Extra Punctuation: Building Sequels Badly

[Howling Din]

Golden Sun: the lost age is a good sequel with the same world and all the same characters. Though it has practically identical gameplay and is more of an expansion pack than a sequel. Plus the original was intentionally set up for a sequel...
There are two kinds of games: Games that stand on their own two feet and try to become good on their own terms, for their own standards.
And games that concentrate on pleasing people, namely their fans, who view the will of an incomprehensible mob as their guideline.
Sequels are almost always in the second category. And games in the second category are always doomed. Successful, perhaps, even effective, but doomed nonetheless. Artists who view popular trends and preferences as their prime guideline will only ever create passing entertainment, never a timeless work of art.

 

[Eldarion]

I consider Halo 2 to have been Bungie's best work.

Never have played it, I liked ODST though. Also am loving halo:reach's multiplayer.

 

[xdiesp]

Too many people remember Portal 1 through rose tinted glasses. Flinging your way through 90% of the puzzles grew boring way faster than it should have been.

What Yahtzee says is a good answer, to a slightly tilted question though. Yeah, sequels need this and this to top the former awesome chapter 1: but do you really need to? Is there only suckage if you aren't doing better?

Sometimes, affection toward a game's brand can be more important than the overall fantastic gameplay of it. People caring about something is not stupid and you shouldn't smash their balls about it. They're just more into it than some unknown indie proj.

 

[hermes]

Super Mario 3
Any Final Fantasy other than 1
Half-Life 2
Jedi Knights
Freespace 2
Assassins Creed 2

I don't agree with the point that sequels should be made by people that are not fans. Look at Assassins Creed 2: the game is really different because they actually addressed the issues people complained and ended up with a better game. Or look at Resistance 2: they changed a lot of stuff and ended up with a game that lost its identity (instead, it was Call of Duty with aliens). What I am saying is: if developers don't listen to what people liked or disliked about the game and make an entirely different beast, what is the point of calling it a sequel to begin with?

If that were the case, Starcraft 2 would be Call of Duty-style FPS, Fallout 3 would be an MMO and Half Life 2 would have regenerately energy... It is always better to listen to fans than to listen to publishers.

 

[HeroKing89]

Let's see here. Majora's Mask has the same character and didn't leave an end for a sequel in OoT and even though it is recieved worse then OoT in general, it would seem as if among Zelda fans, MM is actually favored. Which I agree

also the Silent Hill franchise and i don't know how else to say that. It wasn't particularly amazing except for SH2 before it moved from Japan and SH2 wasn't even the scariest of the 4.

 

[Thaius]

"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."

Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
The Dark Knight

Owned. Two great examples. Sorry, but as much as I understand the things you're saying, Yahtzee, your stance on it is far, far too extreme. You simply can't paint with that broad a brush on topics like this. It's not that simple.

You owned yourself. He saids games, but movies are games right? derp derp

"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."

Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
The Dark Knight

Owned. Two great examples. Sorry, but as much as I understand the things you're saying, Yahtzee, your stance on it is far, far too extreme. You simply can't paint with that broad a brush on topics like this. It's not that simple.

Darth Vader flying away safely in his modified TIE-fighter.
Gordon revealing the Joker's calling card to Batman.

Also, Yahtzee said sequel to a game.

Try harder.

Ugh, you're right. Apparently I didn't notice that; my bad. Though the fact still stands, really. He's not talking about a gameplay principle, he's talking about a storytelling principle ("...whose story was regarded as better than the first."); just because games haven't done it doesn't mean it can't be done in games even though it's been done in movies and books. The fact that it's been done period is a point against using that statement to say it cannot be done.

Also, Crash Bandicoot 2, if anyone cared about the story. I also wonder if Mario and Zelda count, considering they're not directly connected (explicitly, at least) but deal with the same characters, locations, and concepts.

 

[ascorbius]

I REALLY liked Portal 1 when it first came out. The game was awesome, it shone.
So I was a little worried when Portal2 came out but I bought into the hype (which is rarely deserved), I pre-ordered it (a first for me), pre-installed it.. (someone please tell me how that works.. to install it, it must be finished right? so why can't I play it?)

Then on release day, I played it and thought it was great. GLaDOS was in her old form, insulting me. The additional back story elements were fantastic.. the tie in with HalfLife2 EP2 with the Borealis was neat too making me itch for Ep3 even more.

The little touches like the video walls and Cave Johnsons' amazing dialog made it even more special.

I think Yahtzee is basically right about sequels, they're normally a waste of time and effort, but some games deserve them and when done well, make something amazing.

Good games with great sequels.

Portal
Mass Effect
Elder Scrolls (Oblivion was FAR better than any previous game, which looks to be surpassed again by Skyrim)
Descent Freespace
Diablo
Grand Theft Auto 3 (Vice city was awesome)

but on the whole I agree..

 

[A Curious Fellow]

I consider Halo 2 to have been Bungie's best work.

Never have played it, I liked ODST though. Also am loving halo:reach's multiplayer.

Reach's multiplayer....

It's solid, I like it. I fundamentally disagree with pulling out duel wielding and so many weapons types previously established in the series. It dumbed down the game considerably, even as the loadout abilities expanded it. On balance I can't even say if I preferred Halo 3's multiplayer gameplay or Reach's, but I can be certain that I would prefer a blend.

I miss my SMGs.

 

[Thaius]

"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."

Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
The Dark Knight

Owned. Two great examples. Sorry, but as much as I understand the things you're saying, Yahtzee, your stance on it is far, far too extreme. You simply can't paint with that broad a brush on topics like this. It's not that simple.

You owned yourself. He saids games, but movies are games right? derp derp

"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."

Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
The Dark Knight

Owned. Two great examples. Sorry, but as much as I understand the things you're saying, Yahtzee, your stance on it is far, far too extreme. You simply can't paint with that broad a brush on topics like this. It's not that simple.

Darth Vader flying away safely in his modified TIE-fighter.
Gordon revealing the Joker's calling card to Batman.

Also, Yahtzee said sequel to a game.

Try harder.

Ugh, you're right. Apparently I didn't notice that; my bad. Though the fact still stands, really. He's not talking about a gameplay principle, he's talking about a storytelling principle ("...whose story was regarded as better than the first."); just because games haven't done it doesn't mean it can't be done in games even though it's been done in movies and books. The fact that it's been done period is a point against using that statement to say it cannot be done.

Also, Crash Bandicoot 2, if anyone cared about the story. I also wonder if Mario and Zelda count, considering they're not directly connected (explicitly, at least) but deal with the same characters, locations, and concepts.

As for the "sequel bait" in the two mentioned movies, that's very little more than GLaDOS still being alive at the end of Portal. The danger is done, it seems to no longer concern you. Darth Vader being alive simply means... well, he's still alive; the most grave threat, the Death Star, is still destroyed. And the Joker card wouldn't have meant anything more than, "Hey, more stuff for him to do!" if not for the already-established character of the Joker, and even as it was it wasn't much more than in the first Portal.

 

[CopperBoom]

A game whose story was lightyears better than its predecessor? Halo 2. I win.

That certainly is an opinion.

Doth thou disagreeth?

Hard to say.
I was never a "Walo" fan so to me better is highly subjective.
I have played all of them (except Reach) at friends houses co-op.
But enjoyed it, not since the first and that is just because smooth split-screen (N64 anyone?) co-op was a new concept when Xbox first came out.

Okay first, what is this Walo?

And to give you some of my perspective, I've been dramatically disappointed by everything since Halo 2. The campaign stories have been deflated piles of crap. ODST was better than the others, entertaining on the level of, say, Gears of War, but was still pretty damn stupid.

I consider Halo 2 to have been Bungie's best work.

This is "Walo":
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/10/18/

...and I think the first one was better because it was something different. The second was just more of the same, the only innovation was playing with strangers which I do not like so to me it was much more terrible.

 

[A Curious Fellow]

A game whose story was lightyears better than its predecessor? Halo 2. I win.

That certainly is an opinion.

Doth thou disagreeth?

Hard to say.
I was never a "Walo" fan so to me better is highly subjective.
I have played all of them (except Reach) at friends houses co-op.
But enjoyed it, not since the first and that is just because smooth split-screen (N64 anyone?) co-op was a new concept when Xbox first came out.

Okay first, what is this Walo?

And to give you some of my perspective, I've been dramatically disappointed by everything since Halo 2. The campaign stories have been deflated piles of crap. ODST was better than the others, entertaining on the level of, say, Gears of War, but was still pretty damn stupid.

I consider Halo 2 to have been Bungie's best work.

This is "Walo":
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/10/18/

...and I think the first one was better because it was something different. The second was just more of the same, the only innovation was playing with strangers which I do not like so to me it was much more terrible.

On the note of comparing Halo 1 and 2, I was throwing in with 2 because of the campaign story and pretty much nothing else.

 

[Choppaduel]

snip

Ugh, you're right. Apparently I didn't notice that; my bad. Though the fact still stands, really. He's not talking about a gameplay principle, he's talking about a storytelling principle ("...whose story was regarded as better than the first."); just because games haven't done it doesn't mean it can't be done in games even though it's been done in movies and books. The fact that it's been done period is a point against using that statement to say it cannot be done.

Also, Crash Bandicoot 2, if anyone cared about the story. I also wonder if Mario and Zelda count, considering they're not directly connected (explicitly, at least) but deal with the same characters, locations, and concepts.

The point of a game, and sadly I have to say in my opinion, is that the story and game-play are entwined, are inseparable, are one entity. So it doesn't make sense to compare film or novel story to game story.

The thing about Zelda is that each sequel works more like a remake than a continuation or a separate story. It's the same story, again & again, just with slightly different settings and slightly different dialogue.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Yep, exactly. It seems I`ve written extensively about this by this point, and I usually get my share of snarky responses, so I`ll keep it short.

A sequel should never be created with the defining characteristic that it be more of the same as the first. It should certainly capture the spirit of the first, or exist within a continued mythos (otherwise it shouldn`t be a sequel at all), but a sequel should never be constrained by entitled cries of `it`s not the same as the first one, so it sucks!` When you buy a game, you`re buying a game. You`re not putting a downpayment on your say in the future of the franchise.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

Diablo 2 was better than the original, continued a story that had no obvious hook, and though the gameplay didn't feature the same character the story did.

You could argue Warcraft 2-3 and WoW were continuations of the same story but also good games, but they weren't character driven but plot driven.

This got ninja'd in an earlier post but it deserves to be said again.

Baldur's Gate 2.

Same main character, no sequel hook in BG1, much better regarded than the first.

 

[CopperBoom]

Elder Scrolls (Oblivion was FAR better than any previous game, which looks to be surpassed again by Skyrim)

While I do think Skyrim will be amazing Oblivion was only better compared to Arena.
I thought (personally of course) that Morrowind was MILES better and deeper than Oblivion which was so mass-market and watered down... and that one is not even my favourite!
My favourite is still Daggerfall, although it has been a while since I have played it, it has the biggest world to play in and seems the most "free". It was like an FPS single player Ultima Online.

 

[HeroKing89]

The thing about Zelda is that each sequel works more like a remake than a continuation or a separate story. It's the same story, again & again, just with slightly different settings and slightly different dialogue.

Except that's not true and unless you are saying that for comedic affect i would greatly appreciate you don't make strawman arguments when you obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about. Yes many of the games are similar with similar themes and story structures but if you think that Majora's Mask and Wind Waker are remakes then you sir need your head looked at.

 

[Thaius]

snip

Ugh, you're right. Apparently I didn't notice that; my bad. Though the fact still stands, really. He's not talking about a gameplay principle, he's talking about a storytelling principle ("...whose story was regarded as better than the first."); just because games haven't done it doesn't mean it can't be done in games even though it's been done in movies and books. The fact that it's been done period is a point against using that statement to say it cannot be done.

Also, Crash Bandicoot 2, if anyone cared about the story. I also wonder if Mario and Zelda count, considering they're not directly connected (explicitly, at least) but deal with the same characters, locations, and concepts.

The point of a game, and sadly I have to say in my opinion, is that the story and game-play are entwined, are inseparable, are one entity. So it doesn't make sense to compare film or novel story to game story.

The thing about Zelda is that each sequel works more like a remake than a continuation or a separate story. It's the same story, again & again, just with slightly different settings and slightly different dialogue.

It's true that the gameplay and story should be inseparable, but that's less about what the story is and more how it's presented. What we are dealing with now is not the ways in which story and gameplay intertwine but the much more basic issue of what the story is in the first place.

The thing about Zelda is that each sequel works more like a remake than a continuation or a separate story. It's the same story, again & again, just with slightly different settings and slightly different dialogue.

Except that's not true and unless you are saying that for comedic affect i would greatly appreciate you don't make strawman arguments when you obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about. Yes many of the games are similar with similar themes and story structures but if you think that Majora's Mask and Wind Waker are remakes then you sir need your head looked at.

Also, exactly what he said. Though I was going to use Ocarina of Time instead of Wind Waker, but it's basically true of any of them. 'Cept Phantom Hourglass, perhaps.

 

[Choppaduel]

The thing about Zelda is that each sequel works more like a remake than a continuation or a separate story. It's the same story, again & again, just with slightly different settings and slightly different dialogue.

Except that's not true and unless you are saying that for comedic affect i would greatly appreciate you don't make strawman arguments when you obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about. Yes many of the games are similar with similar themes and story structures but if you think that Majora's Mask and Wind Waker are remakes then you sir need your head looked at.

using those example to call my argument a strawman, IS a strawman.

We both know Windwaker and Majora Mask aren't the only two Zelda games....

The Legend of Zelda (GBA)
Zelda II: The Adventure of Link (GBA)
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (SNES)
The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (GB)-
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (N64)
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (N64)
The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons (GBC)
The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages (GBC)
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past & Four Swords (GBA)
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker (GC)
The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures (GC)
The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap (GBA)
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (GC)
The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass (NDS)
The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks (NDS)
The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword

most of those games work more like remakes than sequels

take note here...

[HEADING=1]LIKE[/HEADING]

now Majora's Mask works more like a sequel than a remake, much much more like a sequel, you're probably even safe to call it a sequel. (I'll have to take your for Wind Waker, as I haven't read up on the plot for I do intend to play it, just need to find a copy.)

I DID NOT SAY ALL OF THEM ARE REMAKES
I DID NOT SAY MAJORA'S MASK WAS A REMAKE

I SAID "each sequel works more like a remake than a continuation or a separate story."

taking the LoZ series as whole, this makes sense.

Next time, think before you post.

TL;DR
link -> get maguffin -> defeat evil/recue princess
I SAID LIKE, NOT IS.

 

[zjspeed]

I think the BioShock series is interesting because it seems that it exemplifies two completely different ideas for how to create a sequel:

- spiritual successor
- lazy direct sequel

BioShock was an original property promoted as the spiritual successor to the System Shock series. But, it had its own story, setting, characters, gameplay, etc.

Then BioShock 2 was the lazy direct sequel to BioShock with duplicated story, setting, characters, etc.

Now it seems that BioShock Infinite will be another spiritual successor. It will be in the gameplay style of BioShock, but have a new story, setting, characters, etc.