Heavy Rain Dev: "Sequels Kill Creativity and Innovation"

[Sonicron]

Why is it that this man's every utterance makes him come across as a snotty, pretentious wanker, even when I feel he genuinely wants to enrich my life as a gamer?

 

[Beautiful End]

Speaking with Official PlayStation Magazine...

YOU LIE! THAT MAGAZINE DIED! /sobs

But anyway, not all sequels are bad. In fact, some sequels are better than the original because developers learn from their mistakes. Look at Assassin's Creed! Sure, right now, they've gone a bit crazy with sequels and I admit they're losing their track BUT AC2 was much better than AC1 back then.
Despite the fact that CoD has also caught sequelitis, Modern Warfare was much, much more fun than the original CoDs.
Oh, and you mind sharing that with all the Half Life 2 fanboys?
Or how about Zelda and Final Fantasy? Sure, some sequels are better than others but for the most part, they're good and original (especially Final Fantasy).

See, I agree with the fact that some sequels are just being released as carbon copies or previous games in order to make a quick buck and they just slap in a mediocre story to make it seem like a sequel (CoD and AC nowadays, Halo, even Just Dance). But there are also people out there who see sequels as a chance to improve. If you screw up the first time you do something, do you just shrug and say "Oh, well! Such is life!". No, you'll probably want to try again so you can be better at it.

An original franchise will take us by surprise and that's cool. But a sequel will make us giddy to see our newly beloved franchise carry on in a different (or not so much) direction.

It's not all black and white. Come on, now.

Also...

Thank you for making me spit my milk which almost made me choke while I was alone at home.

No, seriously. That was well worth it. Now I want this glitch on my game. 8D

 

[Souplex]

Souplex: People who make games that forget to be games shouldn't have their opinions acknowledged.

 

[elilupe]

His idea about sequels works in moderation. There are some games, just as there are some movies or shows, that should absolutely not have sequels. Think of how many straight-to-DVD movies there are that were sequels to great movies that never needed sequels. Sure, there are games that benefited from having sequels, like MGS, Kingdom Hearts, Ratchet &Clank, or the Jak series. But, if they ever make a direct sequel to, say, Spec Ops: The Line, I just might firebomb the studio who makes it.

 

[Blind Sight]

Hey David Cage, remember that time Telltale made a Walking Dead game that was conceptually similar to some of your work but actually good?

 

[DrunkenMonkey]

Well yes Mr. Cage, but for all the shitty sequels there wouldn't be some of my favorite games in existence, yes I'm looking at you Persona 4 and Zero Escape. Let's not forget that original IPs are all well and good, but sometimes you just want to see a little more of one story than a single chapter. The way the industry is going we either will continue having an influx of sequels or an influx of one shot games. There is no winnable ground.

Besides creators sometimes want to improve on an existing product and they don't have the desire to create something new when a potential goldmine of untapped potential already exists in a given universe. (lol that made me giggle)Besides creativity goes both ways you don't have to create something new everyday, creativity also strives on improving something. I could go all day with the counter arguments, man wish I could actually talk to this guy for all his bluster.

 

[BoredAussieGamer]

Most of the games that came out in 2012 were sequels. Yeah, there were many uncreative, bland additions to popular franchises (I'm looking at you spunkgargleweewee games and Diablo 3), but there was a lot of interesting and creative stuff that came out this year, many of them direct sequels. Look at Far Cry 3, Max Payne 3, Torchlight 2, Borderlands 2, along with many others I haven't played yet. And we are looking forward to a Bioshock sequel that's taking a completely different approach.

To say that Sequels kill creativity and Innovation is a sweeping generalisation made by Auteurs. You know, those wankers who never accept criticism towards their Magnum opus. *Ends Ironic Tone*

 

[1337mokro]

Look Cage.

Sequels are as old as time.

Remember playing D&D (I will not believe there exists a single game dev who didn't)? That's basically sequels to the max. Every new story is basically a sequel to the story of your character. Exploring more of a world you know and love and want t see more off.

Broad generalizing statements are stupid. Don't make em to often.

 

[Dango]

Woah! Gettin' real edgy there with that opinion Mr. Cage! What an innovative and creative thing to say! It also sure means a lot coming from a game developer whose idea of innovation is to just be really bad at copying and imitating everything movies do.

 

[War Penguin]

He seriously hasn't grasped the idea that a sequel doesn't kill creativity and innovation, greedy publishers and devs that want to churn out a quick cashgrab kill creativity and innovation.

I think that's what he's trying to imply. What I assume he's trying to tell this to the industry, which does a lot of cashgrabbing for the most part, is exactly that and not to gamers.

I agree with you that there are some amazing sequels are out there. Hell, some of my favorite games ever like (Portal 2 or Fallout 3/New Vegas were sequels. But let's face it, there is a lot of money grubbing at the moment where publishers don't give a shit and know people will buy it either way. And I agree with him that it's doing harm to the artistic side of games.

The way he said it, however, is what kind of gets on my nerves. It was that type of "You don't know what you want! I know what you want! Listen to me!" kind of way. Yikes! :S

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

He sort of has a point, but it's hard to make out because he's muffling himself with his own anus. Whilst some franchises are a bit milked, they're not necessarily uncreative so long as you can actually make a decent game. Besides, Heavy Rain wasn't all that creative either; the reason no one had tried it before was because everyone thought it was a terrible idea rather than because it was a bolt of inspiration.

 

[Burnhardt]

Cage's assessment about gamers buying sequels because they have "no interest in innovation" might be a little unfair; gaming is an expensive hobby, and trying out a new IP is a risk not everyone can afford. It's always great to see inventive, original games manage some degree of success, but it's also hard to complain when publishers give us more of what we want.

No, it's not hard to tryout a new IP at all. There are plenty of gaming magazines that people can buy, some even come with demo discs and there are plenty of websites that review games and have footage of the game, like say even this one [http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/]. If you end up not liking said new IP you can trade it in, for consoles at least, towards something familiar with a new subtitle or number at the end.

Don't get me wrong however. I love it when a sequel to great game is announced, but alot of sequels these days seem to rushed and barely seem to have a year or two development time, mostly it seems by publisher mandates. However in the long run sequels do seem to kill creativity and innovation. For every sequel that sells muti-million copies worldwide, there is at least one decent new game that barley sells half a million. Once in a while a new IP will get through, but mostly they just get buried and forgotten about.

 

[Last Hugh Alive]

It really depends on WHY you're making a sequel, doesn't it? If you're making a sequel for the cash-in or to be a placeholder for another sequel down the line, then of course you'll end up with a Bioshock 2 or AC: Revelations, respectively (both I haven't played btw, but that's the gist of reviews I've read and what my friends have said).

However, surely a smart dev would realise a sequel is also a convinient way to take what you've learned from the original (what worked and what didn't, what the audience found intriguing, etc) and expand upon it to create a more refined and, ideally, superior experience. There are many sequels in gaming that attest to this.

Then again, a series should probably end once it has dwindled out of ideas and the story has already gone where it was intended to go. Too many series' out there begin to decay after the 2nd installment. I actually think the dangers of sequels in games are narrative related, because once the story and characters lose their intrigue there is less reason to care about the action. Tighter, more contained stories have a lot more impact and how it is paced is what makes the difference.

 

[V8 Ninja]

Saying that sequels usually don't push anything forward and that they don't breed creativity? Fair enough, even if I do overall disagree with the the statement.

Saying that you're creating original content because you "want to give [people] something they want without [them] knowing they want it"? Stop being a narcissist, Mr. Cage.

 

[thesilentman]

Um, Mr. Cage? Have you forgotten the good games that came out of sequels?

Sequels are okay in my book; it's only when the sequel is a blatant cash grab will I ignore it. Publishers these days...