Extra Punctuation: Building Sequels Badly
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
" Name me one sequel to a game that wasn't left open for sequels, with the same main characters as before, whose story was regarded as better than the first. Let me help you out: there aren't any."
Um... BG2>>BG1?
Um... BG2>>BG1?
If you look through the history of gaming there are a lot of examples.bue519 said:
I would actually include Portal 2.
I thought it was a better game than the first. Don't get me wrong, I loved the first but it wasn't really a complete game; it was the introduction of an ingenious game concept that I got as a bonus to a game.
But then again, I don't really consider story an important part of a game; and if I did, I don't think I would be much of a gamer.
At the same time, I greatly appreciated the new archetypes they slipped into Portal 2 from the fool to the god that created it all. It wasn't contrived or pretentious and while the hilarity wasn't as surprising, it was just as clever.
To me what was more important was adding new elements to the existing structure of the "test chamber" and to that end I was most satisfied.
If I want a good story experience, I'm not going to reach for a game and many of the games that people say have good story experiences only have good stories when compared to other games and tend to have some tedious and/or sparse gameplay.
On the subject of sequels, I cast my mind back to the Metal Gear Solid series, (PSX Onwards).
Although heavily criticised for being a total mind-bend, I still enjoyed playing/watching the series, and although I can't say that I entirely get the story...I just became engrossed, and it became a guilty-ish pleasure.
Now I'm sure we can say that the first Metal Gear Solid was great fun, (If you want to count the NES version as well, since that technically was the first, be my guest
). I was psyched at a sequel, but all the points raised in Yahtzee's posts were evident, direct sequelage can just water the experience.
Spoiler alert for anyone who hasn't gotten around to playing MGS Sons of Liberty. When I found out that Liquid snake was still alive, I rolled my eyes back. It was unnecessary. Granted, I know a few that think that the whole game was unnecessary, but you can tell that was just a bid to toss him into the sequel. This is why I agree with Yahtzee, and that the fans are being looked at to in-adversely 'guide' them to construct their sequels. When a game is made, the fans are created, and the problem with the fans is that their 'likes' and 'dislikes' are expressed to help shape what the sequel should be...I just don't see that as a positive thing.
Before that's misconstrued, Positives and Negative of game mechanic sure help in designing a game that appeals and works, but I'm talking about events of the game, or characters...take 'Pyramid Head' for example; we Silent Hill lovers mostly think that Pyramid head was inventive and probably the best Silent Hill monster to date. The Westerner Silent Hill pick-up team realise this, and say with a 'Bill & Ted esq.' tone, "That's a brilliant idea! What this game needs is more Pyramid Head! I need more Pyramid Head!" (Anyone else get the image of Walken and the Cowbell scene from reading that?). What I'm saying is, games should not be done to appease the fan-base, and Pyramid Head should have stayed in Silent Hill 2, where he belongs, *trying to urge not to rant about how Pyramid Head doesn't make sense being in anything else*.
Quickly back to Metal Gear: Did anyone 'really' enjoy playing as Raiden for the later-half of the game? If you did, fine, but the developers themselves admitted that Raiden was there to make you appreciate Snake. I get the impression that a lot of MGS Sons of Liberty was laid out with the skeleton of the old game, and new skin of different colours was just stapled on here and there, making the whole experience just botched in places and quite disjointed. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed it, but knew it could have been a far more engaging game.
Speaking of which, we all know that Riaden was the weaker of the two; why is it that weaker characters from previous titles need to be introduced into later ones as total bad-asses, (MGS 4 reference). We said: "Raiden's a Pussy", they said, "Then we'll stick him in Cyborg Armour and give him a Batman growl". I call it: Bad-Ass-Dertising a character, and when you say "BadAssDertising" it sounds like you're saying "Bastardising", which is about right.
Any games you can think of where pussy-characters are re-vamped as bad-asses in sequels?
Good post Yahtzee.
Although heavily criticised for being a total mind-bend, I still enjoyed playing/watching the series, and although I can't say that I entirely get the story...I just became engrossed, and it became a guilty-ish pleasure.
Now I'm sure we can say that the first Metal Gear Solid was great fun, (If you want to count the NES version as well, since that technically was the first, be my guest
). I was psyched at a sequel, but all the points raised in Yahtzee's posts were evident, direct sequelage can just water the experience.Spoiler alert for anyone who hasn't gotten around to playing MGS Sons of Liberty. When I found out that Liquid snake was still alive, I rolled my eyes back. It was unnecessary. Granted, I know a few that think that the whole game was unnecessary, but you can tell that was just a bid to toss him into the sequel. This is why I agree with Yahtzee, and that the fans are being looked at to in-adversely 'guide' them to construct their sequels. When a game is made, the fans are created, and the problem with the fans is that their 'likes' and 'dislikes' are expressed to help shape what the sequel should be...I just don't see that as a positive thing.
Before that's misconstrued, Positives and Negative of game mechanic sure help in designing a game that appeals and works, but I'm talking about events of the game, or characters...take 'Pyramid Head' for example; we Silent Hill lovers mostly think that Pyramid head was inventive and probably the best Silent Hill monster to date. The Westerner Silent Hill pick-up team realise this, and say with a 'Bill & Ted esq.' tone, "That's a brilliant idea! What this game needs is more Pyramid Head! I need more Pyramid Head!" (Anyone else get the image of Walken and the Cowbell scene from reading that?). What I'm saying is, games should not be done to appease the fan-base, and Pyramid Head should have stayed in Silent Hill 2, where he belongs, *trying to urge not to rant about how Pyramid Head doesn't make sense being in anything else*.
Quickly back to Metal Gear: Did anyone 'really' enjoy playing as Raiden for the later-half of the game? If you did, fine, but the developers themselves admitted that Raiden was there to make you appreciate Snake. I get the impression that a lot of MGS Sons of Liberty was laid out with the skeleton of the old game, and new skin of different colours was just stapled on here and there, making the whole experience just botched in places and quite disjointed. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed it, but knew it could have been a far more engaging game.
Speaking of which, we all know that Riaden was the weaker of the two; why is it that weaker characters from previous titles need to be introduced into later ones as total bad-asses, (MGS 4 reference). We said: "Raiden's a Pussy", they said, "Then we'll stick him in Cyborg Armour and give him a Batman growl". I call it: Bad-Ass-Dertising a character, and when you say "BadAssDertising" it sounds like you're saying "Bastardising", which is about right.
Any games you can think of where pussy-characters are re-vamped as bad-asses in sequels?
Good post Yahtzee.
To everyone who's tried to debunk Yahtzee's statement, allow me to reiterate it for you with some slight emphasis
Sequels can be good. Sequels can transcend their former. But what Yahtzee is asking is can a game wallow in it's already pre-established world, with it's own already pre-established plot, background, history, characters, etc. and still come out ahead of it's predecessor. I actually think Yahtzee was being a little too kind with this request, and should've also tacked on "is set in the exact same world, or one closely to near-perfectly matching the world of the original". If we had that, then SMB3 would get thrown out because the worlds are completely different throughout, and most of the "examples" in the history of gaming could also be thrown out for this same reason.
Now, let's run through the list, shall we?
Already been mentioned, but since Wily keeps getting away/out of prison, the series keeps leaving itself open for sequels. Granted, it's not leaving itself open at the end of the game, rather re-opens itself at the start, but then that's an overused plot device, and thus bad story.
Neither use the same characters. In Fallout 2 it's the descendant of the first's hero, and in DKC2 it's Diddy and Dixie, NOT DK and Diddy. By these rulings it doesn't count if not all of the main, playable characters are both present in the game and playable.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't each sequel in that series set in different regions/lands? And is there any distinction that the character you're playing is the same as the prior games?
It seems a lot of people are listing off games whose gameplay was improved in the sequel, NOT the storyline. Super Mario Bros. 3? You're grasping at straws with that one, since story and plot were the farthest away from making the game as possible back then. Most (S)NES games had a central plot that pointed you in a direction (typically to the right) and told you to push forward until your eyes started to bleed. Sure you had Zelda and the early Final Fantasies that tried to push actual storytelling, but we've already established that neither of those two franchises use the same characters for multiple iterations.
Sequels can be good. Sequels can transcend their former. But what Yahtzee is asking is can a game wallow in it's already pre-established world, with it's own already pre-established plot, background, history, characters, etc. and still come out ahead of it's predecessor. I actually think Yahtzee was being a little too kind with this request, and should've also tacked on "is set in the exact same world, or one closely to near-perfectly matching the world of the original". If we had that, then SMB3 would get thrown out because the worlds are completely different throughout, and most of the "examples" in the history of gaming could also be thrown out for this same reason.
My mistake. It made partially due to lack of sleep, and partially due to ambiguous wording.hitheremynameisbob said:
I thought he was referring to the sequel becasue there are plenty of games that they want made into a franchise, and the challenge becomes harder if you look a game series that stops at #2 and doesn't leave itself open for a #3.
The first Phoenix Wright/Gyakuten Saiban game was a tight story with a clear end that had every plot thread tied up (not counting the DS-only fifth case, since that was made after the sequels). The next game, Justice for All, managed to take that tight story and expand on it by focusing on the characters, making them more three-dimensional.
I think Diablo II had a better story than the first game. Ok, so the main character from the first game is technically Diablo in the second game after he shoves the Soulstone into his head, but I thought that was more interesting in a way. The hero you played in the first game is the final boss in the second. Are there any other games that do that?
Also, you get to beat Griswold to death with his mate's leg. What more could you ask for?
More of the same though, doesnt happen for sequels made not following these points. I take Guildwars vs its sequel as the most significant example of this. Guildwars is a game that succeeded because it threw out the D20 origin of most other RPGs on the market. they stripped down an MMO to the point where the only thing left were the combat skills, and then allowed for hybrid classing and free redistribution of points. Armor was simplified down to simple, yet deep 2 option pieces for 5 slots each, as well as weapons with 3 levels of functional customization.Nimcha said:
This is compared to the sequel, where armor and weapons now have inherent modifiers which do not cap, the skills are linked into weapons, and they reintroduced stats to the game in a way identical to that of Dungeons and Dragons. They removed the interesting, if incredibly challenging to balance hybrid classing. This is a direct sequel, which has no relation to the other game, and has yet to show actual use of any attributes of the original. It didnt use the original as a jumping off point, it threw out what made it withstand WoW, in exchange for it's greatest competition's strengths and some rather obvious flaws.
My Phrase "You cant beat Warcraft at Warcraft" comes to mind, reciting the fact that of the hundreds of MMOs made in the short aftermath of the release of WoW, only 2 others have succeeded. those others are the games Guildwars, and Final Fantasy 11, of which succeeded for Being original, and for not being American respectively. (Micro Transaction games such as DDO and Perfect World do not count, as their success is not based on actual number of players.).
I think that unless you planned a series or are Nintendo, sequels are built backwards.
Normal games spring from a gameplay concept that becomes a full idea.
Sequels have an idea that they try to fit a new gameplay concept into.
Think how much better the Sonic series would be regarded if Sonic Colors was the first 3d Sonic game.
Normal games spring from a gameplay concept that becomes a full idea.
Sequels have an idea that they try to fit a new gameplay concept into.
Think how much better the Sonic series would be regarded if Sonic Colors was the first 3d Sonic game.
I enjoyed Portal 2 also, and thought it had a fun story. However, I thought that the first was better if only because it was more unique. The sequel adopted the Half-Life 2 formula, where you get puzzle, puzzle, story element, then back to puzzle. Portal was better in this regard, because the story didn't need to take you out of the game to make it better. Portal 2 just lacks the soul that made the original so unique. Now it feels like Portal Life 2.GonzoGamer said: