Games that NEED a Sequel
- Thread starter Cazer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The Saboteur definitely needs to be handed off to another company and a sequel made. The story was great, and there is definitely room for a sequel.
Oh I have played Sands, and Warrior, and Thrones, all were better than 2008 truthfully.Woodsey said:
This prince is nothing compared to any of the previous games, BUT!
I still managed to enjoy it for what it was, a beautiful, well textured, beautiful, romp around a fancy fantasy land with some cutting things, lots of jumping, and pretty textures.
I have within me the power to accept the story they did have because of one of the final Concubine levels, they just went and squandered all my love by making it a bloody sequel teaser for an ending that ruined the whole narrative flow to do it.
As I said a page or two back I'd rather they just retcon the ending but that's just as unlikely I imagine.
Besides, 2008 was better than Forgotten Sands story. D=
(Granted Forgotten Sands had some pretty kickass combat and nifty new puzzle elements that were waaay better but I'm ignoring those because it's weakening my argument!)
Forgotten Sands breaks my heart too.Feylynn said:
Its like someone looked at Sands of Time, KNEW it was the best in the series, and then tried to ape everything about it without knowing WHY it was the best in the series.
As for 2008, it was pretty, but the characters were about as deep as *disgusting analogy*, their relationship didn't feel real, the story progression was non-existent because of the world structure, the combat was finnicky, etc. etc.
I mean,
Do you see how upset he all is about this?! He can barely hold himself to the wall, bless his cotton socks.
Me too... the ending is as hylariously campy and clichèd as it gets... and the final boss battle is awesome.Cazer said:
Hows about:
G-Police (Done in the Source engine?)
- Used to play a crapload of this on my PS1. Hell of a lot of fun dropping 1000lb bombs on a cluster of civilians and seeing them all explode violently. That and the combat mechanics were solid for its time. Very ripe to be re-done with modern tech. Especially since Psygnosis disbanded.
Freelancer (Same engine with a massive overhaul?)
-Digital Anvil, rest in peace. You brought us a fantastic overhaul of Elite and people still want more. Perhaps with better acting.
G-Police (Done in the Source engine?)
- Used to play a crapload of this on my PS1. Hell of a lot of fun dropping 1000lb bombs on a cluster of civilians and seeing them all explode violently. That and the combat mechanics were solid for its time. Very ripe to be re-done with modern tech. Especially since Psygnosis disbanded.
Freelancer (Same engine with a massive overhaul?)
-Digital Anvil, rest in peace. You brought us a fantastic overhaul of Elite and people still want more. Perhaps with better acting.
Jet Force Gemini, whats not to love about a game where you fight space ants and collect their heads?
also, Kya: Dark Lineage, i thought it was a pretty good game.
also, Kya: Dark Lineage, i thought it was a pretty good game.
Well, we don't really "need" anything but food and shelter, but I think the OP really was asking what games should have a sequel according to the community. Ah yes, language, mother of all misunderstandings.Funk Engine said:
While I agree that sequels shouldn't be done without sense or just for the sake of establishing a franchise (why hello there, BioShock), I think it's too narrow to only allow sequels if the story allows it.
First there are games like Portal 2. I agree with Yahtzee that Portal's fun comes from the puzzles, the story is a nice background, but it's still a background, so I didn't mind the sequel retconning and twisting stuff just so it could happen.
Those are the games where story plays a secondary or even altogether forgettable role and you want a sequel because of the overall gameplay.
Then there are games that do not necessarily add to the canon or rewrite history forever, but flesh out a Constructed World by letting us view the world from a different, interesting perspective. Its timeline may or may not overlap with the main one. I think Crysis: Warhead did the latter, but I haven't played it, so I can't name that as a confirmed example. I did play Homeworld: Cataclysm tho. It's set after the first game (Homeworld 1) that told a completely round story from beginning to end. Homeworld: Cataclysm's story is not mentioned once in the next sequel (Homeworld 2), but it let us view how history developed in general after the first game's achievements and how life is like for a small, weak clan (as opposed to the entire race you're commanding in Homeworld 1).
It's a sequel that isn't *necessary*, but fleshed out the world and brought some new toys in gameplay, thus it didn't feel like stagnant "franchise stretching" at all. Since its story is completely different from the original, as is the vast majority of the units, it's not exactly "more of the same" either, tho there are certainly characteristic similarities.
TL;DR
So as I see it there are simply interesting and uninteresting sequels, those that can bring enough new things to the table to be interesting on their own, without the strength of its successor, and then there are the boring sequels that don't add enough new and just feel like stretching and a waste of creative minds. Nintendo's struggling with this.
OT
Rayman. The Jump & Run, not the bunny minigame collection.