Really feel I have to mention Zone of The Enders: The Second Runner as a sequel with a better story (and gameplay). The first one explained very little and then Second Runner explained the politics of the universe and finished the storyline with no loose ends really.
Extra Punctuation: Building Sequels Badly
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Hmm, don't agree that Portal 1 was so significantly better than Portal 2, in fact I think everything was pretty much perfect in Portal 2, a perfect evolution of the original as it expanded into full-game status. I felt the story and characters were very amusing, the new mechanics quite fun and satisfying to use, and the sections between test areas were a perfect break from the tests themselves.
You're just reaching for things to nitpick at. Don't lie, you know you loved it.
You're just reaching for things to nitpick at. Don't lie, you know you loved it.
You know, I could never get into the 1st two Elder scrolls games.. believe me I tried.. there seemed to be a massive barrier to entry for me which they ironed out (in my opinion) in Oblivion. Oblivion just played well, so well I sank over 100 hours into it. It was massive too. Could be it was watered down for less hardcore players? I don't know, but it was immersive, which is what a RPG should be and accessible enough to get me into it.. so in this case, it was a sequel to a game which took it's origins, listened to feedback and emerged with an awesome product which suited a broader RPG audience. Maybe it's an approachability thing, I never got into Baldurs Gate but loved Neverwinter Nights. That said, I never did try Morrowind - I guess Arena and Daggerfall put me off - I might give it a try if I can get hold of it.CopperBoom said:
I'm REALLY Looking forward to Skyrim. If it can be Oblivion and then some, I'll be happy.. wife won't be though.
Actually, my avatar is Coiffio, the Evil Controller of Cats.funguy2121 said:
this is Uncle Grandfather
I just realized how off topic we are.
uhhhhh... GO YAHTZEE! YAY! you show those fanboys.
I understand the point, or rather because I'm a fan I think I do but are dead wrong. The problem with
sequels is that the developers work to much on how to please the fans,
and don't work hard enough to make the game better. That may be a valid theory. I can't say.
I'm a real big Yehtzee fan so as the article says I'm probably wrong. : ) Or not.
sequels is that the developers work to much on how to please the fans,
and don't work hard enough to make the game better. That may be a valid theory. I can't say.
I'm a real big Yehtzee fan so as the article says I'm probably wrong. : ) Or not.
I agree with most of what Yahtzee says,and he is right about some critical bullet points like the re usage of old characters in sequels,one of the main interesting stuff about good games is the interrogations that it leaves you with,for example take the first 3 halos,halo 1 was by far the most creative game of the 7(I think they are 7),while halo 2 and halo 3 spoil some of the mystery about the Halos and the covenant,the same can be said about good sequels like for example Hitman:blood money,which focus itself more on delivering new missions instead of keep running the same basis that contracts left(the whole Romanian cloning facility stuff.
However as a fan I must point out a game that often didn't screw up on its sequels,and guess what it is,yep ace combat which is by far the best game series ever conceived by human beings,the reason of why this game is so awesome is simple(take a note that I'm a fan and therefore whatever I say next gets into the layer of fanboysm).
Its all down to how the game is told,and how it encourage you during gameplay,I been playing ace series and the game hasn't move an inch from its basis stablish 15 years ago,but anyone who has played ace combat will have a different favourite game of the series, because they always change the way that the game is told,in AC2 you have your standard history of aces mercenaries taking down a coup,this happens in a strangereal place called "strangereal",but the evolution of both the concept and the game made the series make huge jumps,for example they forgot everything about what they did about top gun in ace combat 2 and decided to make an anime based story with AC3(only in Japan)but this aspect made the series evolve in many many areas like storytelling and concepts,and didn't recycle any elements from previous ace combat games,just gameplay.
After that come the best game in the series which are AC04,AC5 and ACZero(coincidentally all in PS2),the thing about these games is they way of their storytelling structure respectably,and how they decided to provide the story of each game with relation of the previous game but without using direct elements implied,just the place(stragereal) and some events like the asteroids from AC4 and the belkan war in both AC5 and zero,for example in AC04 you were an ace pilot in a normal war between the same enemies not represented directly but equal and with their own original background,in AC4 they told the story in gameplay with the radio charter and the mission briefing,while at the other side of the conflict an child tells the story from one of the affected countries and its relation with its enemy,and is really well put together and structured,is like portal 1 in this regard.
Then you have the Ac5 game with a really good story which suits more a movie,almost all elements from the past game are taken away,then using the existing assets in creating yet another good story using both gameplay,radio charter,briefings and cinematics,a bit over dramatic but way better that what you find in shooter or war related games these days,there is no patriotism and all that bullshit that plague all shooters these days(I should have address this before ,not involving the US faction in war games is really good for storytelling),and the story is well told and well produce,in fact one of the best productions I have seen.
And then there is my favourite game of all,ace combat zero,the 6th game manage to be the best game, although some people consider AC5 the peak of the series I sustain that Zero manages the top of all games,the reason for this is the perfect integration between all elements,everything fit together,the player decisions did matter in gameplay and everything is beautify put together to create and amazing ending that have direct correlation with gameplay and story,a perfect ending for a videogame,nothing is overdone and the story is simple,and it uses the gameplay to max the experience like any other of the previous games(similar to Half life 2 in this respect)and its uses also the perfect storytelling production without involving any of the previous elements,just the place and the gameplay.
So,I disagree with Ben Yahtzee in the aspect of "no games with good continuity",there are games with terrific sequels(HL2 for example)the only issue with such games is to find them or to have a good original concept unexploited for its income,something that have become an standard in the industry,apparently,and designers hasn't manage to find out best creative ways to create stories based on the existing gamplay instead of story(like project aces did the last 15 years until they sort of cock it up with 6 but never mind,maybe AC assault horizon manages to be good but one huge barrier is the fact that US in it).
And yep,I like portal 1 more,it was more "cheesy" somehow.
However as a fan I must point out a game that often didn't screw up on its sequels,and guess what it is,yep ace combat which is by far the best game series ever conceived by human beings,the reason of why this game is so awesome is simple(take a note that I'm a fan and therefore whatever I say next gets into the layer of fanboysm).
Its all down to how the game is told,and how it encourage you during gameplay,I been playing ace series and the game hasn't move an inch from its basis stablish 15 years ago,but anyone who has played ace combat will have a different favourite game of the series, because they always change the way that the game is told,in AC2 you have your standard history of aces mercenaries taking down a coup,this happens in a strangereal place called "strangereal",but the evolution of both the concept and the game made the series make huge jumps,for example they forgot everything about what they did about top gun in ace combat 2 and decided to make an anime based story with AC3(only in Japan)but this aspect made the series evolve in many many areas like storytelling and concepts,and didn't recycle any elements from previous ace combat games,just gameplay.
After that come the best game in the series which are AC04,AC5 and ACZero(coincidentally all in PS2),the thing about these games is they way of their storytelling structure respectably,and how they decided to provide the story of each game with relation of the previous game but without using direct elements implied,just the place(stragereal) and some events like the asteroids from AC4 and the belkan war in both AC5 and zero,for example in AC04 you were an ace pilot in a normal war between the same enemies not represented directly but equal and with their own original background,in AC4 they told the story in gameplay with the radio charter and the mission briefing,while at the other side of the conflict an child tells the story from one of the affected countries and its relation with its enemy,and is really well put together and structured,is like portal 1 in this regard.
Then you have the Ac5 game with a really good story which suits more a movie,almost all elements from the past game are taken away,then using the existing assets in creating yet another good story using both gameplay,radio charter,briefings and cinematics,a bit over dramatic but way better that what you find in shooter or war related games these days,there is no patriotism and all that bullshit that plague all shooters these days(I should have address this before ,not involving the US faction in war games is really good for storytelling),and the story is well told and well produce,in fact one of the best productions I have seen.
And then there is my favourite game of all,ace combat zero,the 6th game manage to be the best game, although some people consider AC5 the peak of the series I sustain that Zero manages the top of all games,the reason for this is the perfect integration between all elements,everything fit together,the player decisions did matter in gameplay and everything is beautify put together to create and amazing ending that have direct correlation with gameplay and story,a perfect ending for a videogame,nothing is overdone and the story is simple,and it uses the gameplay to max the experience like any other of the previous games(similar to Half life 2 in this respect)and its uses also the perfect storytelling production without involving any of the previous elements,just the place and the gameplay.
So,I disagree with Ben Yahtzee in the aspect of "no games with good continuity",there are games with terrific sequels(HL2 for example)the only issue with such games is to find them or to have a good original concept unexploited for its income,something that have become an standard in the industry,apparently,and designers hasn't manage to find out best creative ways to create stories based on the existing gamplay instead of story(like project aces did the last 15 years until they sort of cock it up with 6 but never mind,maybe AC assault horizon manages to be good but one huge barrier is the fact that US in it).
And yep,I like portal 1 more,it was more "cheesy" somehow.
I've been trying to put words as to why Portal 2 didn't have much impact - you've nailed it.
I don't think it's a subjective opinion to state that a good story & concept loses its value for a second telling. It was impossible for Portal 2 to exceed its prequel by adding to an existing story.
I don't think it's a subjective opinion to state that a good story & concept loses its value for a second telling. It was impossible for Portal 2 to exceed its prequel by adding to an existing story.
The original plan was to make F-STOP, a game that had no portals and no Glados in it but still tied in with the original setting of Aperture science.
I am quite happy with the way Portal 2 turned out anyway, sure it will never be as surprising as the first one, but the story was good and Stephen Merchant's character is hilarious. Surely it does not quite expand the universe in any big way, but I think it stays true to the original story while exploring some new ground.
I see your points, but I think Valve managed to make a correct balance for this Portal 2. However, there's been already enough Glados for me, I hope if Portal 3 ever comes out, they explore something different. It's been a good ride anyway, it must not have been easy for the writers to achieve the balance needed to be funny for the whole duration of the game.
I am quite happy with the way Portal 2 turned out anyway, sure it will never be as surprising as the first one, but the story was good and Stephen Merchant's character is hilarious. Surely it does not quite expand the universe in any big way, but I think it stays true to the original story while exploring some new ground.
I see your points, but I think Valve managed to make a correct balance for this Portal 2. However, there's been already enough Glados for me, I hope if Portal 3 ever comes out, they explore something different. It's been a good ride anyway, it must not have been easy for the writers to achieve the balance needed to be funny for the whole duration of the game.
Does that include the cat-man (or is it the man-cat)?Choppaduel said:Actually, my avatar is Coiffio, the Evil Controller of Cats.funguy2121 said:
this is Uncle Grandfather
I just realized how off topic we are.
uhhhhh... GO YAHTZEE! YAY! you show those fanboys.
I think Half-Life 2 is better than Half-Life. Does that count? I think that's the majority opinion there.
I like sequels in general. Finding out what happens next is always fun for me. I will admit though, sometimes they are done rather poorly.
I like sequels in general. Finding out what happens next is always fun for me. I will admit though, sometimes they are done rather poorly.
I was actually talking about Portal 3 with a friend yesterday. I argued that the biggest job a "true" fan will do would be to accept that the franchise has ended. Afterwards I was branded a heretic.
Anyways, too tempted to resist, Idea of how Portal 2 story could have been modified:
I never was convinced when I ran through the old test chambers of the Aperture Facility, why didn't they just do a make-over of the old rooms instead of building a whole new complex each time? Perhaps that's why Cave Johnson went bankrupt.
I think it would have been neater if you played as one of these "War heroes" for when aperture science started: you survive the experiments, end up as a hobo, and in a twisted turn of events you end up getting dragged into the aperture labs during the 60's. It would make more sense and provide subtle hints to what led to the creation of glados, without being too over-bearing.
Did I prove your point Yahtzee?
Anyways, too tempted to resist, Idea of how Portal 2 story could have been modified:
I never was convinced when I ran through the old test chambers of the Aperture Facility, why didn't they just do a make-over of the old rooms instead of building a whole new complex each time? Perhaps that's why Cave Johnson went bankrupt.
I think it would have been neater if you played as one of these "War heroes" for when aperture science started: you survive the experiments, end up as a hobo, and in a twisted turn of events you end up getting dragged into the aperture labs during the 60's. It would make more sense and provide subtle hints to what led to the creation of glados, without being too over-bearing.
Did I prove your point Yahtzee?
Oh come on, are you seriously telling me you don't consider "Final Fantasy X-2" to be a masterpiece when held up next to "Final Fantasy X"?
funguy2121 said:Does that include the cat-man (or is it the man-cat)?Choppaduel said:Actually, my avatar is Coiffio, the Evil Controller of Cats.funguy2121 said:
this is Uncle Grandfather
I just realized how off topic we are.
uhhhhh... GO YAHTZEE! YAY! you show those fanboys.
including but not limited to. Although, Catman does shoot Coiffio in one of the episodes.
hmmm something else on topic.... Yahtzee should have given a spoiler warning for the Portal 2 coop.
Here is my theory on the great coin that is game innovation.
On one side, there is Innovation/Iteration. On the other is Gimmick/Cliche. Or maybe its 2 coins, Innovation/Gimmick, and Iteration/Cliche. Or maybe...whatever, you get the point.
All games have a little bit of all of the above. What games aspire to contain is innovation and iteration. Innovation is new, exciting ideas that havn't been tried before, and give the player a compelling new experience. Iteration is the use of tried and true approaches that give you a reason to expect that an idea will be enjoyable. Any good game will contain both. Lets take Portal, a universally loved game generally agreed upon to be a huge step forward in innovation. Well, there is still a healthy dose of the kind of iteration that makes people hate on sequels. For starters, there is Narbacular Drop. There was a continuation, and evolution, of pre-established ideas that had already been done elsewhere. Not only that, but it's Valve, you know they playtested the shit out of it before its release. In many ways a sequel is just a second draft of a game where the pool of playtesters includes everyone who bought and spoke out on the first game. What seperates the quality of Portal from a sequel that you hate lies in many things, but the virtue of being a sequel is not one of them. And of course, excellent sequels that excel because of the iteration of an idea still contain healthy doses of innovation. Half Life 2 continued the ideas of the original Half Life, and really most of the original pieces were still there. But it added new ideas, like the Gravity gun. The same pattern of mostly honeing a concept with a hint of new ideas is present in the countless excellent sequels that are better then the original, but it's a stickier area because popular sequels tend to be quite polarizing (Halo, Call of Duty, Starcraft, Bioshock...take whatever you like and look for the bits of innovation, and you will find your examples)
Where games fall short is where they become Cliche or Gimmicky. Cliche is where a game repeats what has been done before without adding anything compelling or new, while the gimmick adds in a new idea that just doesn't pass muster. What I need to point out here is that what separates a Gimmick from a true innovation is the spark of Innovations opposite, iteration. A gimmick falls short because it lacks the kind of testing and exploration that characterizes sequels, just as the iteration and polishing of an old idea without a bit of innovation turns into a cliche.
What to take from this? Well, we need to think about the shape of the games industry kind of like a recipe. When your making a cake, you can't say that eggs, milk, flour or sugar are bad. There all essential. In the same way, you need to have a mix of new IPs and ideas, and polished sequels. You need to explore old concepts more fully, and try new ideas. Simply decrying sequels as lazy will ruin one of video games biggest strengths. Yes, we need new IPs and need to explore new ideas, but we also need to remember that the best games out there are sequels.
On one side, there is Innovation/Iteration. On the other is Gimmick/Cliche. Or maybe its 2 coins, Innovation/Gimmick, and Iteration/Cliche. Or maybe...whatever, you get the point.
All games have a little bit of all of the above. What games aspire to contain is innovation and iteration. Innovation is new, exciting ideas that havn't been tried before, and give the player a compelling new experience. Iteration is the use of tried and true approaches that give you a reason to expect that an idea will be enjoyable. Any good game will contain both. Lets take Portal, a universally loved game generally agreed upon to be a huge step forward in innovation. Well, there is still a healthy dose of the kind of iteration that makes people hate on sequels. For starters, there is Narbacular Drop. There was a continuation, and evolution, of pre-established ideas that had already been done elsewhere. Not only that, but it's Valve, you know they playtested the shit out of it before its release. In many ways a sequel is just a second draft of a game where the pool of playtesters includes everyone who bought and spoke out on the first game. What seperates the quality of Portal from a sequel that you hate lies in many things, but the virtue of being a sequel is not one of them. And of course, excellent sequels that excel because of the iteration of an idea still contain healthy doses of innovation. Half Life 2 continued the ideas of the original Half Life, and really most of the original pieces were still there. But it added new ideas, like the Gravity gun. The same pattern of mostly honeing a concept with a hint of new ideas is present in the countless excellent sequels that are better then the original, but it's a stickier area because popular sequels tend to be quite polarizing (Halo, Call of Duty, Starcraft, Bioshock...take whatever you like and look for the bits of innovation, and you will find your examples)
Where games fall short is where they become Cliche or Gimmicky. Cliche is where a game repeats what has been done before without adding anything compelling or new, while the gimmick adds in a new idea that just doesn't pass muster. What I need to point out here is that what separates a Gimmick from a true innovation is the spark of Innovations opposite, iteration. A gimmick falls short because it lacks the kind of testing and exploration that characterizes sequels, just as the iteration and polishing of an old idea without a bit of innovation turns into a cliche.
What to take from this? Well, we need to think about the shape of the games industry kind of like a recipe. When your making a cake, you can't say that eggs, milk, flour or sugar are bad. There all essential. In the same way, you need to have a mix of new IPs and ideas, and polished sequels. You need to explore old concepts more fully, and try new ideas. Simply decrying sequels as lazy will ruin one of video games biggest strengths. Yes, we need new IPs and need to explore new ideas, but we also need to remember that the best games out there are sequels.
It's more or less because of this this I like Dragon Age 2 and Final Fantasy 13. And it's because of this that the rest of the world hate them.
I think you could've found a better game than Portal 2 as an example. I see where you're coming from, but for a sequel Portal 2 did treated its characters well I feel. Even if they eventually make a Portal 3 I don't think I'll look back at Portal 2 and say "that's when it started to go downhill", unless there being a sequel at all counts towards that.
Brilliant article with one potential issue: it's important to recognize that "clueless fans" includes the focus groups who shape today's AAA sequels. I know a lot of people will read this Yahtzee piece and think to themselves, "Yeah, all those DA2 haters are a buncha idiots stuck in the past!", but that's definitely not the point here. A sequel that changes radically for the worse, at the behest of one subset of fans, is even worse than a sequel that merely retreads. The only "good" sequel is one that changes the way we think about an IP through quality additions/alterations to play mechanics and/or storytelling.
This is going to sound cruel, but I think videogame designers are a lot like movie directors, musicians, novelists, etc., in that there's no guarantee they will ever duplicate initial success. Sometimes a guy/gal really only has one or two interesting things to say/show/sing/write, and that's okay. It becomes not okay when they think they've got license to ram another half dozen rehashes (or outright turds) down our collective throats. Put another way: god bless the one-hit wonders who walk away.
This is going to sound cruel, but I think videogame designers are a lot like movie directors, musicians, novelists, etc., in that there's no guarantee they will ever duplicate initial success. Sometimes a guy/gal really only has one or two interesting things to say/show/sing/write, and that's okay. It becomes not okay when they think they've got license to ram another half dozen rehashes (or outright turds) down our collective throats. Put another way: god bless the one-hit wonders who walk away.