not remind the audience before closing out the current story.
It's like a meal. You anticipate getting your entree, and you're hungry and excited. A cliffhanger is like saying, "Sorry, but your meal will be delayed just a bit." If it goes on too long, you're going to leave--and rightfully so. An open ending, if done well, is more like saying, "Sorry, but your full entree is going to be delayed, but here is one of our best appetizers to tide you over, and we'll throw in a dessert at the end for making you wait."
Or, for another analogy, a trail of breadcrumbs can be used to lead a bird where you like. But if the breadcrumbs are too far apart, the bird is going to lose the trail (or just lose patience). You either need to place them more often, or consider leaving bigger pieces.
There's a definite reason for them "picking on" CoD; which is that it hasn't made a significant evolution since Modern Warfare.REPTILE 0009 said:
Now I loved CoD 4, loved it to death- and I will defend it against anyone who badmouths it. Yet, even with that love, I can't deny that MW2, Blops, and probably the upcoming MW3 are/appear to be more of the same. Same settings (or at least types), same Cold-War era mentality (even in the "modern" ones due to the villainous Russians), same HUD (which is now spreading to other games), etc.
Essentially, Activision believes that releasing the same game every two years with better graphics (and little else in the way of innovation) is justification for an additional $60. This is an attitude that is poisonous to the entire games industry because it propagates crass indulgence and money-grabbing instead of technical or artistic innovation.
So, yeah, they aren't "picking CoD for no reason," they are suggesting flaws in the current system of gaming, of which the continuous cloning of CoD 4 is a serious symptom.
If anyone needs to grow up around here, it's a fanboy who blindly defends a series that has stagnated against any constructive criticism which might make the series better in the long run.
And what exactly excuses companies like Nintendo and Capcom from releasing the same game for the past decade?Prof. Monkeypox said:
Nothing.REPTILE 0009 said:
And none of the commentators (with the possible exception of Nintendo fanboy Bob) are excusing them for that. And I certainly won't jump on the defending Nintendo bandwagon either. It just seems odd that you jump up to defend CoD when that was far from the only game they were commenting on.
This discussion reminds me of my recent ire toward Skyward Sword.
The more I hear about that game, the less it sounds like a classic Zelda game (if anything it kind of sounds like an Atlus RPG in the style of Persona or something).
And that's cool, it sounds like Nintendo is finally doing something different. So why do I hate it? Well, it's because if they intend to completely overhaul LoZ why not just call it something else? The superficial Zelda trappings just seem like a pointless framework they're trying to crowbar something new into.
If they don't want to keep making Ocarina of Time clones, that's a step in the right direction- but it's completely pointless if they release it in a way that says "we're not confident we can make anything that will get played by anyone but nostalgia-blinded 30-somethings."
The more I hear about that game, the less it sounds like a classic Zelda game (if anything it kind of sounds like an Atlus RPG in the style of Persona or something).
And that's cool, it sounds like Nintendo is finally doing something different. So why do I hate it? Well, it's because if they intend to completely overhaul LoZ why not just call it something else? The superficial Zelda trappings just seem like a pointless framework they're trying to crowbar something new into.
If they don't want to keep making Ocarina of Time clones, that's a step in the right direction- but it's completely pointless if they release it in a way that says "we're not confident we can make anything that will get played by anyone but nostalgia-blinded 30-somethings."