Extra Punctuation: Building Sequels Badly

Recommended Videos

Hypertion

New member
May 10, 2011
137
0
0
yes...

1million people repeating the line, "the Cake is a lie" is always relevant.

Also "Assuming Direct Control" "Impressive!" and the other ones i really dont want to hear about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_meme

This is what i am talking about. And it is much more harmful than contsructive.
 

PizzaSHARK

New member
Jan 22, 2011
18
0
0
ItsAPaul said:
So a game that wasn't supposed to have a sequel, used the same characters, and was better...

Megaman 2, Tony Hawk 2, Guitar Hero 2, every Soul Calibur (besides 4 maybe since the story was shit but it was still an improvement), probably every other fighter in existence after the first. Dark Cloud 2 misses the mark for having completely new characters (but still better in every way and not obviously a sequel) as does Baldur's Gate 2 (obviously happening, but same characters and better in every way), but they're close.
Soul Calibur, Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero, and the Mega Man games don't really count because they basically don't have a plot. Any plot that's present is purely there to provide unnecessary justification for the gameplay.
 

42

Australian Justice
Jan 30, 2010
697
0
0
Skimming through all these comments the ones that make me laugh the are the ones who hate on the fans. Look Yahtzee is right about fans, and should mostly be ignored. i mean hell example A: Seinfeld made a series finale that they wanted to do, and when everyone saw it all the fanboys were upset. but the other thing is that Yahtzee knows full well but didnt mention it otherwise it would contradict the point he was making is that a bunch of Valve's games come from Mods from the gaming community, and the people who would so that kind of thing would be considered Fans. but i digress any point of developing a game thats influenced by fans will be shit. i mean after 12 years Duke Nukem Forever will finally be released and it is a sequel but since no one who didnt played the original will not know what to expect, and it has been a while since it came out and the whole development practically blew up and was announced dead in 2009 before Gearbox bought it. and the point that makes is that fans have no idea what they want from the new duke nukem game because they never had the original to fall back on. its exactly the point yahtzee makes in the article.

oh and point on the Day 1 DLC: I hate to say... correction i love to say i told you so, looks like Valve was going to keep supporting Portal 2 post-release after all. those Metacritic users are complete idiots.
 

KDR_11k

New member
Feb 10, 2009
1,013
0
0
Don't just trust the creator either, look at Metroid Other M. That shit was Sakamoto's idea. Or the DS Zelda games.

I'd say Sam & Max Season 2.
 

tobyornottoby

New member
Jan 2, 2008
517
0
0
Zelda: Majora's Mask (although it's a completely different story with the only constant a silent protagonist without a personality)
Assassin's Creed 2
Metal Gear (solid) series
Half-Life 2

Definitely the rare exceptions though.


The BIG problem: sequels just sell so much more.
 

stuhacking

New member
Mar 7, 2010
41
0
0
UltraHammer said:
Nintendo isn't like that, though. They're old fashioned. They consider themselves to be the professionals. They save pandering for a cosmic event...
Right, right. Nintendo are too good to make direct sequels like Super Mario Galaxy 2. Don't expect to see Nintendo re-releasing old titles like Super Mario World just to squeeze a few extra gold coins out of their fans.

[disclaimer: Aforementioned Nintendo Fan]
 

Dhatz

New member
Aug 18, 2009
302
0
0
the rule of not recycling protagonists is a part of why GTAs are awesome. I really think Portal 2 SP was way more boring and lined than it should have been. production values. fanboy service. production values. blablablabla. fuck off Valve. I still want a way to play coop with steamless cracked version.
 

Evil Tim

New member
Apr 18, 2009
536
0
0
zjspeed said:
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.
So you're saying it's ok to release a game called Portal 2 that doesn't actually have portals in it? When I go to buy two bottles of Coke, I don't expect one to be full of vinegar and the other gasoline because the Coca-Cola company decided they knew better than me what I wanted from my Coke bottle and gave the job of filling it to someone who hated Coke.

I bought Starfox 64 because I wanted the developers to take the things I liked about Starfox (well-designed, graphically accomplished rail shooting levels) and build them up, not because I wanted to play another game with a totally different storyline made by people with no affection towards the first. Yahtzee's thinking here would make Adventures and Assault better sequels because they didn't give me what I wanted and re-imagined everything simply for the sake of doing so.

Indeed, his idolising of Portal means that according to his own argument he's the very worst person to say what a sequel to it does or doesn't need.

Oh, and got to love more woman-hating thrown in there, too.
 

DTWolfwood

Better than Vash!
Oct 20, 2009
3,715
0
0
portal 2 was lacking; lacking serious puzzles.

damn it all the game has left me wanting.

just as a note, i never wanted more plot, just more puzzles and challenges. on that end valve didn't listen :p
 

Superior Mind

New member
Feb 9, 2009
1,535
0
0
I think Valve wanted to make Portal 2 not just to appease fans but to take back what they would have considered a missed opportunity. Portal was a hobby game, a way to present a neat idea and it was very good but it wasn't very refined. Now this was part of its charm no question but the concept was too good to leave the whole thing as a side-show.

Consider GLaDOS. In Portal she is, for the most part, hindered by that morality core. Once it's removed her voice becomes silky and malicious and she starts being her real mocking self. Aside from the last less-than five minutes the character remains pretty much unexplored, not to mention her only animation is flopping back and forth like a stranded fish.

Valve are obviously perfectionists, they would look at Portal, see all the great ideas it had and wonder why the Hell they didn't explore things further. That's why, I think, Portal 2 single player was so focused on environments and characters and not so focused on puzzles because Valve wanted it to fill all the gaps Portal didn't. Meanwhile this left the co-op mode free to indulge once more in the puzzles and all the new elements that were introduced which is why it is often praised more than single player.

And, it should be remembered, Portal 2 finished. It finished pretty damn well in my opinion, satisfactorally and with no perceivable option to milk another sequel. Valve got what they wanted to do out of the way, they wanted to further explore it and they did, they're happy, it's over, they're done. Portal is not an example of a franchise that got done one times too many, it's just a franchise that wanted to define itself a bit more.
 

MisterColeman

New member
Mar 19, 2009
162
0
0
I think a lot of the people that still believe Portal 1 was better than Portal 2 are victims of nostalgia. I made a point to replay Portal 1 right before playing Portal 2 co-op and the campaign. Portal 1 was not very good; certainly nowhere near as good as I remember. Portal 2 ended up being better in every single way.

If I were forced to pick a problem with Portal 2 it would simply be that the concept wasn't new anymore, but I measure games by how entertaining I find them, and Portal 2 was way more entertaining.
 

tahrey

New member
Sep 18, 2009
1,123
0
0
Interesting points - but, I think, you can apply it in many other places other than games. Films, TV, literature etc can suffer just the same. The original spirit is gone... unless you're incredibly skilful, and moreover put the sequel out quite quickly, you're probably going to fail.

Series that are actually planned as series? That works fine. But arguably the second one in that chain isn't a sequel as such. It's just "part 2".

Having just put some recommendations of their stuff in another thread, I think this may be why Studio Ghibli films work well. It's a bit of the Silent Hill effect, even. You can recognise similar traits and styles in the characters that are presented (given that the lead artist seems to know how to draw about eight or nine different faces and bodies very well, and doesn't bother doing anything except mix and match them), and in the theme (strong feminist, pro-ecology and flight elements abound), but they are always actually all-new characters in an all-new setting with a whole new story. They have no real, typical sequels in their catalogue - no dreadful Disney-style "Pom Poko 2" or whatever - and each story is presented as a self contained whole. The closest they ever got was The Cat Returns ... that took a statuette that featured in the creative daydreams of a character from a film 10 years previous, made the daydream character of that statue real, and brought it into this world. With basically every other thing having been changed, including the location and all of the humans.

They continue on almost perpetually strapped for cash, and always leaving the punter guessing and hungry for more, but very well regarded amongst their peers and their audience. If that isn't a pointer to the true nature of the sequel and of the remake (lazy cash-ins!), what is?

...that said, I did end up seeing The Fast and The Furious 5 recently because of a ticketing mix up. The way the story seems to have flip flopped, been retconned, "finished", then picked apart and continued along the way since the last one I saw (think I dozed through about half of F+TF2?) seems flat out amazing. It was a perfectly enjoyable film, but you had to totally ignore the plot and just treat it as audiovisual candy... hehehe that was a funny joke/bit of slapstick, wowww that was an amazing stunt, etc. Sort of like a casual game, or something like Trackmania. They have now put a lid on it by having everyone retire in paradise off of their arguably ill-gotten gains, but would you bet against some plane full of true villains crash-landing on their island for F+TF6?

The one thing that subverts all this is Doctor Who, which has a false end to everything ever / the main character being killed off about twice a series (and, in fact, this series pretty much opened with the latter in the most final of ways)... but its become such a cliche of the programme that it's pretty much expected now.
Perhaps Moffat should confound the audience - and risk having them hate him forever, with a gamble that by giving them something they didn't even know they wanted, they'll actually love it - by making him permanently dead forever and ever, bagsy no tag-backs, about halfway through the series, leaving the companions to try and muddle through the best they can? :D
 

count9

New member
Mar 14, 2011
24
0
0
Gotta agree, the whole point of portal was that you were learning your way through some puzzles, laughed a bit at the voice telling you what to do and then suddenly everything unfolds. Portal 2 is kinda just trying to show us what we want to see. You want to know the history of glados? Well here it is. You want to know what happened to glados afterwards? Well here it is. etc. No super big, omg wtf I'm gonna burn to death moment.
 

WaderiAAA

Derp Master
Aug 11, 2009
869
0
0
I disagree on a couple of points.

A) Portal 1 did leave room for a sequel. When the ending came, I was thinking "but she was picked up by machines and it ended inside the factory". She did not manage to escape. And then later on during the credits, GLaDOS kept repeating that she was still alive.

B) I'd say Portal 2 did use Portal 1's story as a jumping off point. It didn't focus on surprise, but delivered the backstory with humour and introduced a new character to the present story, giving it more plot twists and a distinctly different feel from Portal 1.
 

BloodSquirrel

New member
Jun 23, 2008
1,263
0
0
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.
Baldur's Gate
 

Carbo

New member
Dec 17, 2010
61
0
0
Oh sweet Jesus I almost forgot:

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.
Uh, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door?

I was under the fair impression that you were a massive fan of the Paper Mario franchise, particularly this installment.
 

BloodSquirrel

New member
Jun 23, 2008
1,263
0
0
Evil Tim said:
Indeed, his idolising of Portal means that according to his own argument he's the very worst person to say what a sequel to it does or doesn't need.
Yeah, he contradicts himself all over the place here. Most of his complaints about Portal 2 do seem to come from him putting the original on too high a pedestal.

GLaDOS has undergone actual character development into Portal 2. In the first game, GLaDOS was just doing her job. Now she has an actual grudge against the player. The core of her personality- especially her "text-book" understanding of human emotions- is still there. Her attempts to insult Chell are too forced and often silly to ever seriously work.

This is exactly what they needed to do. It's still the same character, but they have an in-universe reason to have her behaving differently to keep things from being stale.

I haven't finished it yet, but so far, Portal 2 is my idea of the perfect sequel. It takes the ideas that the original was testing out and expands on them. There's plenty about it that's new, but even the new things fit the spirit of the original. In an age when companies are trying to turn every existing IP into CoD Portal 2 stands out as a sequel that isn't afraid to be Portal instead.
 

Legion

Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008
7,186
0
0
Woodsey said:
And BioShock 2 is better than BioShock.

*runs away*
I don't think it is in every way, but the game-play itself was a lot better in my opinion, and Yazhtee is always harping on about how gameplay>story, which is just a little bit hypocritical considering his dismissal of Bioshock 2 was almost entirely down to the story.
 

Dracain

New member
Mar 12, 2008
21
0
0
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.
Not sure if this counts as there was a stinger after the credits but Sly Cooper 2 could be considered better then Sly Cooper one (though that could just be my opinion)
 

Your once and future Fanboy

The Norwegian One
Feb 11, 2009
572
0
0
I actually like the idea of a sequel, taking an idea that have worked (at least somewhat worked) and ironing out the kinks while improving on the concept after hearing the reactions to the original.
But I see that Yahtzee is suffering from the same "affliction" as many other reviewers are.
when you review/critique many, many games/comics/movies/etc, you tend to dislike the thing that's are similar to others, the "samy-ness" is worse than anything in the actual product.
Not that I'm arguing with or disputing his opinions just because of this, but I have seen this often.