Extra Punctuation: Building Sequels Badly

[Xanadu84]

The "surprise!" argument that's supposed to go in Portal's favour (fuck you Chrome, there is a U in there) doesn't really make sense to me - it seems to work on about the same logic as a game being deemed bad because of the unbearable amounts of hype. And as well all know, that's stupid.

As for Glados not being the same in Portal 2, its implied throughout Portal that she did murder everyone in the facility, whilst her methods to psychologically 'undermine' Chell remain about the same.

I can see the argument about story taking over, but I felt they were simply better balanced, and that the moments where the story 'interrupts' are actually moments used to pace the game and ease your puzzle-induced migraine.

And most people and fans are saying its better than the first.

And BioShock 2 is better than BioShock.

*runs away*

Agreed. On all points. Even the Bioshock part.

That's like what, 6 of us?

7. Bioshock 2 was definitely better gameplay, and the story was a natural expansion of the original. The problem was that better or not, the type of people who put Bioshock on a pedestal generally did so because it was so different, and that type of person wasn't so willing to appreciate the polishing of an old idea as opposed to the exploration of a completely new one. I think that basically, though Bioshock 2 was better, it simply wasn't better enough for many people.

 

[LostAlone]

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.

To say HL2 was 'better' I think is a stretch (they are equally good for different reasons IMO) but it pretty much proves that to make a genuinely great sequel you need to do something different.

The original HL was wonderful for too many reasons to go into, and to put it bluntly HL2 has nothing to do with the original besides some returning cast. Much as I think the plot of the second is a butt load weaker, moving to a completely new and different setting was the best possible move, introducing a completely new set of enemies, weapons and mechanics. In essence it's only a equal because they said it was. If it had been a completely new property it would be equally good tbh. Personally, I think it would have been better in places. The dialogue about the amazing world saving destiny driven Freeman felt comedically over-done and totally not in the spirit of the thing.

I'm not saying HL2 is bad at all. All the awesome new stuff in it made it an amazing game.

And that's how you need to build a sequel. Start off like your making a new game and judge it by those terms. If you were making a new game and ended up thinking 'But they did EXACTLY THAT in game x' then you need to put more in, and thats the same in a sequel. Yes its ok to keep a theme or style, but you must must must have something fresh.

Too many people think that a sequel should exclusively be more of the same, and they are bad people who should be ashamed.

You wanna know one of the best sequels ever made ? System shock 2. Why ? Because its one of the best games ever made.

A sequel should be just as awesome to people who never played the original as to people who did, and that means new unconnected story, fresh new weapons and enemies and new interesting setting. You nod to the first one, and then make your own game the way you wanted to make it anyway.

 

[blackdwarf]

"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."

proffesor layton.
phoenix wright, ace attorney.
and like some said, there are some of those games.

there are games who succeed to make a better story with the same characters and story idea. but they are with few. usely it are games which are heavily story-based.

 

[Dfskelleton]

Hooray for Animal Farm reference!

"FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD!" is still one of my favorite quotes to this day.

OT: Once again, I agree with Yahtzee. however, there is one game, however, that has proven to me that fan pleasing can really make a good game: Mortal Kombat (2011).
For years, fans have been asking for Mortal Kombat to return to the 2D fighting plane, alongside asking seperately for a bunch of things that made the series great so long ago. Finally, Ed Boon and Co. agreed, and made the new Mortal Kombat.
Honestly, I've never had this much fun with a Mortal Kombat game.

 

[Doomcat]

I enjoy both portal 1 and portal 2....but....

Portal 2 was fun for me, the co-op was something i really liked. the SP was enjoyable but what ruined it for me was one developer commentary box in chapter 9.

note: this is not an exact quote, but this is what they said: "We found that players at this point, would use the excursion funnel and then shoot the wrong portal at the panel, thus causing them to fall and die. we found players got frustrated at this, thinking they had shot the right portal. we made this foolproof by MAKING THE PORTAL SWITCH IF THEY SHOOT THE WRONG ONE thus making it so no matter what, they can't die"

WHAT THE FUCK! If you mess up and shoot the wrong portal ITS YOU'RE OWN DAMN FAULT, don't take this the wrong way but the game shouldn't be like "oh, you did something that would kill you? here let me just fix that, all better? here have a kiss on that booboo.." I don't want to be babied by the game because some people got frustrated.

Not that it should be overly punishing but i mean, come on. it's like if someone shot themselves in the head but the game fixed it by emptying the gun just before you pull the trigger...

its not like i want to die, quite the contrary, but if theres no way to fail whats the point of even playing? i did enjoy the game, yes, but after going through the dev commentary the single player was just ruined for me. i literally can't go play that again because of that.

 

[kodra]

Ironically, this post seems to be mostly comprised of nerdrage fueled by a fanboy's massively unrealistic expectations being unmet.

 

[LostAlone]

The "surprise!" argument that's supposed to go in Portal's favour (fuck you Chrome, there is a U in there) doesn't really make sense to me - it seems to work on about the same logic as a game being deemed bad because of the unbearable amounts of hype. And as well all know, that's stupid.

As for Glados not being the same in Portal 2, its implied throughout Portal that she did murder everyone in the facility, whilst her methods to psychologically 'undermine' Chell remain about the same.

I can see the argument about story taking over, but I felt they were simply better balanced, and that the moments where the story 'interrupts' are actually moments used to pace the game and ease your puzzle-induced migraine.

And most people and fans are saying its better than the first.

And BioShock 2 is better than BioShock.

*runs away*

Agreed. On all points. Even the Bioshock part.

That's like what, 6 of us?

7. Bioshock 2 was definitely better gameplay, and the story was a natural expansion of the original. The problem was that better or not, the type of people who put Bioshock on a pedestal generally did so because it was so different, and that type of person wasn't so willing to appreciate the polishing of an old idea as opposed to the exploration of a completely new one. I think that basically, though Bioshock 2 was better, it simply wasn't better enough for many people.

You are wrong and you should be ashamed. Bioshock was a good game because it was a fresh take on the DeusEx/System Shock approach to action RPGs. It had a good plot and lots of cool stuff to offer. Bioshock 2 was just more of the same. And that means it has no good ideas of its own.

If you came to Bioshock having never played its parents, then I can see why more of the same would work for you, because the shooter market is so generic and uninterested. If you have played interesting deeply involving games in the past, and Bioshock was just another installment, then tbh Bioshock came very close to not delivering (lack of balance, irritating scavenger hunts, stupid thing with photos etc) and stole a lot of its good parts and just added a new paint scheme. And that's why Bioshock 2 was dreadful. Because if Bioshock was stealing, number 2 was ram raiding.

 

[hyker]

The reason glados changed was because most of the behaviour-controlling sphere's died after you murdered them, plus because of

Spoiler

Caroline

and I don't agree with you on some points, I had million times as much fun with portal 2 once than playing portal 1 ten times

 

[barrelroll37]

That is up for debate. While the game has stronger mechanics in some areas, some have argued that it is so easy that compared to the first game its just a button masher. And that it has QTEs that are more stupid than the average ones since it involves only the triangle button, which makes it more button mashing.And as for the story, while u have a valid point others can say that sora has no real character growth compared to the first one. And that goofy and donald feel more like they're just along for the ride than the first one, which had at least a few moments here and there (i.e donald arguing with sora in deep jungle, donald and goofy defending sora at hollow bastion) so its a matter of perspective on that one.

 

[barrelroll37]

Wow, a 3 pager. Very nice.

OT: Video game sequels really should only be used to indicate that the game uses some of the same mechanics, while delivering a new story every time.

Though it has to be said, I enjoyed Kingdom Hearts 2 better than Kingdom Hearts. The mechanics were much tighter and the story really was better. You had an actual group you were fighting against that had multiple people with differing perspectives on their objectives instead of a single person vaguely hinted at throughout the game that doesn't even show his face until the end.

That is up for debate. While the game has stronger mechanics in some areas, some have argued that it is so easy that compared to the first game its just a button masher. And that it has QTEs that are more stupid than the average ones since it involves only the triangle button, which makes it more button mashing.And as for the story, while u have a valid point others can say that sora has no real character growth compared to the first one. And that goofy and donald feel more like they're just along for the ride than the first one, which had at least a few moments here and there (i.e donald arguing with sora in deep jungle, donald and goofy defending sora at hollow bastion) so its a matter of perspective on that one.

 

[Common Knowledge]

I don't see what the big issue is with sequals. Sure with films it can get pretty silly (Police Academy 7!) but if done right games can reinvent the original. I think the Dawn of War games are a pretty good example of this, the first just had one campagin and four races but was still a good game. The sequal was mostly the same but featured another race added, and then Dark Crusade arrived and featured seven campagins, was third in the series and is still one of my all time favourite RTS's - in my opinion better than the original.

 

[mschweiz]

I really think that Ubisoft needs to read this. they need to let Ezio and Altair go.

 

[Hachura]

Someone above had said something like "Too bad fans are the ones with the money" and I couldn't agree more.

Devs are having to sacrifice things like creativity and originality to cater to us assholes who demand more of the same thing in a sequel, and then proceed to ***** when it turns out inferior to the original. People are bullshit.

Let's have a renaissance I say. All the way back to the good ol' days of cave paintings. I'm betting THOSE artists didn't whore themselves out, trading their values for a buck.

 

[Norix596]

Interesting point. I guess if you set squeals in the same universe as the original with different characters, it inherently has to be more original and capable of standing on it's own. Unless it's a poorly written one.

 

[Wolcik]

Read some of the comments, and the point has been proven Second page has a bite, and third had a description of outcome of it XD

 

[Lightning Delight]

See, thats something that confused me about Portal 2. In the song at the end of Portal 1, GLaDOS is singing about how alive she is, and how she gets to live indefinitely, doing science forever. Then in Portal 2, its revealed that she has been dormant for 999999, and she hates you for killing her. And what the hell happened to "I'm not even angry?" Her motivations in the second game made no sense based off the ending of the first.

 

[Pseudopod]

I disagree with this article largely because mechanics and gameplay can do a lot to save a game sequel even if the sequel doesn't add much to the story. There's series like Mario where the stories are total repetitive nonsense, but the games continue to be good thanks to Nintendo constantly adding and refining mechanics. Pokemon is another good example, where the story changes minimally between sequels, but virtually everything else is improved. Sometimes even a graphical update is enough to justify a sequel. There are franchises to which story is very vital and needs to be a strong consideration when making a sequel, but there's also plenty where I'm find with a bit of nonsense in the story department for the sake of improvements the rest of the game's design. There's more than one valid reason to make a sequel, and some franchises just aren't as story dependent as others.

That said, story is very important to Portal, but I have yet to feel like Portal 2's story or GLaDOS's inclusion in it have been forced. The game is solid when it comes to mechanics and pacing. The new "toys" in Portal 2, such as the various goos, excursion tunnels, and hard light bridges, expand well on the mechanics of the first game and add loads of fun. I haven't gotten bored with testing at all. The game is plenty broken up by the different sections of the facility, "off rail" segments, and by the additions of Cave Johnson, Wheatley, and the changes in GlaDOS. The atmosphere changes a lot as you move forward. All in all, I felt Portal 2 succeeded as a sequel by subtly expanding on the history of Aperture Science through more excellent character dialogue, with lots of humor and mind bending puzzles to keep the player engaged.

Portal 2 has amazed and entertained me immensely. I know fan pressure can negatively influence franchises, but I see no evidence of this in Portal 2.

 

[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.

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.
I'm REALLY Looking forward to Skyrim. If it can be Oblivion and then some, I'll be happy.. wife won't be though.

I think we are both looking forward to Skyrim with the same optimism.
Which is the important thing, so what if one game gave us more fun as a time sink we are both Elder Scroll fans.

I think Oblivion, with its fast travel and waypoints and all that is "streamlining" and "watering down"... but that is not totally a bad thing.
I liked how hardcore the other ones were but that was when I had no career and no friends and could fully commit to that RPG experience, now I probably do want things to just fulfill me with huge story and pacing and not really need to "live" in the world as much though I am sure I could. That is why I think we are both equally excited about this new one.

I just hope there are no annoying stryders or whatever they were called that get in the way of resting in the wild.

 

[Crono Maniac]

Yahtzee was right, most of these comments are really really dumb.