Extra Punctuation: Building Sequels Badly

[richd213]

Did silent hill 1 leave any opening for a sequel?

Just sayin'

 

[samaugsch]

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*

Being a gamer that focuses more on gameplay than story, I would have to agree with you on that one.

 

[CopperBoom]

"Why not click on the comments for this article and watch my point being proved?"

It is true.
The more popular an Escapist series ; this one being one of the most ; the stupider the comments are.

It is just being wanting to get on as soon as possible so other people will read what they say, even if they have nothing interesting to say to begin with. It is really strange how forum society works. Fans are dumb.

 

[Ipsen]

3-pager!
I must agree with Yahtzee. Although I think there are a lot of people out there touting Portal 2 as better than the first.
The first game was elegant in its simplicity and uniqueness. It had great subtle dark comedy that made it more endearing. Then the waves of fans took hold of it and turned it in to the worst never-ending internet gaming joke/quote monstrosity in recent history.
Portal 2 wasn't bad by any means, but it completely lost its subtlety and hit almost every check mark in the Hollywood sequel checklist. You liked one sarcastic computer with an inferiority complex? Then how about TWO sarcastic computers with inferiority complexes! More explosions? Guy with British accent for comic relief? Constant nods to things from the first movie that only wind up making them less special?
You got it!
It doesn't matter if the stupid "cake" references finally died, because now we have space potatoes!

I wouldn't hold up Portal 2 as an example of how NOT to do sequels (if most sequels were as good as it, that would be great), but it is a good example of how to completely overdo everything that made the first game so charming and unique.

Everyone loves uniqueness and simplicity in their gameplay. But if you'd call a game's experience complete when the end credits roll, that's it for the uniqueness. Replay value is based from your favored memories of the game, but it goes without saying, the trick is done, the magic has lost the luster that caught your eye in the first place.

Above applies to sequels too (I guess it could be said that fans will carry "replay value" from original titles to sequels). You can argue all day that sequels should be as unique and faraway different from their predecessors, but I can't say that's the best of moves. If you're going to share titles, fans will most likely share expectations too, whether they realize it or not.

I also think, as fans, when engaging games come along, do well, and get sequels, we pick them apart so well and so quickly that when the new one comes along, the contrasts between the original and sequel are all too stark.

Well, case and point, and some advice, don't look for uniqueness in the same spots for games in the same vein.

Now, excuse me...

And BioShock 2 is better than BioShock.

*runs away*

*Gives chase with bat in hand*

 

[CopperBoom]

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

That certainly is an opinion.

 

[EgonCom]

Yahtzee someone has to tell you this, so it might as well be me:
"INSERT SPOILER HERE, spoiler warning" speech wasn't funny first time.
It wasn't funny second time.
It wasn't funny third time.
And it won't be funny gazillion time either!!!
Stop doing it, dam it*

*- Like in: stop spoiling at all.

 

[Choppaduel]

"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

[hr]

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.

Wow, you can't read either.

[HEADING=1]HE SAID GAMES[/HEADING]

[hr]

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

That certainly is an opinion.

and not one I share either. Halo:CE ftw.

[hr]

And BioShock 2 is better than BioShock.

*runs away*

I guess we'll just have to [HEADING=3]COMPLETELY DISAGREE[/HEADING] on this one.

 

[Vivendel]

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.[/quote]

I can't believe I'm doing this (as I really, really don't want to start a fanboy discussion (and yet that is probably what I'm inadvertently encouraging)) but the Zelda-nerd within me is urging to point out that the main character in LttP is not the same as in OoT, and as such the one cannot be considered a direct sequel to the other.

Also, just, you know, for the record: Tingle is awesome (go quirky, strangely sinister, sexually ambiguous characters).

 

[lozfoe444]

I really have to say that expanding on GLaDOS was a good idea. When the game was first announced, I hated how it looked like Portal 2 was going to be the same thing as the first: GLaDOS tries to kill me, I don't let her. But it turned out that she was a much more sympathetic character, and by the end, I almost didn't want to leave her. By the end of the first game, she was my favorite villain of all time. By the end of the second game, she was my favorite character of all time.

 

[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?

 

[Haenf]

"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.

 

[JaymesFogarty]

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!

Lets face it except for MGS4 they were not really sequals at all. MGS2 is all about jack and MGS3 is all about Big Boss. Sure there are plenty of spin offs but I dont think any of them are superior to the core games in any way.

Somehow, I prefer this type of sequel. As Yahtzee stated in his article, the best kind of sequel for him was one that had a few common threads with the original, but starred other characters and expanded the series. MGS2 followed MGS' themes of meme, un/ethical cloning, the morality of war and such, but also differentiated itself using a new protagonist with a new story.

 

[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.

 

[Thespian]

Um... I preferred Portal 2?

You seem to have missed the point a little bit on the GLaDOS thing, which led to a couple of contradictions. You say that she's changed, which was bad. The reason she's changed is pretty obviously because of Caroline's influence - and yet you then complain that she was in the game, and therefore too similar?

Anyway, that wasn't the main point of the article. But still, I don't see the problem in continuing a story, gameplay idea, whatever, that people liked.

Sequels aren't a bad thing - sure, in movies they're often a little pathetic, but with games, they're a great way to expand on the original's mechanics. Half-Life, Mass Effect, TES - all great games with great sequels, that are often better than the originals.

You misunderstand. Yahtzee never said there were no good sequels. Quite the opposite. Just that there has been a trend of poorly made sequels recently.

 

[Mad1Cow]

I can agree with this mostly but, I never saw Portal 2 as anything majorly different from Portal 1. It was more of the juicy same goodness, if not better because there was more of it. It looked better, the controls were better, the UI was better, etc etc. However I do think what SHOULD be focused on for sequels is a MAJOR engine change, otherwise in todays world, just update it with patches and DLC.

I say this because as Jim pointed out, games aren't films. I get the whole weaving the narrative in, but personally with things like Portal 2 and Bioshock, I think games have mastered the basic in storytelling for games. Or, ya know, we have that thing that everyone else did (start a level with a cutscene, play the level, end with a cutscene). I mean, yeah that's linear gameplay, sandbox would need more looking into, but still, we've pretty much got it in the bag.

Now my major point is with this is something like Fallout New Vegas. Ahem, new story, new character, new world, yes, thanks, appreciate it, but if it runs off the same engine, why not just release it as DLC for like £20-25 (considering a game here is usually £40). The story was fine in New Vegas, in fact I'd hazard to say I liked it more than Fallout 3, HOWEVER, it's the same old? Why did I need the other disk?

This way you just buy the usage off of one engine really and then update it with so many stories. You know who this would benefit greatly? Indie developers. Download a game using a major companies engine for like £15, I'd be on that like no tomorrow. And perhaps £5 would go to the engine license holders, I dunno, economics is a downfall to me, but to me, this seems like such a better model. I think it would be most beneficial to Valve, I mean I know they're leaving the episodic gaming format but still...this way developers only REALLY have to focus on the storytelling aspects compared to "Oh noes, his back needs more render power to make it glisten in water" for a sequel change...yay, just what I always wanted...

 

[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.

 

[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.