Extra Punctuation: Building Sequels Badly

[Little Duck]

Can I just say, I loved portal 2's storyline. I loved the idea of it. In portal 1, you suddenly uncovered the illusion that you were in and your objective changed from "finish the puzzle sequence and complain to health and safety for the stupid tests" to "Get out. Get out now."

Portal 2 continued that on. Your objective was still just to get out of the base, but this time you knew these weren't ordinary tests. You knew there was something else at stake. The illusion was gone and your objective was still just to escape by any means necessary. Your character is one of incredible tenacity, wanting to try any route to get out, so to me, going behind the scenes almost made sense. You know it to be a safe haven and your best escape attempt so far had been to go off the rails. It felt more like natural progression of Portal 1 than anything else.

I will however also say, portal 1 felt like a better game than portal 2. But portal 2 felt like more fun.

 

[zjspeed]

Early in development Valve considered that Portal 2 would have exclusively gel-based puzzles and not even use the portal gun mechanic. This was the spiritual successor path. I guess the idea didn't test well. ("Baa baa four legs good two legs bad, etc.") So, they made a direct sequel instead.

 

[funguy2121]

I know this is stretching it on the issue of "same characters", but The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask is an adequate example of a rushed sequel churned out in direct response to the former game's success, where both plot and game mechanics can be argued to be superiour (I know there are a lot of OOT supporters out there disagreeing with me on this point. I'm not attempting to start an OOT vs MM discussion so please keep calm).

Sometimes rushed sequels can prove a blessing in disguise. Just saying.

I was actually gonna use Ocarina of Time as an example of a sequel to a game that didn't need one story wise yet had the same characters (Link to the Past) but is quite honestly a better game all things considered (and that is saying a lot because LttP was fantastic). And then Majora's Mask was an example of what Yahtzee was talking about where the sequel was again not needed in regards to story yet had the same main character and some of the uncanny valley townspeople but was easily the weakest and worst zelda game (case and point: introduction of Tingle, entire game is timed, there is Tingle, if you dont know to play the song of time backwards trick combined with using the camera to save dungeon progress you can't beat the game, Tingle is in it) until those gameboy games that everyone has wiped from their memory (some nonsense about seasons and ages). However, Wind Waker again takes Ocarina of Time and creates from it a sequel that is actually a good game, if not better than the forerunner. But with Zelda games the true enemy is not the fans, it's Shigeru Miyamoto because he was quoted as saying "One thing about my game design is that I never try to look for what people want and then try to make that game design." Thus it is proven irrefutably that he is to blame for all the shitty nintendo sequals at large, not fans.

...sequels like Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess, Super Mario Galaxies, Metroid Prime, Pikmin 2? I'm confused. Miyamoto isn't trying to give the people what he wants - he's an artist, not a showman - and so the new mechanics that have rejuvenated these franchises can be credited to him, perhaps more so than anyone else. You actually gave two great examples of this when you mentioned Ocarina and Wind Waker. There are other forces at Nintendo, however, who are responsible for the oversimplification of such sequels as New Super Mario Brothers and Wii Sports Resort, games that embody very little aside from "more of the same." So here I have to side with Yatzhee and Miyamoto: give us something new. I want another StarFox, F-Zero and Kid Icarus, but I don't want re-hashes with updated graphics. I want to see what new directions they can take these franchises in.

 

[Circusfreak]

I actually really liked glados in portal 2. glados changed during portal 1, like a character should. in portal 2 she was just flesed out more but in a really good way

 

[Discrodia]

Too bad fans are the people holding the money

Fans are not the majority buyer of Triple-A titles. For indie titles and the like, this is certainly true, but in the larger industry it's more important to have broad appeal.

IE: Having a good game that everyone likes is better than making a game you think the fans will love, and ending up with a mediocre experience for others and have a bunch of the fans say it wasn't as good as it should be.

 

[danhere]

A lot of the [Portal-specific] points you've made were exactly what I was thinking. I felt that the charm of Portal 1 was that the back stage areas were not intended as tests for Chell. Portal 2 is just "Do tests. Do more tests. Do even more tests. The End." Sure, there were the transitions, but the majority of the game is spent in Aperture's intended testing area. It's like if you went through all the chambers in Portal 1 and then saw GlaDOS at the end looking over the fire pit where she tries to kill you and that was the end boss battle. It's ultimately not as satisfying. Still looking forward to one of my friends taking on the co-op with me though.

And of course, it's very strange that GlaDOS has the potential to manipulate everything now, whereas before she could only send turrets and those eye ball missile launcher things at you.

 

[funguy2121]

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.

I just wanted to thank you. I'll be quoting this and posting to my friend's FB page. We were debating "geeks" vs. "nerds" and I think you have properly defined it here. Despite what contradictory, poorly translated hypotheses you may have read off IGN and other sites about the overarching timeline of Zelda, once you saw the ending to Ocarina it became pretty difficult to argue that there is a consistent, linear timeline going throughout the franchise. Zelda has much more in common with, say, Robert Rodriguez's Mexico trilogy than Star Wars. Some games clearly take place after others, but overall the same events keep happening and each game can clearly be read as much as a remake as a sequel. So you may rescind your condescension, Mr. Snarkypants, because everything he said is true.

Also, what is this "Strawman" you keep referring to?

 

[Sicram]

I dunno, I thought that HL2 was a pretty decent sequel to HL. I can sort of let the episodes slide seeing as they were meant to be sort of like single player expansions and to get some continuation of the events.

Although now that it's been such a looong time since ep2 I sort of want that the next installment will be a HL3 and not an ep3. But, only if HL3 introduces new game mechanic elements, uses a brand new engine and actually ends the story.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Am I literally the only person on the Earth who actually thinks Portal 2 is better than Portal 1?

Don't get me wrong Portal 1 was fucking amazing, but imo Portal 2 manages to keep everything that was good about Portal 1, plus adding new puzzle elements that at no point felt out of place. I also disagree with Yahtzee about the story. Now I know everything about Aperture and GLaDOS's origins it only makes me feel more satisfied with the entire experience.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

I do believe it has never been said better than by Yahtzee already in one of the Silent Hill reviews, "Fans are clingy complaining dipshits who will never ever be grateful for any concession you make. The moment you shut out their shrill, tremulous voices, the happier you'll be for it."

I've grown increasingly bitter against sequels over the years myself. It's either pure moneymilking or simply the they-changed-it-now-it-sucks routine. And people wonder why I demand demos and trailers before I buy anything and every time I buy a game that sucks I feel angry and ashamed that I wasted my money on it with no chance of decent refund.

 

[Hitman Dread]

despite what contradictory, poorly translated hypotheses you may have read off IGN and other sites about the overarching timeline of Zelda, once you saw the ending to Ocarina it became pretty difficult to argue that there is a consistent, linear timeline going throughout the franchise.

In the entire franchise? Yes.
But there are some games that are direct sequels, such as OoT to Majora's Mask. Wind Waker itself is far from a remake is itself states to have taken place after many of the other legends. I also recall that Wind Waker had a direct story line sequel as well.

 

[xqxm]

Dude, God of War 2 was effin' great. And it in no way tainted the established plot.

 

[cthulhumythos]

... i said that i thought portal 2 was just as good as the first, if not better. and i got labeled as a fanboy and sent on my way.

yaaaaaay.

 

[raankh]

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.

I see you on that and raise with a sequel that wasn't left open for, with the same main characters, whose story is regarded as better than the first AND has WORSE gameplay (although that last point is arguable):

Metroid 2: Return of Samus

 

[funguy2121]

despite what contradictory, poorly translated hypotheses you may have read off IGN and other sites about the overarching timeline of Zelda, once you saw the ending to Ocarina it became pretty difficult to argue that there is a consistent, linear timeline going throughout the franchise.

In the entire franchise? Yes.
But there are some games that are direct sequels, such as OoT to Majora's Mask. Wind Waker itself is far from a remake is itself states to have taken place after many of the other legends. I also recall that Wind Waker had a direct story line sequel as well.

Yes, there are. Majora's Mask was a sequel with the same character. Wind Waker's sequel? You mean the portable game (whichever one it was)? I don't know. I lack the knowledge specific to portable games to argue yay or nay as canon. But I don't really play the Zelda games to be wowed by the story. I play them because they're fun as Hell.

 

[Beryl77]

I just can't agree with him on Portal 2. In my opinion, it took everything that Portal 1 had, added a few things and made them better. Actually, I don't think I'll ever be able to play Portal 1 again after I've played the marvelous Portal 2. Sorry Yahtzee but I think that you're completely wrong with Portal 2.

 

[walsfeo]

If you made a list of all the awesome characters in fiction whose character arcs were hijacked to pander to fans, it would probably circle the earth. It's been an issue for over a century at least, if we consider Sherlock Holmes readers as the first manifestation of modern fanboys.

True, and an even better, or rather earlier, example is King Arthur. Damn that stupid Lancelot.

 

[nukethetuna]

He did say sequels with the same main characters, ya know?

Spoiler: Minor rant

As far as I know, the only Zeldas that had the same Link and Zelda (conclusively, and were therefore direct sequels) were Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask, and Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass (Though... different ones from OoT). Saying one or the other had the better story is debatable. Not to mention story isn't exactly a focal point of Zelda games. I mean, you could say the same with Star Fox 64 and Star Fox, certain Marios, Super Metroid, (Wow, Nintendo really tells a great story since it improves every game?!) but I don't think anyone really cares about the story there.

Final Fantasy VII isn't a DIRECT SEQUEL to Final Fantasy VI. In name they may be "sequels", but they're really more like the next game in a series, and often times FF games share only the name when it comes to similarities. The only Final Fantasy games that could be mentioned as direct sequels are FFX-2 (be my guest) and Revenant Wings. I can't really count Dirge of Cerberus, Vincent was ancillary to the point that you could even not recruit him in the original.

Anyways, even if you could name a few (and that must be the funnest part of this thread), I think the point is that when developers hash out a sequel that, due to fan demand, has to rehash the characters from the first when their story has largely already been told, it makes for a weaker game, story-wise at least.

Of course, if the developers don't use the original game as a concrete "jumping off point", you end up with something polarizing like Chrono Cross.

One of my favorite (direct) sequels I've ever played was Shadow Hearts: Covenant. It refined gameplay features, used mostly new characters (the original's protagonist was playable, other party members were related to original party members in some ways, too), and made the story not feel like an extension of the first by using these new characters to set it up, and made the main character's return not feel forced by adopting the bad ending of the first game as canon.
Though the original didn't have a huge vocal fanbase like the big budget titles today, so it probably didn't have the fan pressure that might've made it turn out worse.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I see the argument here, but I think there are notable exceptions - mostly in cases where the first game is low-budget basically proof-of-concept. The devs can them come back to the sequel armed with more money and a bigger team. Assassin's Creed, for instance. You could make a pretty good case for Otogi or Mass Effect. Witcher 2 looks like it's gonna be this way too.

 

[xqxm]

Day of the Tentacle.
Monkey Island 2.