On Sequels
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Well it makes perfect sense....but you also said in your SPORE review that if someone has made a masterpiece they have to attempt to live up to that reputation but never do, so in a way it's a lose:lose situation
There are exceptions to this. Take MINERVA for example, it was made by a fanboy of HL2 and now its considered canon.
There are plenty of sequels made that are better than the original's because they have been kept by their original developers*.
*Note: I mean most of them, some of the original developers still stuff it up
There are exceptions to this. Take MINERVA for example, it was made by a fanboy of HL2 and now its considered canon.
There are plenty of sequels made that are better than the original's because they have been kept by their original developers*.
*Note: I mean most of them, some of the original developers still stuff it up
He does have a very good point, but it's still sort of a depressing view, that fans will never be grateful with what they're given.
Just a shame it's an accurate view :/
Just a shame it's an accurate view :/
If you mean people who have modest criticisms about the original as well as interesting suggestions, then definitely.Yahtzee Croshaw said:
But then there are those people who just don't like a game for what it is. And putting them in charge would probably result in a loss of the things that made the original so beloved.
Ex. I remember someone making a user review stating that he didn't much like Dead Space and thought that "Zero-gravity" was retarded. He is entitled to his opinion...I just wouldn't offer him a seat for pitching ideas into the next game.
Wow, I didn't think I could disagree with every single word in an article so strongly and completely; yet, here we are.
I'll just post what I had in a similar thread:
"I would like less (none, preferrably) sequels. I think that sequels invalidate the original games. I would rather see expansions that add to the game, adding more content to it. In the era of DLC, considering the consoles have been sold with it in mind, it is sad to see few developers take advantage of it, rather choosing to withhold content to milk customers for it.
I still have older games with many problems and glitches that haven't been fixed with patches beyond those that are game-breaking (and in some cases, those still exist). Developers will instead focus on crafting a sequel to the game instead of fixing said older game, essentially shafting the customers that have already placed their faith in the company.
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..."
"I would like less (none, preferrably) sequels. I think that sequels invalidate the original games. I would rather see expansions that add to the game, adding more content to it. In the era of DLC, considering the consoles have been sold with it in mind, it is sad to see few developers take advantage of it, rather choosing to withhold content to milk customers for it.
I still have older games with many problems and glitches that haven't been fixed with patches beyond those that are game-breaking (and in some cases, those still exist). Developers will instead focus on crafting a sequel to the game instead of fixing said older game, essentially shafting the customers that have already placed their faith in the company.
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..."
I find that sequels not made by the original creators have a greater tendency to be lacklustre. Star Control 3 and Master of Orion 3 were phenomenal disappointments, for example.
A small amount of fandom is probably required to make a sequel, or any derivative work for that matter. Otherwise you'll have Monkey Island 11 set in 22nd century New York City with a female/ethnic/robot/mutant/British sidekick butchering aliens with no pirates, monkeys or islands in sight, a greater crime, I believe, since that means the name was only used as a hook to get you to buy an inferior product: which is most commonly seen in the game-to-movie and book-to-movie bugger ups.
Logical departures of established canon(s) are no big crime, although many fan-boys will violently disagree, just so long as it's entertaining and is adequately related whatever you're deriving from.
PS Monkey Planet could actually be a really cool game: Guybrush crawls out of a crashed escape pod and jovially exclaims: "I wanna be a space pirate!"
A small amount of fandom is probably required to make a sequel, or any derivative work for that matter. Otherwise you'll have Monkey Island 11 set in 22nd century New York City with a female/ethnic/robot/mutant/British sidekick butchering aliens with no pirates, monkeys or islands in sight, a greater crime, I believe, since that means the name was only used as a hook to get you to buy an inferior product: which is most commonly seen in the game-to-movie and book-to-movie bugger ups.
Logical departures of established canon(s) are no big crime, although many fan-boys will violently disagree, just so long as it's entertaining and is adequately related whatever you're deriving from.
PS Monkey Planet could actually be a really cool game: Guybrush crawls out of a crashed escape pod and jovially exclaims: "I wanna be a space pirate!"
I don't care what the fuck he says: sequels being banned is just plain stupid. Sure there are many pointless sequels out there that the gaming world could do without, but many of our favorite games are sequels so fuck that idea 'till its dead. I still think Halo 3 is a great sequel, KOTOR 2, SH 2, and RE 2 are my favorite sequels of all time, and if franchises didn't exist I wouldn't have played LoZ Ocarina of Time or any of the Castlevania GBA games.
Ah,but see,if it was like you say in the begining,we wouldnt have half life 2,civilization 4,fallout 2,and many other excelent sequels that werent part of a series.
And its not true that you should give the sequel to someone who hates the game,but to a fan that wants to make it better.You know,some of us do see the flaws in the games we love,no matter how much we love them.I know it shocks you(heck,it shocks me whenever I think about it),but not all people are inconpetent idiots.
And its not true that you should give the sequel to someone who hates the game,but to a fan that wants to make it better.You know,some of us do see the flaws in the games we love,no matter how much we love them.I know it shocks you(heck,it shocks me whenever I think about it),but not all people are inconpetent idiots.
I find it's a good point (thinking about improvement and not respect), but the delivery is very confusing, Mr. Yahtzee.
Being a fan is irrelevant. What matters, to me, is making a good game that is relevant to the property. Either a complete departure, or a profound refinement of the previous title, bottom line, what matters is if it's good.
Being a fan is irrelevant. What matters, to me, is making a good game that is relevant to the property. Either a complete departure, or a profound refinement of the previous title, bottom line, what matters is if it's good.
Yahtzee, what is your opinion on the Thief 2 FM Campaign, "Shadows of the Metal Age"? While I agree with your points...a lot, I'm just curious because Thief 2X is completely fan-made content, do you just consider this one an exception? Or do mods even count, considering they're using the same engine as the original game and a lot of elements from the original?
Regarding sequels, I have to agree with Mr. Croshaw.
I absolutely hate it when sequel developers claim that they're trying "pay respect" to an old franchise. As an artist, I could say that I'm "paying respect" to Leonardo da Vinci by tracing over the Mona Lisa and slapping it on a canvas, but in the end, all I'll have done is exploited a famous piece of artwork and pissed off every Italian in heaven.
However, I do think that a good sequel is possible in the hands of a die hard fan. Sure, most fans would probably fill the sequel with all the textures, running gags, and characters that made the original great, but in order to keep my faith in humanity, I have to believe that some fans would be willing to try and make the game their own.
If we consider games to be an art form, then we have to consider them a form of self-expression first. Returning my previous metaphor, several artists have used the Mona Lisa in their work (ex: Dada), but what separated their work from mere plagiarism was the fact that they took it and made it a part of themselves. That said, I truly believe that the best sequels are those that are completely detached from the original. I applaud any developer that takes the giant risk of taking an old franchise, and instead of giving it a new look, gives it a new personality altogether.
I absolutely hate it when sequel developers claim that they're trying "pay respect" to an old franchise. As an artist, I could say that I'm "paying respect" to Leonardo da Vinci by tracing over the Mona Lisa and slapping it on a canvas, but in the end, all I'll have done is exploited a famous piece of artwork and pissed off every Italian in heaven.
However, I do think that a good sequel is possible in the hands of a die hard fan. Sure, most fans would probably fill the sequel with all the textures, running gags, and characters that made the original great, but in order to keep my faith in humanity, I have to believe that some fans would be willing to try and make the game their own.
If we consider games to be an art form, then we have to consider them a form of self-expression first. Returning my previous metaphor, several artists have used the Mona Lisa in their work (ex: Dada), but what separated their work from mere plagiarism was the fact that they took it and made it a part of themselves. That said, I truly believe that the best sequels are those that are completely detached from the original. I applaud any developer that takes the giant risk of taking an old franchise, and instead of giving it a new look, gives it a new personality altogether.
While I agree that games that have endings in which everything gets closure and the story is 100% finished shouldn't get sequels, I disagree with the part that only stories that can be told from start to finish in 10 hours of gameplay should be made.
You can have compelling stories that take more than one game to unfold. Take Max Payne for example, even though you did get an ending in the first game, his story wasn't over, and it only came to a true conclusion at the end of the sequel. The game also serves as an example of a game sequel that was true to the original in every single aspect, almost like watching Kill Bill vol.1 and vol.2 (one movie in two parts).
I don't think simplifying a storyline to fit in a single game will make it better, as long as you don't screw up other things about the game in the sequel (like gameplay, voice acting, art style, etc).
You can have compelling stories that take more than one game to unfold. Take Max Payne for example, even though you did get an ending in the first game, his story wasn't over, and it only came to a true conclusion at the end of the sequel. The game also serves as an example of a game sequel that was true to the original in every single aspect, almost like watching Kill Bill vol.1 and vol.2 (one movie in two parts).
I don't think simplifying a storyline to fit in a single game will make it better, as long as you don't screw up other things about the game in the sequel (like gameplay, voice acting, art style, etc).
I think a differentiation needs to be made between fanboys and just regular fans. If you bring in people who DIDN'T like a game to make a sequel to it, odds are that they're going to remove all the fun stuff that made the original good. If you left Monkey Island in the hands of people who didn't like it because they thought the original was too hard, you may end up with a game that's so simple and stupid that it sucks all the principal fun from the adventure game experience.
I played Monkey Island I + II and enjoyed them, even though I'm not very good at adventure games and had to have gamefaqs open constantly. Also, am I crazy for thinking that MI 2 didn't end in a way that no sequel could have been possible? Given how crazy the ending and general plot was along with it's huge amount of self-parody, I don't think it's fair to classify MI as a pure fanboy resurrection.
I played Monkey Island I + II and enjoyed them, even though I'm not very good at adventure games and had to have gamefaqs open constantly. Also, am I crazy for thinking that MI 2 didn't end in a way that no sequel could have been possible? Given how crazy the ending and general plot was along with it's huge amount of self-parody, I don't think it's fair to classify MI as a pure fanboy resurrection.
It would seem so.Lvl 64 Klutz said:
Personally, I think fans making a game is not a bad idea as they know what made the game good in the first place. However, as mentioned, fans will make the game 'theirs' with disregard to improvements that could be made.
There needs to be a mix of fans and haters of the original in the development team.
I do agree that fanboys shouldn't be the ones to make a sequel because what you almost always end up with is a glorified fanfic (see the new Bionic Commando).
But I can't really agree that somebody who didn't like the game should work on its sequel, because are they really going to have their heart in it? No, and they'll probably resent having to work on said sequel.
But I can't really agree that somebody who didn't like the game should work on its sequel, because are they really going to have their heart in it? No, and they'll probably resent having to work on said sequel.