Issues with new sequels for old games.

[Corven]

Why is it that when a developer announces that they are going to make a
sequel to a game, but add new or slightly different game mechanic
that differs from the original series, all the fans for that game start yelling in unison that it will be shit?

I mean it's kind of a lose lose situation, if these guys keep making new games with
the same mechanics from previous titles people start bitching that the game is repetitive and boring,

or if they redo a game that used to be linear and straight forward and they remake it into
an open sandbox type of world, the fans start crying that it isn't staying true to the original ideas of the first games.

why do you think this is, and is there any way that a developer can keep old fans happy
while trying to breathe new life into an old franchise or is it just a wasted effort?

 

[Graustein]

Wanna know the reason?
It's because people are idiots and no matter how hard you try you can't please everyone.
You have to choose between beating a dead horse or buying a pony.
There's no secret or hidden answer to it. It's the simple fact that regardless of what you do people will find something to complain about.

 

[Raven28256]

Wanna know the reason?
It's because people are idiots and no matter how hard you try you can't please everyone.

You could have just ended your post there. Gamers are a breed that can be incredibly hard to please. They usually expect too much from developers. I remember the EndWar boards on Gamespot. It isn't enough that the developers spent years developing the voice controls and getting the units to intelligently respond to dozens of commands. No, we have people on the board saying "Why aren't the graphics as good as World in Conflict?!?! THIS GAME SUCKS!!!! The developers are too lazy!!! We expect MORE from next-gen games!!! MOAR!!!! MOAR GOD DAMN YOU MOAR!!!!!"

Frankly, I'm surprised most developers haven't thrown their hands up in defeat and said "Fuck it, pleasing these needy children is impossible! The concept of a satisfied gamer is an even bigger myth than the female orgasm!!"

Doesn't really have anything to do with sequels in particular, but you get the point anyway.

 

[LisaB1138]

I think the problem lies in changing the basic game. I mean, if a game is linear to begin with--say God of War---making it an open world game substantially changes the game. Suddenly you're not along for an epic tale, you're meandering around doing whatever you want to do, possibly wandering lost for hours. That's not to say those things are not good game elements, but God of War was about being taken along for an epic ride. You were experiencing Kratos' life and struggles as he did, as opposed to "making it up" for yourself.

Again--it's not a question of "what's better," but a question of what's the intrinsic nature of the game. If someone were to re-make Monopoly, only to say they were taking out the part about collecting monopolies because going around and around the board hoping to land on Park Place was not their idea of fun, I'd say "then we won't be playing Monopoly." Collecting a monopoly and then exploiting it is the point of the game.

Mostly I think people are just tired of recycled ideas. Between TV, games, and movies, there's so many remakes and re-dos I fear there's truly "nothing new under the sun."

 

[jamesc]

Since everything that can be said was above, I will say what I think of sequals. Personaly, unless someone contradicts themselves(storywise) or breaks the rules of their own world, I could care less what they add. Thats also why I have much more fun with games. It is because I try to just take them for what they are- fun, time consuming hobbies, like books or movies. Unless a game in unplayably bad, I usually like it, just as with movies and books.