Extra Punctuation: Building Sequels Badly

[castlewise]

The Yahtz is a critic and makes critic points. They aren't wrong by any means, but not _everything_ has to be this amazing work of art, and sometimes if you try to hard to be original you end up with a unique terrible game.

Case in point, compare Portal 2 to Mirrors Edge. Mirrors Edge was trying very hard to be original, to not be like other games, and it was kind of terrible because sometimes the conventions set up in other games are there for a reason. Portal 2 doesn't try to be original or new, but is an almost textbook example of good game design.

There is a place in my heart for good sequels. And there are good sequels, just compare Portal 2 to Bioshock 2.

 

[mcnally86]

Case in point: Final Fantasy. Look at what happened when they stopped creating and started polling: Final Fantasy 12, 13, and 14... None of which deserve numerals. (XI doesn't either, but for different reasons. It's pretty good I guess, so I'll let it slide).

EDIT One thing though:

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.

MegaMan 2 and 3.

You forgot super Mario 3. I wasn't a fan of 2. Although the story here is jump jump. How about Yoshi island that is a prequel that is darn good...but then there is Yoshi Story so I don't know. Story kills things? If redoing a game with updates to tech redo the plot? Ala the first 3-4 Zelda's that were awesome. Was star fox 64 a sequel to the super Nintendo one?

Ok yahtzee they don't make good sequels anymore. In the day that technologies made decent upgrades,8 to 16 to 64 bit, stories were worth retelling with more polygons and better controls.

 

[JPH330]

Hooray for Animal Farm reference!

Anyway, I actually thought Portal 2 was better than its predecessor in every way, and that includes the story. Yes, even the single player campaign. I agree with you about the whole argument that a good sequel should treat the original as a sort of jumping-off point, but I feel like that's pretty much what Portal 2 did.

 

[GiantRaven]

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.

Timesplitters: Future Perfect might fall under those restraints.

 

[LogicNProportion]

Well, sequels can work if they work planned from the beginning, ie. Metal Gear Solid, or Assassin's Creed. But even they can be terrible; so Yahtzee, I agree with you once more!

MGS wasn't planned as a series from the beginning. I should know, I'm a local MGS rabid fanboy. The only reason Hideo kept making them was because either fans or Konami kept bugging him to make them or reminding him how awesome Snake was. After each game, he said it was hopefully the last.

His first real reaction to this was actually MGS2, where he practically trolled the fanbase.

Recently, he's announced to compromise with us rabid fans, and while he won't be expanding anymore on Solid Snake, he says there are many possibilities for Big Boss, who, in all fairness, is much more badass anyway.

On topic, awesome read as usual, Yahtzee!

 

[MichaelMaverick]

I can see where you're coming from, Yahtzee, and I suppose I essentially agree with you.
Everything has its pros and cons, however. When you first introduced the idea of sequels being banned, you said we'd unfortunately have to sacrifice some good titles. I think Half-Life 2 and Thief 2 were among them, and while I don't know whether either one of them fulfill the requirements of your question (i.e. expanding on the first game with the same characters *and* having a better story), but I'm sure it brought new things to the table that you'd regret never being witness to.

To illustrate my point using my own opinion, let me tell you that I liked the story of Portal 2 more than that of Portal 1. I did not like Portal 1 being a minimalist game where the puzzles were loosely connected with a simple plot - I suppose my tastes just lie elsewhere. On the other hand, I liked the story and ending of Portal 2 because of the development of both GLaDOS' character and her relationship with Chell. GLaDOS "coming to terms" with things and letting Chell go was how I thought the story of Portal should have ended, because GLaDOS's bipolarity and struggle with emotional matters is what FUELS the story. Sure the original game worked well on its own, but for me, it would've been a shame if the sequel hadn't been made. I think if the contribution is of such magnitude, they should go for a sequel, even if it's with the same characters and can't compare to the original. We don't necessarily NEED to compare it to the original in the first place.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I mean, prove me wrong. 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.

Baldur's Gate 2.

Same characters, continuation of the story, but it was a continuation that occurred naturally; you could beat BG1 and be left satisfied that the story ends right there.

In general though, that rule applies to just about everything made recently.
It's rather strange that fan-made games (until they get slapped with Cease-&-Desist) tend to be on par with the source material, while fan-demanded games turn into that fore-mentioned slop.

 

[boradis]

Fans are idiots in the purest sense: en masse, we form a creature of pure id. I agree with this completely.

But what's the point of appealing to our self control or dignity when we have none? Yahtzee's message is best directed at the publishers.

 

[YodaUnleashed]

You make several good compelling arguments as usual and your reasons and thinking is no doubt sound but at the end of the day none of this more rational thought is going to make me like portal 2 any less than I do now. My gut tells me perhaps more than my head that I enjoyed Portal 2 tremendously, more so than the first game. I guess I'm just a dumb, stupid, moronic fan but then I don't take myself so seriously that I can't just laugh all that nonsense off and enjoy the game for what it is rather than what it could have been or should have been or just not have been at all in your opinion.

In my own humble opinion Portal 2 expanded upon the first game, positively, in every way; it was funnier, it had a more expansive story, puzzles were more varied, environments were less repetitive and the expansion of characters helped flesh out the 'portal world' and make it a more compelling experience, for me. The first portal was an experiment, a very very successful and memorable one; it's sequel is the game one can imagine the original would have been if portal had been a fully-fledged game from the beginning.

 

[Carbo]

I didn't ask anything from Portal 2 apart from it being a good game and preserving what made the original special. I ask this literally from any sequel to a game I love.

And y'know what? I agree with what you're trying to prove in the article, however I still believe you're placing your precious Portal on a bit too high of a pedestal here. I realize that Portal 1 had literally all it needed to be great but honestly, if you think they didn't need an incentive to slap that big fat 2 on the box of this game with the intents of making this more than just an expansion pack, you might have been approaching this game the wrong way. I don't think there was any doubt that this would stretch beyond the mold and apply the Portal mechanic to more irregular situations and wider scales. In that regard I'd have to say Portal 2 shines. It's narrative was unparalleled, it had me on the edge and the writing was hilarious, witty and captivating. It couldn't rely anymore on game play innovation only and I think everyone knew that when entering the game.

In my eyes it did exactly what a sequel should have done. Expand on everything and improve to the brim without alienating its concept. The game is far easier of course, but setting apart the fact that more levels were about hiding the portal surfaces, I'd almost call it safer to say that we're just far more used to thinking with portals at this point.

 

[Hristo Tzonkov]

Yahtzee, in the interest of talking about sequels...what do you think of Alex Mercer from Prototype being made an antagonist in Prototype 2?

Wasn't he just an emotagonist in the original Prototype.

Towards the OT.I can name quite a few good sequels that actually try to upgrade the game they are sequels to.Either furthering a story without ruining the entire plot or having loosely related characters in the same setting like in the original game.And they also upgrade or try to use the first one as a stepping stone rather than a bar.

 

[Yahtzee Croshaw]

While i did enjoy portal 2 just as much as the first i agree for most of what you said. Developers really do just need to ignore fans most of the time. But i found the lack of connection between Crysis 1 and 2 destroyed any interest in playing it past the first few hours. (other things put me off it too)

Maybe this wouldnt have been as bad if they didnt leave such an open ending in the first and the main character in the second wasnt pointlesly silent (Nomad wasnt exactly offencive)

(crysis 2 SPOILERS)
But it just really pissed me off that the only connection shot himself in the head 5 minutes in. and from what i understand Nomad and Psyco get maybe one very brief mention (i have been told). I'm sat there wondering who the hell these poeple are im shooting?. why do the aliens look different? and it just feels like a kick in the balls to fans of the first.

I know crysis doesnt have the best story in the world, but that game is one and probably the only example where i think little or no connection is a bad thing. Other than that developers should go nuts with your idea. Fans for the most point (including me) don't know what they want.

 

[Jamienra]

This is the first time I think I can outright say you are wrong. As a huge fan of Portal 2 and after seeing the hundreds of threads on portal 2, as well as the internets opinion, I think it can be agreed upon by most people that Portal 2 was better than Portal 1. I know not everyone will agree that it was better but everyone can see that it's loved. For good reason too, Wheatley is possibly the greatest character in any game I've played and although GlaDos was different the reasons are described in the game (She replayed the last 5 seconds of her life for 99999...years).

This time Yahtzee, and for perhaps the first time, you are completely wrong in my opinion.

 

[Heathrow]

Toy Story 2 was better than Toy Story and there was no sequel hook at the end of the original.

Portal 2 is an interesting character piece that only gets better with added scrutiny. Valve have shown that they know there stuff and they don't need me or anyone else defending them.

 

[Casual Shinji]

If you are a fan, all your ideas of what you want in a sequel are wrong so you should just shut your stupid mouths and let the creators create. Why not click on the comments for this article and watch my point being proven.

Way to shut somebody up!

Honestly, I don't really mind the sequels that wallow in the original. The problem is that now every developer is turning their new IP into a trilogy or franchise, even before the first game is released. It's like they're more interested in establishing a valuable property then they are in making a solid, memorable game.

 

[Strife2GFAQs]

I support the point made about Final Fantasy. That genre tends to be one of the few where you see the "new setting/characters" theme while keeping the basic concepts. That was until this past decade, but we all know that Square-Enix was suffering from complications of terrible acid trips and irritable bowel syndrome. Still, it's held in high regard because the utter refusal to ape previous games was the series strong suit. That said, Dragon Quest, Atelier, Mana, Chrono, Persona (barring the Answer), and Star Ocean all had sequels with different settings, characters, and motivations. Looking outside that genre, Castlevania (to a lesser degree) seems willing to create, rather than pile on itself. Then again, that timeline is so screwed up at this point, having direct sequels (like Dawn of Sorrow) might be seen as novel.

Adam Sessler shares this viewpoint, calling it "sequel fatigue." Think about Assassin's Creed. It was a novel experience, but going through the motions every year (even with a different descendant) would seem ridiculous.

 

[pezmanon]

Although I haven't played portal 1 i've got to disagree about the co-op glados being better than the single player glados. I much preferred the story to the co-op. I loved the story elements and liked that you went outside of Glados' control at times. It just seemed more fulfilling than just doing puzzles to get to the next one as in co-op. It sounds to me like Yahtzee has the same nostalgia for old ways that he was saying would have made silent hill 2 bad.

 

[PhiMed]

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*

*reading, nodding head*

Biosho... what? You get back here, damn it! *angrily chasing*

 

[Lieju]

I definitely agree that fans (and people in general) don't know what they want.

But I think they should be listened, what kinds of thing they liked, what were received badly. Just don't give them what they ask for. Just think of any TV-shows with characters with sexual tension and the possibility they'll end up together.
Fans want to see them together. But if that happened they'd be disappointed, and the dynamic would be gone, if the writers didn't take it to a totally new direction, which wouldn't be what those fans wanted.

Portal was one of those games I never thought would get a sequel (which shows how much I understand about bussiness, I just thought it was fine on it's own), but I'm fine with Portal 2. It's not what I would have wanted to see, but enjoyable enough.

 

[pdgeorge]

One example of a character/game having a sequel that didn't hint at it would have to be (rather strangely)... Mario.

Start with the original NES Mario game. It ended with no suggestion of a sequel. The first sequel... well Mario Brothers 2 doesn't count, so mario 3, significant improvement. and things have just been continuing on from there. Sure there's been a lot of stagnation with him every so often but the jumps from Mario Brothers, Mario Brothers 3 and then Super Mario World were all pretty good.

Then, another one which is a better example: Samus.
the first game ended with no hint of a sequel or even a possibility of it, just "you finished the game. Congrats" Then Metroid 2 (gameboy) came out. That one ended again without a potential for a sequel (from memory) and then, step 3: Super Metroid. One of the top rated games that still looks awesome. I don't know what peoples opinion on the Prime trilogy was, I thought it was good but I don't really know how others received it so meh.

Command and conquer never had the most amazing stories, but they mostly ended pretty definitively and the next one that came out would tend to be better.