Extra Punctuation: Building Sequels Badly
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
I don't have a ton to say here beyond what Yahtzee said, except that I personally got really giddy when the original Portal made references to the Half-Life continuity.
Yes, Advance Wars: Dual strike was superior, but was that really for the story?Blazingdragoon04 said:
Halo: Combat Evolved wasn't very much left open for a sequel. It wasn't like shut off, but there was no cliff hanger. However, Halo 2 had a much better narrative than it did. Halo 3 wasn't as good as Halo 2 in narrative, but is still was much better than Combat Evolved.
That's the only example I can think of though.
That's the only example I can think of though.
once again, i both love you and hate you at the same time.
also, you seem to think your opinion is always correct. not everyone hates the games you hate, and not everyone loves the games you love. despite the general response you get from these forums.
also, you seem to think your opinion is always correct. not everyone hates the games you hate, and not everyone loves the games you love. despite the general response you get from these forums.
The ugly truth is that in the original ending, Chell successfully escaped while Glados came back online. Nothing else could be inferred. And Portal 2 retcons both clumsily.
Now, don't think I'm so enemy of retcons: it's the "clumsy" part that's important. Portal 2 writers could have worked a bit more on the crucial connection between the two games, and less on Wheatley's verbal diarrhea.
Now, don't think I'm so enemy of retcons: it's the "clumsy" part that's important. Portal 2 writers could have worked a bit more on the crucial connection between the two games, and less on Wheatley's verbal diarrhea.
Yahtzee is genius, and anyone who knows how to read between the lines can see it.
We're talking about games, not unpaid second jobs with all the gameplay of utensil sorting while held at gunpoint by conservative game designers with no idea what they're doing.2xDouble said:
See thats really exactly what a sequel should be. You keep the style, mythology and the art direction and you throw out anything else that wasn't a necessity. You don't have to move far, but you need to move. Can go future, or past, or geographically. You make new characters and a new story thats unique to them.Norix596 said:
Of recent sequels, I think Fallout did this most memortably. I won't say that either fallout 3 or new vegas were like world shatteringly orgasmic, but they were both good strong games that stood up by themselves. There's crossover of course, but particularly the way that new vegas just gave you a new guns to play with and new places to go while staying familiar. A well done sequel.
Also, the STALKER series does this VERY well. They all feel the same, but they are each their own game with their own stuff going on. Could maybe do with some new guns and more fleshed out characters to really push that further, but still. Excellent series that always makes you feel part of the world but not treading on the previous games toes.
So, I agree with your thesis... but almost none of your supporting evidence. That is assuming that 'listening to your fans' can be a downfall. I don't even think your prime example can really be well maintained as such. Does Portal 2 really seem like it is based on fan responses?Yahtzee Croshaw said:
Ultimately though, you have a clear paradox here. Your criticism of any particulars in Portal 2 would fall under 'responses by a fan', so you can't really cite examples of things done wrong in the game without immediately invalidating them.
We can use counter examples though. Things added to the game that had no basis in the previous title, and therefore couldn't be expressly requested. Like the inclusion of the Cave Johnson set of test chambers. They would seem to indicate a desire on the part of the creator to do something based on their own creative impetus outside the bounds of the fan demands.
I find it interesting how many people have responded to this quote, and then give bad examples! Look at the various points:
1) Wasn't left open for a sequel.
2) The same main characters
3) Story is regarded as better
Most people seem to have forgot that middle one in there. I'm not saying there are NOT good responses to his challenge, but I've seen, for example, Chrono Cross. That game has basically none of the same characters. Others list off games that had basically no story... but those are clearly 'left open for a sequel'. That doesn't mean the same thing as 'do not have a cliff hanger.'
Just thought I'd point this out.
It appears to me that at the moment the Deus Ex: Human Revolution guys are doing the right amount of fan service. They're listening to fans on superficial things, things that would immediately turn off an obstinate gamer unwilling to change. The controls are basically the same as they were in the first game. They've given players the option to remove the yellow highlighting of objects. Basically, they're succumbing to the fans on things that don't matter. I haven't heard if JC Denton's going to be in the game, but it seems to me like anything beyond a nod (as Yahtzee says) would be too much considering the timeline of the game.
Take these comments with careful optimism since the game hasn't been released though.
Take these comments with careful optimism since the game hasn't been released though.
No, no they don't. The atmosphere is different for most of those games, and many of them tell a completely different story then the game that game before it... mostly.
Yes they are similar but that is because it is a long running franchise but they all have different atmosphere and most of them have a different narrative style as well which sets them all apart even if the gameplay is essentially the same. By your logic Silent Hill is all the same because it is essentially
Normal Person >> Collect keys >> Learn dark secret
Silent Hill's gameplay hardly budged an inch in all the years with the exception of SH4 and we all know how that turned out.
That isn't to say trying new things is bad but it is like arguing with final fantasy fans as well who said the series is going downhill since 6 and we all know there are plenty of people who liked the games after. It was another astonishing point that Yahtzee said it was universally agreed that the series got worse but in truth, the games got better. Silent Hill Homecoming and Origins for instance was a far better game then SH4.
I feel like there was an opening at the end of Half-Life for a sequel, one that seems fairly clearly referenced at the beginning of Half-Life 2. (You know, G-Man whisking Gordon away for further adventures at the end of Half-Life). I'd agree it's way more tenuous than the connection in most sequels though.Worr Monger said:
I don't know what TES is, but Mass Effect and Half-Life were both designed with sequels in mind, so they don't really fit what Yatzhee is talking about. Yahtzee's saying, essentially, that Portal 2 which did not focus on elements of the first game's plot would have had greater potential than to revive and recycle said elements. Put another way: the Portal world might be quite large, but we continue to obsess over one single corner of it.SirBryghtside said:
In a way, what Yahtzee is saying is (I think) true of Portal the First. It does, after all, appear to be an event in the Half-Life universe, a chance to see a completely unrelated tale with nary a Gordon Freeman in sight, showcasing events that take place far, far away from the Combine and all that stuff. Hell, we don't even know the exact time it takes place. Anyway, that analogy seems to be pretty close to the Silent Hill 1/2 example he provides: the point being that you can tell more than one story without having to make the tales in question "continuations" of one another.
I agree, only maintaining that a sequel shouldn't lose the spirit and game play of the original in a general sense, especially if there was nothing wrong with it.
I'm fine with things being added on, but practically changing sub-genre to cater to a completely different audience doesn't usually go over well.
Just look at Supreme Commander 2.
I'm fine with things being added on, but practically changing sub-genre to cater to a completely different audience doesn't usually go over well.
Just look at Supreme Commander 2.
Yeah fans are, for the most part, pretty unreasonable when it comes to dealing with these kinds of things. Hell, I've been the same way too, *cough* Resident Evil 5 *cough*.
At the end of the day, its best for the makers to just do what they wanna do and then let the fantards whine.
At the end of the day, its best for the makers to just do what they wanna do and then let the fantards whine.
I'd say that a case of where a sequel is held up in higher regard then the original while using the same characters from the previous title, having the same premise, and gameplay would be things like Marvel vs Capcom 3, Super Street Fighter 4, or StarCraft 2. But competitive games are a whole different beast then story based games. Also I don't think Yahtzee counts those as games anyway.