Jimquisition: Sequel or Slaughter

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Sequel or Slaughter

Must every new videogame become a sequel-spawning franchise? Is it through necessity, or simple avarice that mainstream game development makes it so?

Watch Video
 

karma9308

New member
Jan 26, 2013
280
0
0
Speaking of the Last of Us, I couldn't have asked for a better ending to this video. Bravo.
 

synobal

New member
Jun 8, 2011
2,189
0
0
Personally I think Studios should not be attached so much of creating squeals but instead creating new games with in the same setting. Unfortunately this means a lot of times they will be tempted to do the same thing again and again rather than explore new aspects of the setting.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
This is why it irritates me every time the "What games deserve a sequel" thread pops up on this site. We have to accept part of the blame for this.
 

Wilco86

New member
Oct 5, 2011
99
0
0
God how I love Bayonetta, and when I say that I kinda dislike the idea of Bayonetta 2 people usually say that it's because I don't have a Wii U. Well, for me the first Bayonetta ended with a perfect upbeat note and I think the sequel has more to lose than to win;

I prefer coolheaded Jeanne way over Bayonetta as a character, so maybe they do something nasty to Jeanne to force Bayonetta to a new adventure. Is there anything *reasonable* (yeah, right!) to challenge Bayonetta after she demolished friggin' Creator and the Four Virtues?

I did not ask for a sequel, but I understand those who do. It's just that I'm a bit worried for the setting of my favourite PS3 game...

PS: But I'll be getting the Wii U when Bayonetta 2's release date gets closer.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
16,864
837
118
Ubisoft already expressed this opinion before the very first Assassin's Creed was even released. And now they seem to be fully embracing this ideal of turning every new IP into a baby factory before it's even conceived. Meaning Watchdogs will already be passé before we've even played it.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
16,691
752
118
Country
Argentina
I like to see Shadow of the Colossus and ICO cited but I'm not sure they deserve to? Shadow was marketed as a "spiritual prequel" to ICO after all. And Sony's making Last Guardian, the third in a trilogy of similarly-themed games. So why cite them as examples of one-off stand-alone games, Jim?
 

NinjaDeathSlap

Leaf on the wind
Feb 20, 2011
4,474
0
0
Here's a simple, 3-step guide to the questions game publishers/develops should ask themselves when exploring the possibility of turning a stand-alone title into a franchise.

1). Was the game well received enough to warrant a sequel?

2). Are there enough people inside the company who actually WANT to make a sequel, that it can be done to at least the same level of quality as the first game, preferably better?

3). Did the conclusion to the first game leave ample opportunity to expand into a sequel?

NOTE: As should be self-explanatory by questions 1 and 3, such questions should only be asked AFTER the original game has been finished, released, and received by the press and public.

It is a sad state of affairs indeed, when the consumers feel like they have to spell out the fucking obvious to the people who claim to/ be the experts in the field.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Great video. Great response. Massive Franchises have a place and smaller one-offs have their place.

What's more, if a smaller one-off has its place then there's always a chance for a convoluted sequel of some sort. Making smaller new IPs is a way of testing and proding the market for what consumers want. Perhaps these big companies feel threatened by indie games that are becoming much more viable in the market place and are usually one-offs? This could become a form of market specialization in which bigger companies focus on the massive AAA franchize titles and smaller companies without the resources to do that take more risks?

Either way, an open mind = good business. A closed mind will be stagnation.
 

Carnagath

New member
Apr 18, 2009
1,814
0
0
Ubisoft's stance is so retarded that I'm not even sure it's worth commenting on. Having an overinflated development and marketing budget and treating every single title you fund as a loss leader is going to make you implode. Sooner or later is debatable depending on your luck, but the outcome is certain. If I had invested in Ubisoft, I'd be losing a lot of sleep and preparing to pull out at the right moment.
 

Sehnsucht Engel

New member
Apr 18, 2009
1,890
0
0
It is ridiculous that the hobbit, a children's book much shorter than LoTR was turned into a freaking trilogy. I don't even care to watch it, because they're overdoing it. Simpsons should have ended long ago too.

So yeah, I agree with most of what you said. I do wish there were more of some things, but not if it means they are worse than the thing I love and drag it into the dirt by simply existing.

I'm still surprised they've managed to make so many AC games. It's not even a decent stealth game.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
canadamus_prime said:
This is why it irritates me every time the "What games deserve a sequel" thread pops up on this site. We have to accept part of the blame for this.
True, but I think there's a difference between "hey this game was really great I'd love to see another" and a company planning a trilogy before the first game even hits the market.

Johnny Novgorod said:
I like to see Shadow of the Colossus and ICO cited but I'm not sure they deserve to? Shadow was marketed as a "spiritual prequel" to ICO after all. And Sony's making Last Guardian, the third in a trilogy of similarly-themed games. So why cite them as examples of one-off stand-alone games, Jim?
Because "spiritual prequel" doesn't count, they're three separate games, with three separate plots, with three separate gameplay styles. If it wasn't for the developer telling us they're related, nobody would have known.
 

Jman1236

New member
Jul 29, 2008
528
0
0
Say what you will about COD but at least they alternate developers every year so each game gets at least 2 years in development and doesn't feel rushed. I have no problem will sequels but I agree that this is a big problem for the industry.
 

plaxcaster

New member
Nov 9, 2009
2
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
I like to see Shadow of the Colossus and ICO cited but I'm not sure they deserve to? Shadow was marketed as a "spiritual prequel" to ICO after all. And Sony's making Last Guardian, the third in a trilogy of similarly-themed games. So why cite them as examples of one-off stand-alone games, Jim?
Heavy Rain is also a spiritual sequel of Fahrenheit, the point is that they're closed stories, with a definitive beggining and ending.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Normally I agree with you Jim, but I have one MAJOR problem with this episode: Back the fuck off the Hobbit. Making it a trilogy was Peter Jackson's idea, not the studio's. The studio approved it of course, but it became pretty evident during production that they weren't going to fit all of their ideas in two movies as originally planned. Because remember--it was originally supposed to be two movies. It was planned that way, and the studio approved it. And there was no doubt in anybody's mind it was going to make money. The halfway point for principle photography was about the same number of days into production as the halfway point for LotR. And the reason it's getting so long even though the Hobbit is such a simple story is because they're bringing in the necromancer story from the Silmarillion, which regales what Gandalf was doing when he wasn't with Thorin and Co. Also, I think he's fleshing out the culture of the elves of Mirkwood a bit, exploring their inner politics more than the original book did. But it's still all from Tolkien.

So that one comparison got a major NOPE from me. Peter Jackson is many things, but a sellout is not one of them. If anything, he had even more creative freedom with the Hobbit. I mean, who else can tell a studio "I want to completely restructure this project in and add a whole other movie to it" in the middle of production and have it approved? That not only requires a ballsy director to make the call, but a lot of trust on the studio's end that he can pull it off and not have the whole thing fall apart like a house of cards.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Ohhhhhh GOD! It's dripping! xP

As a fellow lover of Dynasty Warriors, I know exactly where you're coming from Jim. On the other hand, that's kinda a guilty pleasure seeing as how the DW games are almost all exactly the same, therefor failing your "need to be made" test. I like the improved graphics, the new characters, the various tweeks in interpretation to the stories and characters, but in the end if you've played one DW game you've pretty much played them all.

On the whole, though, I fully agree with your overall point. I used to be a big fan of the Assassin's Creed series. First game was fun, 2nd game was perfected, 3rd was pretty sweet and had a really fun multiplayer. And I believe after that is when they officially announced "Alright! Fire up the presses, time for a new game every year!" As such, Revelations was a rushed piece of crap, ACIII was just straight-up crap, and thus I have absolutely no intention of getting Black Flag. Like a piece of warm taffy, they've stretched and stretched and stretched that series until the story continue within it has become so thin and meaningless that it might as well not even be there.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
16,691
752
118
Country
Argentina
undeadsuitor said:
If it wasn't for the developer telling us they're related, nobody would have known.
That's the whole point though, isn't it? They tell us.

They tell us they're related, market them as related, sell them as related. The same group of people working under the same developer name for the same production company develop three similarly themed, similarly designed, similarly looking games that are marketed as part of the same franchise and the first two are even sold together nowadays, as halves of one story.
 

Bayushi_Kouya

New member
Mar 31, 2009
111
0
0
Would you rather do four hours worth of work and receive $60, or eleven hours worth of work and receive $200? I know which one my boss would prefer.
 

Legion

Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008
7,190
0
0
*Puts hand up* Guilty of wanting a Last of Us sequel.

I honestly cannot believe how many people didn't get last weeks video, but then again people always ask what the joke is in Critical Miss and believe Yahtzee is serious with half of the things he says, so perhaps people just struggle to understand the British?

Wenseph said:
It is ridiculous that the hobbit, a children's book much shorter than LoTR was turned into a freaking trilogy.
Especially considering people could read the bloody book in a shorter amount of time than the length of the three films. Which is probably a first actually.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
canadamus_prime said:
This is why it irritates me every time the "What games deserve a sequel" thread pops up on this site. We have to accept part of the blame for this.
And the fact that gamers routinely are reticent to try something new.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Impossible to make a game that isn't a franchise... well someone should tell the Makers of Awesomenauts, FTL, DOn't Starve, Kerbal Space Programme, Rogue Legacy, etc, etc, etc.

I've said it before. the 3A game industry is slowly collapsing under it's own jaundiced weight. What it can't do... indie developers are doing and doing well.

I can understand the logic I mean if you spend the time and resources to develop an engine you want to make sure to get your returns. But of course what was done in the past was you developed the engine then licensed it at a reasonable rate to third parties to do with as they saw fit. You didn't build the house you built the tools. Of course greed stepped in.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
16,691
752
118
Country
Argentina
Lilani said:
Normally I agree with you Jim, but I have one MAJOR problem with this episode: Back the fuck off the Hobbit. Making it a trilogy was Peter Jackson's idea, not the studio's. The studio approved it of course, but it became pretty evident during production that they weren't going to fit all of their ideas in two movies as originally planned. Because remember--it was originally supposed to be two movies. It was planned that way, and the studio approved it. And there was no doubt in anybody's mind it was going to make money. The halfway point for principle photography was about the same number of days into production as the halfway point for LotR. And the reason it's getting so long even though the Hobbit is such a simple story is because they're bringing in the necromancer story from the Silmarillion, which regales what Gandalf was doing when he wasn't with Thorin and Co. Also, I think he's fleshing out the culture of the elves of Mirkwood a bit, exploring their inner politics more than the original book did.

So that one comparison got a major NOPE from me. Peter Jackson is many things, but a sellout is not one of them. If anything, he had even more creative freedom with the Hobbit. I mean, who else can tell a studio "I want to completely restructure this project in and add a whole other movie to it" in the middle of production and have it approved? That not only requires a ballsy director to make the call, but a lot of trust on the studio's end that he can pull it off and not have the whole thing fall apart like a house of cards.
There's no real reason to make The Hobbit into three movies. They already made a Hobbit movie in 1977 - it was 77 minutes long. And it's a lovely movie. The whole Necromancer/Saruman/Radagast subplot is just there for filler and to solidify the connections with the comparatively more mature LOTR, just as Galadriel is just there because the movie needs to cast at least ONE actress, and Tauriel was made up by the same principle, and Legolas is there for fanservice, and... you get the picture.
 

Cecilo

New member
Nov 18, 2011
330
0
0
Though I doubt Jim will see this I would have a question for him.

Is creating a world, and then creating multiple games inside that world acceptable? Like, Sword of the Stars, it created it's own universe, lore, backstory etc. First Two games, (Not including the expansions) Were 4X games, Third game, Sword of the Stars The Pit was a Roguelike set in Sword of the Stars, included lore, artwork that made it fit, the story for the game fit in with the rest of the lore.

Is that acceptable, because it is still kind of milking the fans of the series, sure it isn't the same game once it goes to the Pit. It tried new things, and they made a profit off of it as a standalone game, but would it be bad if companies started doing that. Let's say. Assassin's Creed. More games set in that universe. But instead of being an action game about stabbing templars, you are now commanding squads of Assassins or Templars in a Dawn of War 2 style. Would that make the Assassin's Creed series okay? Since it is no longer just rehashing the same game over and over?
 

Quiotu

New member
Mar 7, 2008
426
0
0
WashAran said:
Love that you included the consumer as a part of the problem.
He pretty much has to. This wouldn't be a problem if people didn't mindlessly snatch up the next FIFA or CoD or Assassin's Creed. I like these games, and I wouldn't mind wanting to play another game in their world again. But for FUCK's sake, I don't need one every year. Give me some time to appreciate and grow fond of the goddamn thing before you push the next one in my face.

It's why some series get a bigger pass than others. GTA4 had a load of problems, but it still sold over 20 million copies because people waited 4 years and longed for it again, and GTA5 will sell just as well because it's been another 4 years. This is why Rockstar can also try out other ideas and give others chances, throwing out games like Manhunt or Bully or RDD... or hell even LA Noire. They try those out because they know GTA will bring in a mountain of money, and they can experiment in between the iterations.

Assassin's Creed I'm done with, because they're pushing too many out for me to grow fond of them again, and the more they throw the same tired gameplay at me the more I see its problems and loathe them.
 

Andy Shandy

Fucked if I know
Jun 7, 2010
4,797
0
0
Couldn't agree more. I've loved, and will continue to love, my fair share of sequels too, but when companies are saying they won't even consider one-off games, and will only make a game if they can milk the tits off of it down the line, it annoys the hell out of me, for the reasons you stated in the video.
 

commodore96

New member
Aug 31, 2010
351
0
0
I disagree that redundancy signifies video games are not art. Hollywood is popping out sequels everyday, books come out with a whole franchise planned from the drawing board (Song of Fire & Ice or Harry Potter), almost every single musician writes multiple albums, and even some artwork is sold in sets. Therefore, if every creative medium we call art can expand their stories for both money and depth then we should not feel ashamed having many sequels.

However, I would find it nice to have characters end their story and in the same universe more characters are created with different stories with beginning and end. Look at Fall Out, Legend of Zelda, and the Dawn of War series as examples of my favorites.
 

Mr. Q

New member
Apr 30, 2013
767
0
0
First off, Jim, you kinda went a bit too far with the ending imo. Definitely something that should have stayed private. o_o

I'll admit, I'm as guilty of wanting a sequel from a game or movie as much as the studios and publishers are. When the first X-Men movie came out, my mind raced towards the idea of a sequel. But there are times when you have to stop and ask yourself if a property really needs a sequel. This applies to both the fans and to the companies. The whole "fear/greed/stupidity" mentality of Ubisoft and other companies has to stop before it leads the industry towards another video game crash.

Perhaps companies need to take a page from the Bene Gesserit and recite this in their corporate offices.

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
I don't know any other quotes that would speak against greed that are as cool as one from Dune but perhaps this will help.

Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction. - Erich Fromm
 

Deathfish15

New member
Nov 7, 2006
579
0
0
Certain games should get sequels and certain games should not. Binary Domain is an example of one that left a semi-cliffhanger out of the ending, but was still a great enough story plot to not have a follow up.


The problem with the AAA market right now is that every other game, they decide to make a new engine ($$$), new character models ($$), hire new voice actors ($$$), conduct a symphony for the sound track ($$$), and get as many story writers as possible ($$$). But with all that, where's the game? You see the problem, right? There's no game there, it's basically the set up for a new movie that is "one-sitting and done"


I will say this: some sequels do it right. Guild Wars 2 took much of the background story, the character models, races, and the like...and then built on from there. However, it's still a completely different game with a different type of mechanics, newer style gameplay. Though many of the old game's fans [like Jim said] had demanded a sequel to be just like the first, the developers said "no" and went a completely different route. And it works. And it's good.


Here's a list of sequel spewing series that need to die:

-Call of Duty

-Battlefield

-Diablo

-Starcraft

-Assassin's Creed

-Tomb Raider

-Fallout

-Grand Theft Auto

-Total War

-Halo

-Killzone

-

-<insert anything with "Mario" here>

-Sonic

-Crysis

-Final Fantasy
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Lilani said:
Normally I agree with you Jim, but I have one MAJOR problem with this episode: Back the fuck off the Hobbit. Making it a trilogy was Peter Jackson's idea, not the studio's.
Are you saying that Peter Jackson does not also enjoy money and/or keeping himself and his staff employed for another 5 years?
 

Deacon Cole

New member
Sep 3, 2020
1,365
0
0
Country
USA
It's kind of sad that audiences tend to demand sequels. I keep thinking of Eric Berne's "games" (Google it) and how this sequel business is like the game "alcoholic."

Eric Berne said:
The ancillary professional in all drinking games is the bartender or liquor clerk. In the game "Alcoholic" he plays the fifth role, the Connection, the direct source of supply who also understands alcoholic talk, and who in a way is the most meaningful person in the life of any addict. The difference between the Connection and the other players is the difference between professionals and amateurs in any game: the professional knows when to stop. At a certain point a good bartender refuses to serve the Alcoholic, who is then left without any supplies unless he can locate a more indulgent Connection.
My point is that the developer (and publisher) plays this Connection role and has to know when to say when for the addict. In the case of alcohol, besides laws against selling alcohol to intoxicates persons, it's a threat to the addict's health so the bartender has to know when to cut them off so that they will continue to live and continue to be a customer.

Games are not as directly toxic as alcohol, unfortunately, so the Connection does not feel as responsible if they overindulge the addict. But the effect is the same as it can sour the addict to the Connection's product and they won't continue to be their customer.

There is something to be said for leaving people wanting more. The ending to Monsters Inc was brilliant as it left people wishing they has seen Boo again at the end. They could have easily milked that for a sequel, but instead wound up making a prequel that utterly avoids that situation.

If something is good, you will always want more but getting more is not always good. A professional will know when to cut their audience off for the good of their audience and for the good of their product and their own reputation. An addict may get pissed when you cut them off, but when they sober up in the morning, they'll appreciate it and return to that bartender because they know what they're doing. It's like ordering sushi "omakase" or "I leave it up to you" where you let the chef select for you what sushi to serve. It's a mark of trust in the professional's skill to not only produce good work but in their professional pride to only give you their best. Who trusts game publishers these days?
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
undeadsuitor said:
canadamus_prime said:
This is why it irritates me every time the "What games deserve a sequel" thread pops up on this site. We have to accept part of the blame for this.
True, but I think there's a difference between "hey this game was really great I'd love to see another" and a company planning a trilogy before the first game even hits the market.
Yes, but do you recall him mentioning all those people clamouring for a Last of Us sequel? Yeah that's what I was referring to.
 

Hades

Elite Member
May 7, 2020
1,074
309
88
Country
The Netherlands
Personally I like sequels. If I play a game I liked i'm quite happy to hear a sequel is being made for it. It doesn't have to be a trilogy or a franchise but just a follow up of something I like.

I adored Kid Icarus and when I heard it wouldn't be likely to get a sequel anytime soon I was disappointed. I found the game of such high quality and spirit and seen it have enough following to justify a sequel. It deserved one and that's the problem I have with Ubisoft's statement. Kid Icarus, the first real system seller the 3DS had deserves a sequal, dragon age origins,a game with great public acclaim and a full world to explore further deserved a sequel(Though arguably not the one it got) but we have yet to see whether watch dogs or any other new Ubisoft IP deserves one, its to soon to tell. Make a sequel when your game is well received, if people want one. Make it a game that fixed the flaws of the first one while retaining its strength but do not plan one right away! Make a sequel after the original becomes a hit.

If their new IP fails then Ubisoft will be left with a flop and a lot of ideas for sequels not many gamers will be interested in. This can happen once but if you build your entire business around sequels you will need success or lose very, very much. I doubt Ubisoft will be able to ensure success for everything they announce, not with the competition they have.
 

Bruce

New member
Jun 15, 2013
276
0
0
I always figured Dragon Age II was a victim of "Must make it a franchise" disease.

Dragon Age I basically wrapped up all the loose ends that needed wrapping up and finished the story on a fairly good note, leaving Dragon Age II with nothing much to do except arse around elsewhere.

The result thus was that the sequel was seen pretty universally as being a disappointment.

Sometimes leaving it at one game is the better option.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
16,691
752
118
Country
Argentina
Legion said:
Especially considering people could read the bloody book in a shorter amount of time than the length of the three films. Which is probably a first actually.
Nah, there's a whole bunch of nouvelles with lengthy big screen adaptations to their name. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button comes to mind.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Cecilo said:
Though I doubt Jim will see this I would have a question for him.

Is creating a world, and then creating multiple games inside that world acceptable? Like, Sword of the Stars, it created it's own universe, lore, backstory etc. First Two games, (Not including the expansions) Were 4X games, Third game, Sword of the Stars The Pit was a Roguelike set in Sword of the Stars, included lore, artwork that made it fit, the story for the game fit in with the rest of the lore.

Is that acceptable, because it is still kind of milking the fans of the series, sure it isn't the same game once it goes to the Pit. It tried new things, and they made a profit off of it as a standalone game, but would it be bad if companies started doing that. Let's say. Assassin's Creed. More games set in that universe. But instead of being an action game about stabbing templars, you are now commanding squads of Assassins or Templars in a Dawn of War 2 style. Would that make the Assassin's Creed series okay? Since it is no longer just rehashing the same game over and over?
For me it all comes down to creative justification. I love the idea of a world in which many stories can be told, if they're good stories, and the world can support them. Likewise, I'm happy to get a sequel with good artistic reasoning behind it.

All these things -- franchises, expansions, spirital followups, multiple stories in one universe -- are terrific, so long as the motivation for doing them comes from a place where cynicism isn't the primary factor.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
There's no real reason to make The Hobbit into three movies. They already made a Hobbit movie in 1977 - it was 77 minutes long. And it's a lovely movie. The whole Necromancer/Saruman/Radagast subplot is just there for filler and to solidify the connections with the comparatively more mature LOTR, just as Galadriel is just there because the movie needs to cast at least ONE actress, and Tauriel was made up by the same principle, and Legolas is there for fanservice, and... you get the picture.
The necromancer storyline has been in the movie since the very beginning, even back when they planned to do it all in two movies. I personally love it being there, it gives Gandalf more to do and makes his presence and arc within the story make more sense. So that's where I stand on how relevant it is. They only split it into a trilogy VERY late in the game--I'm talking May of 2012, just six months shy of the premier. So to me, saying "there's no real reason to make it into three movies" doesn't make sense because it's still the same project they set out to complete from the very beginning. They're just giving all their ideas more breathing room. And yes, they do need to make a few connections with LotR, because unlike when the Hobbit was originally written they know a bit more about the world and what was going on. Hell, Tolkien himself edited some parts of the Hobbit after he came up with the story of LotR so that their continuities didn't conflict.

I'll admit Legolas is probably for fanservice, but his presence still makes sense because Thorin and Co still encounter his father Thranduil and his people in Mirkwood in the original story. It's not like they bent the story backwards, they just said "Hey, Thranduil is the king that imprisoned the dwarves, and even though Legolas wasn't a character when the Hobbit was written, it would still make sense for the son of the king to be there." In fact, knowing the full continuity, if Legolas weren't there in some way they would have had to address it anyway.

They picked through the appendices to make parts of LotR make sense--for example, even though the book never shows how Aragorn died, they got the imagery of showing him on his deathbed during Arwen's vision from the appendices. And now they're doing the same thing in the Hobbit. Yes some things are different from the book, but it's all still from Tolkien and just as with LotR, what they can't adapt accurately they at least try to honor in some way or another.

Lightknight said:
Are you saying that Peter Jackson does not also enjoy money and/or keeping himself and his staff employed for another 5 years?
He's Peter Fucking Jackson. He hasn't had a tough time finding work since LotR was completed. He's been doing whatever the hell he wants to do. He directed the 2005 King Kong and Lovely Bones adaptation, he produced District 9, Adventures of TinTin, he's directed and produced a few short films of his own, and there are a few other projects he's working on which are slated to come out in 2014 or 2015. Whether or not he did the Hobbit movies, he was pretty set when it came to money and acclaim. When you're signed as a producer for a film directed by Steven Spielberg, there isn't much you can't do in the realm of filmmaking.
 

Teoes

Poof, poof, sparkles!
Jun 1, 2010
5,174
0
0
Folks'll still miss the point Jim, despite all the disclaimers at the end. Love the end by the way - and that was an impressive load. Or was it from multiple smaller blasts?

Cecilo said:
Though I doubt Jim will see this I would have a question for him.

Is creating a world, and then creating multiple games inside that world acceptable? Like, Sword of the Stars, it created it's own universe, lore, backstory etc. First Two games, (Not including the expansions) Were 4X games, Third game, Sword of the Stars The Pit was a Roguelike set in Sword of the Stars, included lore, artwork that made it fit, the story for the game fit in with the rest of the lore.

Is that acceptable, because it is still kind of milking the fans of the series, sure it isn't the same game once it goes to the Pit. It tried new things, and they made a profit off of it as a standalone game, but would it be bad if companies started doing that. Let's say. Assassin's Creed. More games set in that universe. But instead of being an action game about stabbing templars, you are now commanding squads of Assassins or Templars in a Dawn of War 2 style. Would that make the Assassin's Creed series okay? Since it is no longer just rehashing the same game over and over?
This was the original idea behind the Oddworld games, and I loved the concept. The devs saying that they had come up with this cool world, its settings, themes, history and denizens, and that they were going to a bunch of completely different games based on it. Some would be platformers like Abe's Oddysee, you'd get your shooter in Stranger's Wrath.. the had a planned RTS and so on.
 

WildFire15

New member
Jun 18, 2008
142
0
0
I look at the sequels and franchises these days and can't help but wonder "what happened to the idea of making it bigger and better?". We used to get sequels that gave us so much more, new weapons, new enemies, bigger and more complete worlds, new gameplay mechanics but now we just get pretty much exactly the same thing year in, year out.

Look at the main Mario games. With the exception of the New series and the fact Galaxy 2 exists, each main game had huge amounts of new power ups, tools, enemies and game play ideas. The Zelda series was an even better example.

You could say 'but technology was improving over that time', but that doesn't really excuse it. Super Mario Bros 1 to 3 were all on the NES and each very different (ok, 2 was a reskin but even then 3 was substantially different to 1). Zelda Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword had the same theme and characters but played very differently (for better or worse, I preferred the narrative and layout of the former).

But yeah, that's my problem with sequels. They should be bigger, better and more refined, but instead we just get the same dross. Ubisoft of all people should know this, seeing as Assassin's Creed 1 wasn't exactly great (good idea, not brilliantly executed) while Assassin's Creed 2 is probably one of the best games this gen as the devs sat back, looked at what was wrong with the first game and improved it while still adding. Since then, we've had pretty much the same game in either smaller or less interesting environments.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Deathfish15 said:
Here's a list of sequel spewing series that need to die:

-Call of Duty

-Battlefield

-Diablo

-Starcraft

-Assassin's Creed

-Tomb Raider

-Fallout

-Grand Theft Auto

-Total War

-Halo

-Killzone

-

-<insert anything with "Mario" here>

-Sonic

-Crysis

-Final Fantasy
Is the existence of these games hurting you somehow? Several of these titles are beloved by many people and that's how they're still alive. This video isn't the death of franchises, it's about not ruling out IPs that can still be very lucrative if budgeted for properly.
 

MB202

New member
Sep 14, 2008
1,157
0
0
I actually JUST had a discussion on a forum about how Capcom is only interested in making sequels, and almost nothing else. Someone commented that it wasn't as bad as Ubisoft, and apparently, it's true.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Lilani said:
Lightknight said:
Are you saying that Peter Jackson does not also enjoy money and/or keeping himself and his staff employed for another 5 years?
He's Peter Fucking Jackson. He hasn't had a tough time finding work since LotR was completed. He's been doing whatever the hell he wants to do. He directed the 2005 King Kong and Lovely Bones adaptation, he produced District 9, Adventures of TinTin, he's directed and produced a few short films of his own, and there are a few other projects he's working on which are slated to come out in 2014 or 2015. Whether or not he did the Hobbit movies, he was pretty set when it came to money and acclaim. When you're signed as a producer for a film directed by Steven Spielberg, there isn't much you can't do in the realm of filmmaking.
So you're saying he doesn't, in fact, like money anymore? He officially now has all the monies he wants and wouldn't perform any actions to obtain a few additional millions of dollars?
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
16,691
752
118
Country
Argentina
Lilani said:
Johnny Novgorod said:
There's no real reason to make The Hobbit into three movies. They already made a Hobbit movie in 1977 - it was 77 minutes long. And it's a lovely movie. The whole Necromancer/Saruman/Radagast subplot is just there for filler and to solidify the connections with the comparatively more mature LOTR, just as Galadriel is just there because the movie needs to cast at least ONE actress, and Tauriel was made up by the same principle, and Legolas is there for fanservice, and... you get the picture.
The necromancer storyline has been in the movie since the very beginning, even back when they planned to do it all in two movies. I personally love it being there, it gives Gandalf more to do and makes his presence and arc within the story make more sense. So that's where I stand on how relevant it is. They only split it into a trilogy VERY late in the game--I'm talking May of 2012, just six months shy of the premier. So to me, saying "there's no real reason to make it into three movies" doesn't make sense because it's still the same project they set out to complete from the very beginning. They're just giving all their ideas more breathing room. And yes, they do need to make a few connections with LotR, because unlike when the Hobbit was originally written they know a bit more about the world and what was going on. Hell, Tolkien himself edited some parts of the Hobbit after he came up with the story of LotR so that their continuities didn't conflict.

I'll admit Legolas is probably for fanservice, but his presence still makes sense because Thorin and Co still encounter his father Thranduil and his people in Mirkwood in the original story. It's not like they bent the story backwards, they just said "Hey, Thranduil is the king that imprisoned the dwarves, and even though Legolas wasn't a character when the Hobbit was written, it would still make sense for the son of the king to be there." In fact, knowing the full continuity, if Legolas weren't there in some way they would have had to address it anyway.

They picked through the appendices to make parts of LotR make sense--for example, even though the book never shows how Aragorn died, they got the imagery of showing him on his deathbed during Arwen's vision from the appendices. And now they're doing the same thing in the Hobbit. Yes some things are different from the book, but it's all still from Tolkien and just as with LotR, what they can't adapt accurately they at least try to honor in some way or another.
Yes, it all makes sense, in a technical, hand-wavy sort of way ("Oh, Legolas would be around", "Oh, we should show Gandalf's actions, even though we could not and let him be the mysterious character he was written as", "Oh, we could totally stretch every single setpiece to turn an adventure story into an action story"). I can't get over the fact how unimportant Bilbo, The Hobbit, is. I love Martin Freeman as Bilbo but he's pushed aside for the most part even though he's supposed to be the main protagonist and narrator of the story bearing his name. We see more of Legolas and "Tauriel" in the new trailer than we do of Bilbo. And speaking of the trailer - they show they're going as far as Bilbo stepping into Smaug's lair. So what's the third movie going to be about? 170 minutes of the Battle of the Five Armies, which Bilbo totally didn't miss in the novel?
 

Verrenxnon

New member
Nov 17, 2009
154
0
0
Always love your insights, Jim. As usual, they're spot-on. Honestly, though, I don't think this video needed to be 9 & a half minutes long. Like a lot of your Jimquisitions, you seem to belabor the point when it could be made so much more succinctly and effectively.
 

MB202

New member
Sep 14, 2008
1,157
0
0
Also, I completely disagree with Jim's views on The Hobbit, for the same reasons Bob said in The Big Picture. I don't think it's out of greed, though I WILL say it's probably because Peter Jackson wanted to do it.
 

Arnoxthe1

New member
Dec 25, 2010
3,374
0
0
Jim, you keep having this misconception that these games are cheap to make. Cliff B. mentioned a great video on used games in one of his recent blog posts and I think you should watch it. It may seem disconnected from what I'm saying at first but trust me, it will all connect in the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G_f8YBy39M
 

Ishal

New member
Oct 30, 2012
1,177
0
0
Hollywood is and has been ever increasingly garbage. The business practices and crappy premises have been going stale and stagnant for years, and this is what people want their games to be? Why? Fucking why?

Movies aren't the be all end all of "art" they are very similar to games in that there is just as much pulpy schlock and just as few... ugh, I have to say it, Citizen Kanes.

There are nothing bad about sequels, but I remember playing Halo: Combat evolved when I was really young, and bring wrapped up in the story and the questions it presented, then after completing it having a second game be teased. When that happens, there should be a sequel. But in a game where everything presented and neatly wrapped up in the end, there doesn't need to be. Don't follow Hollywood, its a waste of time. Movies just don't have it anymore.
 

Adon Cabre

New member
Jun 14, 2012
223
0
0
synobal said:
Personally I think Studios should not be attached so much of creating squeals but instead creating new games with in the same setting. Unfortunately this means a lot of times they will be tempted to do the same thing again and again rather than explore new aspects of the setting.
Often, that happens when they hire other writers or another studio to create the sequel. Bioshock 2 comes to mind.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
16,864
837
118
Lilani said:
Normally I agree with you Jim, but I have one MAJOR problem with this episode: Back the fuck off the Hobbit. Making it a trilogy was Peter Jackson's idea, not the studio's. The studio approved it of course, but it became pretty evident during production that they weren't going to fit all of their ideas in two movies as originally planned. Because remember--it was originally supposed to be two movies. It was planned that way, and the studio approved it. And there was no doubt in anybody's mind it was going to make money. The halfway point for principle photography was about the same number of days into production as the halfway point for LotR. And the reason it's getting so long even though the Hobbit is such a simple story is because they're bringing in the necromancer story from the Silmarillion, which regales what Gandalf was doing when he wasn't with Thorin and Co. Also, I think he's fleshing out the culture of the elves of Mirkwood a bit, exploring their inner politics more than the original book did. But it's still all from Tolkien.

So that one comparison got a major NOPE from me. Peter Jackson is many things, but a sellout is not one of them. If anything, he had even more creative freedom with the Hobbit. I mean, who else can tell a studio "I want to completely restructure this project in and add a whole other movie to it" in the middle of production and have it approved? That not only requires a ballsy director to make the call, but a lot of trust on the studio's end that he can pull it off and not have the whole thing fall apart like a house of cards.
Peter Jackson may not be a sell-out, but he's very close to reaching George Lucas amounts of overindulgence. King Kong already displayed a lot of that.

And with The Hobbit he's very content with continuing that same path. With stuff for the sake of stuff, CGI for the sake of CGI, and fan favourite characters for the sake of fan favourite characters.

It took balls for him to demand three movies for Lord of the Rings - A project no studio had any faith in, and one that everyone in Hollywood thought would bankrupt New Line. With The Hobbit he simply had to ask, "Hey, can I make this three movies?" To which the studio replied, "Well, you made shit tons of money with that other Fantasy franchise, so sure!" Nothing really ballsy about that, just regular Hollywood business.
 

Adon Cabre

New member
Jun 14, 2012
223
0
0
Ishal said:
I'm sure it was BS, but Speilberg and Lucas were doing some forum a few weeks back and they were talking about all of those high budget John Carter, After Earth movies that were flopping. If a few more go, they said, the industry would collapse.

Disney wanted to make Lone Ranger another Pirates of the Caribbean franchise; and while I would never fault anyone for wanting to go big, it's ultimately up to them to make a great movie/game/novel. If Watchdogs sucks, it won't sell; and like Aliens: Colonial Marines, it will disappear. But if its ratings and sales are golden, then why not?

A professional writer and creative director is supposed to create -- sometimes for a sequel, or sometimes from scratch.
 

spoonybard.hahs

New member
Apr 24, 2013
101
0
0
Deathfish15 said:
Certain games should get sequels and certain games should not. Binary Domain is an example of one that left a semi-cliffhanger out of the ending, but was still a great enough story plot to not have a follow up.


The problem with the AAA market right now is that every other game, they decide to make a new engine ($$$), new character models ($$), hire new voice actors ($$$), conduct a symphony for the sound track ($$$), and get as many story writers as possible ($$$). But with all that, where's the game? You see the problem, right? There's no game there, it's basically the set up for a new movie that is "one-sitting and done"


I will say this: some sequels do it right. Guild Wars 2 took much of the background story, the character models, races, and the like...and then built on from there. However, it's still a completely different game with a different type of mechanics, newer style gameplay. Though many of the old game's fans [like Jim said] had demanded a sequel to be just like the first, the developers said "no" and went a completely different route. And it works. And it's good.


Here's a list of sequel spewing series that need to die:

-Call of Duty

-Battlefield

-Diablo

-Starcraft

-Assassin's Creed

-Tomb Raider

-Fallout

-Grand Theft Auto

-Total War

-Halo

-Killzone

-

-<insert anything with "Mario" here>

-Sonic

-Crysis

-Final Fantasy
Your list - for the most part - is pretty flawed. For starter's, Diablo is barely a franchise by Ubisoft's standards. There was that whole decade plus between D2 and D3. Same for GTA, Sonic, Fallout, Final Fantasy, and Tomb Raider (at present, no sequel has been announced for the reboot), which aren't even on a yearly release cycles.
 

JemJar

New member
Feb 17, 2009
731
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
canadamus_prime said:
This is why it irritates me every time the "What games deserve a sequel" thread pops up on this site. We have to accept part of the blame for this.
And the fact that gamers routinely are reticent to try something new.
This is in large part because games are expensive things to try and demos are a pain to make.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QM6LoaqEnY
 

Sheo_Dagana

New member
Aug 12, 2009
966
0
0
I too have a lot of jizz on my copy of Dynasty Warriors 8. All slow-down issues aside, it might just be the best DW game yet! All it needs are Gundams.

OT: I personally wish companies would think a bit more about their financial/long-term staffing before they get into sequels. There's nothing worse than a series getting out of control or ending in the middle of a story. Take Assassin's Creed for example - they lost some of their creative staff and the series has gotten out of control ever since. I mean, this is a franchise that was supposed to be a trilogy, and yet the series is now on it's fourth numbered title which is actually it's sixth game.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Arnoxthe1 said:
Jim, you keep having this misconception that these games are cheap to make.
No I don't. I never said they're cheap. In fact, I know they're expensive, which is why I speak out against senselessly bloated costs on top of an already expensive project.

Games aren't cheap. Through avarice and short-sightedness, they can be more costly than they need to be, a stance backed up by as many devs as refuted, depending on who serves what masters.
 

Grimh

New member
Feb 11, 2009
673
0
0
I don't want a TLoU sequel. Fuck that.
It's up there as one of my favorite games this generation, possibly ever, and I never want to see it again.
That doesn't mean I'm against sequels mind you. The Assassin's Creed world to me is pretty suitable for making sequels, I just think they did it wrong.
 

Carnagath

New member
Apr 18, 2009
1,814
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
undeadsuitor said:
If it wasn't for the developer telling us they're related, nobody would have known.
That's the whole point though, isn't it? They tell us.

They tell us they're related, market them as related, sell them as related. The same group of people working under the same developer name for the same production company develop three similarly themed, similarly designed, similarly looking games that are marketed as part of the same franchise and the first two are even sold together nowadays, as halves of one story.
So, 3 games with complete stories, completely different gameplay, different names, released in a period of over 15 years (if we're lucky) don't deserve to be mentioned as standalone games, but are instead... milking the Ico world? Like... I'm trying to see your point, but I'm really struggling here.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Lightknight said:
So you're saying he doesn't, in fact, like money anymore?
No, I'm saying he has access to so many ways of gaining obscene amounts of money that he didn't have to spend another three years exhaustively tramping across huge uninhabited swathes of New Zealand in order to get it. If money was all he was after, he has many easier and faster ways of getting it than three Hobbit movies produced on the same scale as LotR.

Johnny Novgorod said:
Yes, it all makes sense, in a technical, hand-wavy sort of way ("Oh, Legolas would be around", "Oh, we should show Gandalf's actions, even though we could not and let him be the mysterious character he was written as", "Oh, we could totally stretch every single setpiece to turn an adventure story into an action story"). I can't get over the fact how unimportant Bilbo, The Hobbit, is. I love Martin Freeman as Bilbo but he's pushed aside for the most part even though he's supposed to be the main protagonist and narrator of the story bearing his name. We see more of Legolas and "Tauriel" in the new trailer than we do of Bilbo. And speaking of the trailer - they show they're going as far as Bilbo stepping into Smaug's lair. So what's the third movie going to be about? 170 minutes of the Battle of the Five Armies, which Bilbo totally didn't miss in the novel?
Again, a lot of the LotR stuff was treated this way. Hell, they even gave totally different characters different lines in LotR. They moved the Old Man Willow scene to the Fangorn so that Treebeard could recite a few of Tom Bombadil's lines, in order to pay tribute to that event. That was not only the wrong place and wrong character, but also the wrong film since that was in the Two Towers, and Tom Bombadil should have been in Fellowship.

While I also adore Martin Freeman as Bilbo, I don't feel he was neglected at all. Yes the Council of Elrond took up time, but it was used to explain how he and the dwarves got out of Rivendell even though Elrond wasn't going to allow them to go on. Yes it took them a while to get out of Goblin Town, but how else could they have stripped that down? They had to fight their way out, and it wasn't as though they were near a door. And then Bilbo's role in the battle against the wolves was greatly increased from what it was in the book. In the book, the eagles basically hear the racket they were making and pick them out of the trees. But in the movie, they had Bilbo fight to make the finale about him and to finish his arc with Thorin. While a lot of the story wasn't about Bilbo, they made sure both the beginning and end were all centered around him.

Casual Shinji said:
Peter Jackson may not be a sell-out, but he's very close to reaching George Lucas amounts of overindulgence. King Kong already displayed a lot of that.
The man is a self-taught filmmaking genius. I never saw King Kong, but if I had grown up admiring a film and finally got the access to money and resources to have a crack at my first inspiration, I'd do it too.

It took balls for him to demand three movies for Lord of the Rings - A project no studio had any faith in, and one that everyone in Hollywood thought would bankrupt New Line. With The Hobbit he simply had to ask, "Hey, can I make this three movies?" To which the studio replied, "Well, you made shit tons of money with that other Fantasy franchise, so sure!" Nothing really ballsy about that, just regular Hollywood business.
I'm not sure what you know about the production of LotR, but he didn't "demand" three films. They had written it as two when they were originally going after Miramax to fund the film, but Miramax said even two was too much and after that they gave up. They scrambled to find another studio interested in the project, and eventually found New Line and pitched their two films to the head of New Line. At the end, the man said "Why are there two films? This is three films." So they retooled their scripts to be three films, and never stopped editing the scripts until they had nothing left to film.
 

TiberiusEsuriens

New member
Jun 24, 2010
834
0
0
Deathfish15 said:
The problem with the AAA market right now is that every other game, they decide to make a new engine ($$$)
Pretty much this. Remember back in the day when there were only two engines, every game using either Quake or Unreal? They still exist today, but instead of 9/10 games using it the ratio has gone down drastically to something like 3/10. Because EVERYBODY used them they could be licensed for relatively cheap, and when the one parent company made updates just about every game studio on earth could suddenly use them. Nowadays every studio wants in on that cash, so the 'Proprietary Engine' is now a thing. Unreal, DICE, Crytek, SquareEnix, etc. all have really cool engines, but they're functionally equivalent. There are differences sure, but not that much to matter (hoping Frostbite ends up with full destructibility some day). There's just so many that the companies can't make mad cash off it. Some major studios are being clever and sharing the engines internally across all sub-companies, but even that's a minority. Squeenix has how many IPs and how many engines? It's 1:1. FarCry:Blood Dragon showed you can reuse assets for a cheap profit, but what did the market take away? "Hey, the consumers love this stuff! Let's make a NEW engine for THE SEQUEL."


On a side note:

Dear Jim,

I was really jiving with this episode, and then THAT happened. Do you enjoy causing gut wrenching vomit to your viewers, or just REALLY like mayonnaise?

Sincerely,
Tiberius
 

Adon Cabre

New member
Jun 14, 2012
223
0
0
Arnoxthe1 said:
Jim, you keep having this misconception that these games are cheap to make. Cliff B. mentioned a great video on used games in one of his recent blog posts and I think you should watch it. It may seem disconnected from what I'm saying at first but trust me, it will all connect in the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G_f8YBy39M
Cynical Brit's pretty much right. At Gamestop I have to push over and again at the counter: "No, I don't want a used game; I want the new one. Yeah, I know it costs more. Blah-blah-blah... just get me a new one!"
 

Mahoshonen

New member
Jul 28, 2008
358
0
0
I think it's important to distinguish between "Spiritual Sequel/Prequel" and actual sequel/prequel. In the former category (which includes Ico-Shadow of the Colossus), it may make detached reference to its predecessor and/or have similar themes, but in general you have a new cast of characters and gameplay that is significantly (if not totally) different.

A sequel like God of War 2 is a continuation of the stories of previously introduced characters, with typically only minor adjustments to gameplay.
 

Arnoxthe1

New member
Dec 25, 2010
3,374
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
Jim, you keep having this misconception that these games are cheap to make.
No I don't. I never said they're cheap. In fact, I know they're expensive, which is why I speak out against senselessly bloated costs on top of an already expensive project.

Games aren't cheap. Through avarice and short-sightedness, they can be more costly than they need to be, a stance backed up by as many devs as refuted, depending on who serves what masters.
I'm sure some of the costs for some games are bloated but for a lot of them, I bet they aren't. And if they aren't and they start cutting down on the budget, then we're looking at possible features now not being possible. Less than stellar graphics. Now I what you're gonna say to that last point. We don't need expensive graphics, right? Well, we may think that but others would probably get the wrong idea. They release a game with noticeably worse graphics than the other games currently released and people will say, "Oh look, the publishers are so cheap that they're even cutting the budget on graphics just to be greedy and keep more money." And if they have to do that with features, well, multiply that uproar by 3.
 

Imp_Emissary

Mages Rule, and Dragons Fly!
Legacy
Aug 9, 2020
2,315
1
3
Country
United States
Casual Shinji said:
Ubisoft already expressed this opinion before the very first Assassin's Creed was even released. And now they seem to be fully embracing this ideal of turning every new IP into a baby factory before it's even conceived. Meaning Watchdogs will already be passé before we've even played it.
I really wanted to play Watchdogs, and likely still will. But now the experience is going to feel a bit dirty.
We now know it's going to end open/ambiguous, have some "sequel bait", or God help us, end with a cliffhanger.
And the game could be really good, and "deserve a sequel", but will it get the sequels it deserves?
Johnny Novgorod said:
undeadsuitor said:
If it wasn't for the developer telling us they're related, nobody would have known.
That's the whole point though, isn't it? They tell us.

They tell us they're related, market them as related, sell them as related. The same group of people working under the same developer name for the same production company develop three similarly themed, similarly designed, similarly looking games that are marketed as part of the same franchise and the first two are even sold together nowadays, as halves of one story.
The difference is that those games are similar, but they don't need each other to exist and make sense. As for the marketing, it's like when a painter/musician makes more than one painting/song. Yes they can be similar in some ways, but they can still be very different in ways too.

Games made for sequels NEED sequels so they can make sense.
For example, Half Life 3 *Stares at Valve for a minute*...Needs the games before it to make sense. If they only made one, the experience would feel unfinished.

On the other hand, look at the Spyro games, and then the Ratchet and Clank games. Made both by Insomniac, and they share similar elements (fighting enemies while jumping on platforms with a friend by your side to help(Sparx and Clank)).
However, they are very different games, and they don't need the other to exist and make sense of their own stories.
Legion said:
*Puts hand up* Guilty of wanting a Last of Us sequel.
*Puts hand up too*
:/ Yeah, me too. Or at least some DLC for the game that continues the story some.


Legion said:
I honestly cannot believe how many people didn't get last weeks video, but then again people always ask what the joke is in Critical Miss and believe Yahtzee is serious with half of the things he says, so perhaps people just struggle to understand the British?
I'm sorry, what?
:/ I don't understand what ya mean......................................... ;D
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Arnoxthe1 said:
Jim, you keep having this misconception that these games are cheap to make. Cliff B. mentioned a great video on used games in one of his recent blog posts and I think you should watch it. It may seem disconnected from what I'm saying at first but trust me, it will all connect in the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G_f8YBy39M
No, Jim doesn't have a misconception that "games" are cheap to make. Of course, that statement is like saying that "movies aren't cheap to make" when some movies certainly are. What Jim maintains though, is that games should cost what the budget allows for them to cost or they shouldn't be made at all. He appears to believe (correctly, in my opinion) that these companies aren't budgeting properly.

Example:

Let's say making a certain kind of game should reasonably bring in $2 million in revenue. You then need to make a game that costs less than $2 million to produce/market/sell.

What producers are currently doing is hiring their inept grandsons who can't find a job elsewhere (on account of their terrible crack habit) to work in their forecasting depatartment. This department, full of inbred inept beings of stupidity, then does "market research" in which they see how much money COD makes and then project COD's revenue as a possible trajectory of their own RPG. The board of the company then make budgetary decisions based on what their ridiculously out-of-touch forecasting department tells them they can make on the game if they spend money that compares with COD investments.

So then, they spend $250 million on a game that can only make, say, $150 million and are suddenly shocked that it fails to make the eleventy billion that their slack-jawed mouth breather of a department thought it would. That's how great properties like Sleeping Dogs or Tomb Raider can be immensely popular and sell VERY well but not cover the costs of production. So now, they are trying to cover their asses by making only safe bets that equates to them relying on IPs that are francizes. Even inbred Johnny can't screw up that forecasting. The last game sold X, so spending Y on marketing should increase X by around Z amount. They can look at actual data from that market segment so it works well.

With Ubisoft's mindset that they can't profit off smaller scoped IPs, they're essentially saying they don't understand budgeting where new titles are concerned. They either have to swing for the fence or not try at all. That's bad business. Small IPs ARE risky and so should be budgeted for conservatively. They should be forecasted for by looking at games that try to do similar things rather than the top of the line seller in the industry/genre. If they could spend a reasonable sum on a few new ideas, they could see a HUGE return on their investment per dollar. They're giving that up because they don't know how not to spend millions of dollars on a game that would make less.

It's ok to make a smaller game that caters to specific market demands rather than the entire market. That can be very profitable and can produce an extremely viable franchise where sequels were not initially considered. You just have to remember to play it safe with new IPs and only budget what you can reasonably cover with sales. That's essentially what big publishers are supposed to do. Play it safe and put money into good/reasonable investments.

EDIT: If anyone here is part of a marketing department that forecasts profitability, I don't mean all such people are dumb. I got my start in marketing. I'm just saying that there are some REALLY bad forecasters in gaming right now.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Arnoxthe1 said:
Jimothy Sterling said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
Jim, you keep having this misconception that these games are cheap to make.
No I don't. I never said they're cheap. In fact, I know they're expensive, which is why I speak out against senselessly bloated costs on top of an already expensive project.

Games aren't cheap. Through avarice and short-sightedness, they can be more costly than they need to be, a stance backed up by as many devs as refuted, depending on who serves what masters.
I'm sure some of the costs for some games are bloated but for a lot of them, I bet they aren't. And if they aren't and they start cutting down on the budget, then we're looking at possible features now not being possible. Less than stellar graphics. Now I what you're gonna say to that last point. We don't need expensive graphics, right? Well, we may think that but others would probably get the wrong idea. They release a game with noticeably worse graphics than the other games currently released and people will say, "Oh look, the publishers are so cheap that they're even cutting the budget on graphics just to be greedy and keep more money." And if they have to do that with features, well, multiply that uproar by 3.
Having the best graphics do not mean much in the sales department. If it did, we wouldn't have Call of Duty dominating every year, Minecraft becoming a ridiculous sensation, and the Wii trouncing its competitors.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
16,691
752
118
Country
Argentina
Lilani said:
Lightknight said:
So you're saying he doesn't, in fact, like money anymore?
No, I'm saying he has access to so many ways of gaining obscene amounts of money that he didn't have to spend another three years exhaustively tramping across huge uninhabited swathes of New Zealand in order to get it. If money was all he was after, he has many easier and faster ways of getting it than three Hobbit movies produced on the same scale as LotR.

Johnny Novgorod said:
Yes, it all makes sense, in a technical, hand-wavy sort of way ("Oh, Legolas would be around", "Oh, we should show Gandalf's actions, even though we could not and let him be the mysterious character he was written as", "Oh, we could totally stretch every single setpiece to turn an adventure story into an action story"). I can't get over the fact how unimportant Bilbo, The Hobbit, is. I love Martin Freeman as Bilbo but he's pushed aside for the most part even though he's supposed to be the main protagonist and narrator of the story bearing his name. We see more of Legolas and "Tauriel" in the new trailer than we do of Bilbo. And speaking of the trailer - they show they're going as far as Bilbo stepping into Smaug's lair. So what's the third movie going to be about? 170 minutes of the Battle of the Five Armies, which Bilbo totally didn't miss in the novel?
Again, a lot of the LotR stuff was treated this way. Hell, they even gave totally different characters different lines in LotR. They moved the Old Man Willow scene to the Fangorn so that Treebeard could recite a few of Tom Bombadil's lines, in order to pay tribute to that event. That was not only the wrong place and wrong character, but also the wrong film since that was in the Two Towers, and Tom Bombadil should have been in Fellowship.

While I also adore Martin Freeman as Bilbo, I don't feel he was neglected at all. Yes the Council of Elrond took up time, but it was used to explain how he and the dwarves got out of Rivendell even though Elrond wasn't going to allow them to go on. Yes it took them a while to get out of Goblin Town, but how else could they have stripped that down? They had to fight their way out, and it wasn't as though they were near a door. And then Bilbo's role in the battle against the wolves was greatly increased from what it was in the book. In the book, the eagles basically hear the racket they were making and pick them out of the trees. But in the movie, they had Bilbo fight to make the finale about him and to finish his arc with Thorin. While a lot of the story wasn't about Bilbo, they made sure both the beginning and end were all centered around him.
What about the third film though? Bilbo is already confronting Smaug in the second movie. What do we have left? Lake Town and 5 Armies? Seems like a stretch. I predict the movie will be 50% filler.
 

Adon Cabre

New member
Jun 14, 2012
223
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
Jim, you keep having this misconception that these games are cheap to make.
No I don't. I never said they're cheap. In fact, I know they're expensive, which is why I speak out against senselessly bloated costs on top of an already expensive project.

Games aren't cheap. Through avarice and short-sightedness, they can be more costly than they need to be, a stance backed up by as many devs as refuted, depending on who serves what masters.
I hear ya, but Ken Levine had very interesting things to say about the process of trial and error in Bioshock Infinite; how the team would scratch whole set pieces and recorded dialogue because it wasn't consistent with the direction of the narrative.

But because art is a feeling out process, and because the larger more ambitious titles require extraordinary amounts of coordination, there may always be high costs, and even more likely, a desire to mount a franchise; especially as the markets globalize -- i.e Iron Man 3 grossing $700 Million abroad [http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/iron-man-3-races-past-1-billion-dollar-mark-monster-foreign-take-91901].

I guess it comes down to quality.
 

Vivi22

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,300
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
I like to see Shadow of the Colossus and ICO cited but I'm not sure they deserve to? Shadow was marketed as a "spiritual prequel" to ICO after all. And Sony's making Last Guardian, the third in a trilogy of similarly-themed games. So why cite them as examples of one-off stand-alone games, Jim?
Probably because, first off, Ueda never stated Shadow was a spiritual prequel until after it was released, and second: if it didn't have a similar art style and end with a baby with horns there'd be absolutely nothing to link the two at all. Shadow of the Colossus isn't even remotely similar to Ico. For all intents and purposes, they are one off stand alone games with one having a minor nod to the other at the end.
 

Ishal

New member
Oct 30, 2012
1,177
0
0
Adon Cabre said:
Ishal said:
I'm sure it was BS, but Speilberg and Lucas were doing some forum a few weeks back and they were talking about all of those high budget John Carter, After Earth movies that were flopping. If a few more go, they said, the industry would collapse.

Disney wanted to make Lone Ranger another Pirates of the Caribbean franchise; and while I would never fault anyone for wanting to go big, it's ultimately up to them to make a great movie/game/novel. If Watchdogs sucks, it won't sell; and like Aliens: Colonial Marines, it will disappear. But if its ratings and sales are golden, then why not?

A professional writer and creative director is supposed to create -- sometimes for a sequel, or sometimes from scratch.
If the ratings and sales are golden, and it was set up to have more, then there is no issue. If something is put together, say a movie, and characters keep referring to this thing that is supposed to happen, or they refer to meeting a character that is very important and a major driving force in the story. The movie then ends on a cliffhanger clearly alluding to what happens when these events finally occur... in the next movie. What I mean is, if the author purposely sets time aside to plant these seeds for future events, then they should happen in a sequel, and I say go for it. Nothing wrong with it.

However, if the story is told and completely wrapped up in the first installment, then we have a problem. I get wanting to make money, I can see where these suits are coming from. But the thing is, I ain't no suit, I'm a consumer. As a consumer, I get bummed out and ornery when a perfectly good story is necromanced back to life to make a few quick bucks at the theater.

Going back to Halo for a moment, people didn't like Halo 4 because they feel the series should have ended at Halo 3. Bungie might have wanted to move on to other things, but the thing is, they left a lot of things open and ambiguous for another game, so imo its justified that another one gets made.

There is nothing wrong with creating, creators should create but they should do so with planning and outlines. If I'm a producer I want the writer in my office with an outline telling me step by step what will happen in part 1,2, and 3 of our trilogy, that way I can get the guys in marketing to sus out their plans. The way things are going now is just boring and stale. I didn't care about the 2nd Pirates of the Carribean movie let alone the next two. They can make sequels, but even the general public will get bored of it eventually, its how people are.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Personally, games that require a wholly new game engine be built for them nearly necessitate a sequel of some kind to make use of the same game engine.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
What about the third film though? Bilbo is already confronting Smaug in the second movie. What do we have left? Lake Town and 5 Armies? Seems like a stretch. I predict the movie will be 50% filler.
I really don't know, and I don't find it fair to criticize someone for something that hasn't even come out yet, one way or the other. Will the last Hobbit film be missing a lot of Bilbo? I don't know. I rather doubt it, but I also don't know what they'll do to make him involved. So we'll just have to see.

Oh, and one more thing I forgot to mention in the last post. Yes Gandalf isn't quite as mysterious in The Hobbit, but since most everyone seeing the film today already knows everything about Gandalf and what happens to him in LotR, trying to make him mysterious now would have been a terrible farce that would simply make his character stunted by comparison. After the cat's been let out of the bag, it's rather hard to put a cloak over it and pretend we didn't just see all that.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Lilani said:
Lightknight said:
So you're saying he doesn't, in fact, like money anymore?
No, I'm saying he has access to so many ways of gaining obscene amounts of money that he didn't have to spend another three years exhaustively tramping across huge uninhabited swathes of New Zealand in order to get it. If money was all he was after, he has many easier and faster ways of getting it than three Hobbit movies produced on the same scale as LotR.
No, none of them are as lucrative as this project. Not by far. LOTR might as well be the Potter series where fast cash is concerned.

The budget for the LOTR was $281 Million. The Box office? $2.92 Billion. That's over 10 times the investment.

Cost of King Kong? $207 million to make, $550.5 million revenue. 2.66 times cost.
The Lovely Bones? $65 million to $93 million revenue = 1.46

It's great, he's doing very well for himself. But the money to be made in LOTR is just sick. Really easy money. He's not dumb for doing this. It's frankly dumb of the publisher to allow that with the knowledge of the watered down nature of the book if split up that way. However, everyone's seeing dollar signs and so it floated. If they offered him something close to the ration he made on films from his studio then he'd be dumb not to jump on this.

Not sure why you think he farts cinamon and can do no wrong.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
I like to see Shadow of the Colossus and ICO cited but I'm not sure they deserve to? Shadow was marketed as a "spiritual prequel" to ICO after all. And Sony's making Last Guardian, the third in a trilogy of similarly-themed games. So why cite them as examples of one-off stand-alone games, Jim?
The games have similar themes and aesthetic world designs, but are self-contained and nigh unconnected if you look at them on the surface. The only thing actually connecting the games themselves is the very end of SotC and potentially the shadow figures standing around Wander every time you defeat a Colossus, and even those can be interpreted in multiple ways.
From Wikipedia said:
the game's director and lead designer, Fumito Ueda, maintained that the game's status as a prequel was simply his personal take on the game and not necessarily its canon nature, as he largely intended for players to decide the specifics of the story for themselves, but he confirmed the two do have a connection.
Being connected in ambiguous ways is fairly different from making something directly designed to continue the story of a previous entry in a franchise.

Also I'm a little dubious about the state of The Last Guardian, considering it's been in development hell just as long as Final Fantasy Versus XIII/XV, but unlike the latter hasn't received any sort of update on the state it's in and has gotten more and more rumors about being cancelled as time passes.

Deathfish15 said:
Here's a list of sequel spewing series that need to die:

-Diablo

-Starcraft
Yes, two sequels in seventeen years and one sequel in fifteen years respectively certainly qualify as "sequel spewing series'".
-Total War

-

-<insert anything with "Mario" here>

-Sonic

-Final Fantasy
You know those titles are rarely, if ever, connected between games, right?

Or is their mere existence as long-standing franchises enough to make you lose your mind in rage at their continued ability to sell on mostly brand-name alone?
 

Machine Man 1992

New member
Jul 4, 2011
785
0
0
Would games that take place in the same universe, but have different-yet-tangentially-connected stories count as sequels? Is that setup like the problem outlined in the video?
 

Pinkscare

Wearin' Steam Badges
Jul 19, 2013
87
0
0
WashAran said:
Love that you included the consumer as a part of the problem.
This. Exactly.

I don't think I could ever place myself on a side. As much as I wish sequels--or the drive to create sequels--would go away, I wold loose my mind if Hotline Miami didn't have one.

Lastly, I'm terrified Ubi will slaughter WD in their hopes of creating WD2+.
 

Arnoxthe1

New member
Dec 25, 2010
3,374
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
[
Having the best graphics do not mean much in the sales department. If it did, we wouldn't have Call of Duty dominating every year, Minecraft becoming a ridiculous sensation, and the Wii trouncing its competitors.
Ah, but it's about public perception, Jim. Call of Duty, while not using the best engine out there, still keeps up at least somewhat in terms of current graphics. Heck, the first Black Ops still looks kinda good for the 360 even today. Minecraft was an Indie game and thus, didn't have any expectations of what kind of game it was supposed to be. The Wii's success even though it had less than stellar graphics power can be explained by two things.

1. The motion controls selling the system just by themselves.
2. Nintendo isn't really known for having the best graphics of anything at all so there's no public pereption that they must watch when it comes to that area.
 

Adon Cabre

New member
Jun 14, 2012
223
0
0
Lightknight said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
You're coming close to the discussion of Niche vs Broad Attraction. But every publisher wants their own Halo, and Ubisoft wants another trendy Assassin's Creed franchise to sustain their growth. "If we're pouring in $100+ Million, then this better be longevity" -- that's how I see it. Sort of like a Writer who spends years creating a world and its characters; of course it was all meant for the first book, but he did invest so much time (money) into this project that it would be a waste not to continue building this world.

But I can see why your frustrated; the "top floor" is pushing its weight and distorting the vision and work of creative directors' efforts. It's sad, but it's business.

It's improving the bottom line, and that's all that marketing is geared to do, right?
 

themilo504

New member
May 9, 2010
731
0
0
Quiotu said:
WashAran said:
Love that you included the consumer as a part of the problem.
He pretty much has to. This wouldn't be a problem if people didn't mindlessly snatch up the next FIFA or CoD or Assassin's Creed. I like these games, and I wouldn't mind wanting to play another game in their world again. But for FUCK's sake, I don't need one every year. Give me some time to appreciate and grow fond of the goddamn thing before you push the next one in my face.

It's why some series get a bigger pass than others. GTA4 had a load of problems, but it still sold over 20 million copies because people waited 4 years and longed for it again, and GTA5 will sell just as well because it's been another 4 years. This is why Rockstar can also try out other ideas and give others chances, throwing out games like Manhunt or Bully or RDD... or hell even LA Noire. They try those out because they know GTA will bring in a mountain of money, and they can experiment in between the iterations.

Assassin's Creed I'm done with, because they're pushing too many out for me to grow fond of them again, and the more they throw the same tired gameplay at me the more I see its problems and loathe them.
I wish more companies did that, I would love to play a mass effect turn based strategy game.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
16,864
837
118
Lilani said:
Casual Shinji said:
Peter Jackson may not be a sell-out, but he's very close to reaching George Lucas amounts of overindulgence. King Kong already displayed a lot of that.
The man is a self-taught filmmaking genius. I never saw King Kong, but if I had grown up admiring a film and finally got the access to money and resources to have a crack at my first inspiration, I'd do it too.
That still doesn't make it a good movie. Now, I like Peter Jackson's King Kong, there's some absolutely fantastic moments in it, and the core experience (the relationship between Kong and Ann) is pulled of fantastically. But on a whole the movie is very bloated. It actually shows Peter Jackson can like things a bit too much. There's a whole father/son subplot for instance that did not need to be there at all, especially in a movie that's already pushing three hours.

Peter Jackson is a great filmaker, there's no doubt about that. The only reason I even went to see the first LotR movie was because I had seen and greatly enjoyed The Frightners. But even great filmmakers can sometimes go a bit overboard, and need to told to tone it down. This indulgence can already be seen somewhat in the Extended Edition of Return of the King.

It took balls for him to demand three movies for Lord of the Rings - A project no studio had any faith in, and one that everyone in Hollywood thought would bankrupt New Line. With The Hobbit he simply had to ask, "Hey, can I make this three movies?" To which the studio replied, "Well, you made shit tons of money with that other Fantasy franchise, so sure!" Nothing really ballsy about that, just regular Hollywood business.
I'm not sure what you know about the production of LotR, but he didn't "demand" three films. They had written it as two when they were originally going after Miramax to fund the film, but Miramax said even two was too much and after that they gave up. They scrambled to find another studio interested in the project, and eventually found New Line and pitched their two films to the head of New Line. At the end, the man said "Why are there two films? This is three films." So they retooled their scripts to be three films, and never stopped editing the scripts until they had nothing left to film.
I know about New Line ultimately making the suggestion to making it three films, but that's because to Peter and Fran that was an impossible dream, and they were low-balling it with the two movie deal. It's hard to imagine now, but back in '97 the Fantasy genre was less popular than Nazi exploitation.
 

Adon Cabre

New member
Jun 14, 2012
223
0
0
Ishal said:
Adon Cabre said:
Ishal said:
snip
snip
I love your ending sentense, because that is an easy rationale, and it has been the case for nearly century for movies; that is, until I saw some interesting discussion on CNN.

Like I posted in another comment, the market is gearing toward globalization. In other words, this domestic market is no longer what's most important. That CNN discussion was about how the Ice Age sequels did worse and worse in the states, but they doubled each other in the world market. Halo has that cache, and it will most likely last for as long as the xbox console does.

ubisoft wants the world market. this is the trend. how else does iron man 3 gross $700 million abroad? because of the first two; and you're right, iron man was consistently setting up the sequel in style.

That said, there are good spin-offs -- none come to mind right now, but I'm sure there are a few shining spectacles; but there are also lazy spin-offs. The market determines what is golden in the end. Even if it is the Transformers.

But this market is growing.
 

TsunamiWombat

New member
Sep 6, 2008
5,870
0
0
The issue is Publishers are Corporations, and the leading board of a corporation is REQUIRED to MAXIMIZE PROFITS for the share holders. How do you do that? SEQUELS!

Therefore, business leaders are under tremendous pressure to ALWAYS push for the franchise, to fulfill their obligations - and to do otherwise requires a great deal of justification. This is the fundamental flaw of the Corporate system over the Single Ownership model - you can't just make some of the money, you can't just turn a profit - you have to make ALL OF THE MONEY. FOREVER.

Oh well, this reminded me to get DW8 so that's good :)
 

Rad Party God

Party like it's 2010!
Feb 23, 2010
3,560
0
0
I'm a bit neutral towards sequels. Ever since the NES days, I've always enjoyed sequels, heck, some of the best games for the system are sequels (MegaMan almost turned into the Dynasty Warriors of it's era), but I totally agree that making sequels for the sake of making sequels is bad, really, really bad.

I totally agree that some games are best left stand alone (Eternal Darkness and Planescape Torment anyone?) and I totally applaud a dev that makes a sequel because it wants to (kudos for MercurySteam for leaving Lords of Shadow as a two parter series), however I totally disagree with corporate suits churning sequel after sequel just to make money.

Granted, I wouldn't list The Hobbit as a greedy corporate affair to milk money, just because it's attached to The Lord of The Rings, although I'd love for Peter Jackson to leave it as a two parter, he already introduced a lot of stuff to flesh out the story even more because he wanted to, not because Warner or Tolkien Indistries told him to, heck, considering how overzealous Tolkien Industries has become with it's franchise, it's a wonder they let him do it at all.
 

babinro

New member
Sep 24, 2010
2,518
0
0
I've got absolutely no problem with Ubisoft's statement.
This is coming from one company only and doesn't reflect the AAA industry as a whole.

A gaming franchise doesn't mean that every story will be filled with cliffhanger endings and open ended questions. We've seen a ton of gaming franchises whose games tell a solid self-encompassed story. I can appreciate Dragon Age 2 without having played the first one, same for Resident Evil 4, most final fantasy games, Diablo games, etc.

I'm of the view that I would rather have too much of a good thing then not enough. Portal 2 had no reason to exist but guess what, it was fun. I'm glad it was made even though the original had no business turning into a franchise. Mass Effect was a new IP made with a trilogy in mind and many of us regard as one of the best RPG's of this gaming generation.

Starting a new IP with the idea of a franchise in mind doesn't establish a negative precedence unless the industry does the worst case story telling tropes that Jim seems to imply will be the norm.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
The thing about sequels is that the game devs approach them the wrong way. Naughty Dog did it right with Jak and Daxter, where they took the world they created and did things with it. Jak and Daxter was a 3D Platformer, Jak II was a GTA-like game, Jak 3 was an Open World Adventure game, Jak X was a frigging Racing game. They took their world and built on it like proper champs. And then we have games like Assassin's Creed that create an interesting world, but never really go anywhere beyond putting their game in a different setting.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Arnoxthe1 said:
Jimothy Sterling said:
[
Having the best graphics do not mean much in the sales department. If it did, we wouldn't have Call of Duty dominating every year, Minecraft becoming a ridiculous sensation, and the Wii trouncing its competitors.
Ah, but it's about public perception, Jim. Call of Duty, while not using the best engine out there, still keeps up at least somewhat in terms of current graphics. Heck, the first Black Ops still looks kinda good for the 360 even today. Minecraft was an Indie game and thus, didn't have any expectations of what kind of game it was supposed to be. The Wii's success even though it had less than stellar graphics power can be explained by two things.

1. The motion controls selling the system just by themselves.
2. Nintendo isn't really known for having the best graphics of anything at all so there's no public pereption that they must watch when it comes to that area.
It IS about public perception, and the public does NOT perceive graphics to be that important. Source Engine games can be frighteningly popular, despite being based on positively archaic tech. And to re-use the COD example, sure, it's still doing enough to hang with other games, but that doesn't alter the fact it's reused an engine all generation and not suffered from it. Point being, you don't need to be like Square and build a new engine constantly. Games do not have to be as expensive as they are.
 

aba1

New member
Mar 18, 2010
3,248
0
0
canadamus_prime said:
This is why it irritates me every time the "What games deserve a sequel" thread pops up on this site. We have to accept part of the blame for this.
Ya I agree. We are really to blame for this while thing. They pump out sequels because they know people will lap them up and if we didn't then they wouldn't do this.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Adon Cabre said:
Lightknight said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
You're coming close to the discussion of Niche vs Broad Attraction. But every publisher wants their own Halo, and Ubisoft wants another trendy Assassin's Creed franchise to sustain their growth. "If we're pouring in $100+ Million, then this better be longevity" -- that's how I see it. Sort of like a Writer who spends years creating a world and its characters; of course it was all meant for the first book, but he did invest so much time (money) into this project that it would be a waste not to continue building this world.

But I can see why your frustrated; the "top floor" is pushing its weight and distorting the vision and work of creative directors' efforts. It's sad, but it's business.

It's improving the bottom line, and that's all that marketing is geared to do, right?
It would make sense if they had severly limited capital. Like if they could only invest in one or the other but not both. That's not generally the case here, though. Ubisoft in particular is completely capable of supporting multiple large-scale projects at the same time while still having large reserves of investment capital on hand.

So this isn't an either/or scenario. It can easily be both the huge Halo franchise and the ltiny but hugely popular/profitable minecraft. There is completely room for both and Ubisoft just said, "Nah, not going to bother". It's like the statement that said Bill Gate's time wasn't worth him stopping to pick up a $100. In reality, you'd bet he'd pick it up. Ubisoft is saying no. Only in this case, instead of $100, you're talking about them refusing to pick up a potentially higher rate of return on a smaller sum of money as opposed to making huge investments and making a much smaller rate of return but on more money. It's a bad call on their part. They would do well to have a group dedicated to smaller projects like that rather than getting too bloated and slow to handle smaller things.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
SupahGamuh said:
Granted, I wouldn't list The Hobbit as a greedy corporate affair to milk money, just because it's attached to The Lord of The Rings, although I'd love for Peter Jackson to leave it as a two parter, he already introduced a lot of stuff to flesh out the story even more because he wanted to, not because Warner or Tolkien Indistries told him to, heck, considering how overzealous Tolkien Industries has become with it's franchise, it's a wonder they let him do it at all.
Then answer this riddle all of us cynical people have been pondering. If it's not about money, why did they think it was a good idea to split it into three movies?
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Oh Jim. I love dynasty warriors. MOre than you (I challenge you)
I own the God damn tv show. I bought a Dvd player that could play vcd's so i could watch the live action series of romance of the three kingdoms. (Made it half way though it's a long ass series).

I've seen half of red cliffs.
I've seen Romance of the three kingdoms resurrection.
I own all 3 warriors orachi games, and love them to fucking Death.

But Dynasty warriors itself is the very essence of mining a game fucking dry LOL.

for the redundancy of the game of the game from koei it's criminal. AND I LOVE FUCKING Dynasty warriors,
(seen one of the animes, and played and owned both tactical games which i ran into the ground lol).
 

Arnoxthe1

New member
Dec 25, 2010
3,374
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
It IS about public perception, and the public does NOT perceive graphics to be that important. Source Engine games can be frighteningly popular, despite being based on positively archaic tech. And to re-use the COD example, sure, it's still doing enough to hang with other games, but that doesn't alter the fact it's reused an engine all generation and not suffered from it. Point being, you don't need to be like Square and build a new engine constantly. Games do not have to be as expensive as they are.
But the Source Engine is highly modifiable by the looks of it and updates to its power are constantly being made, thus rendering the point that it's an old engine, moot. And they could reuse the main CoD engine because, as I said, it was a great engine for the 360. There wasn't really any need at all from a graphical standpoint to change it that I know of. And I didn't say that a new engine needed to be built all the time. Not at all. What I'm saying is that to even come into the ballpark of current gen graphics will cost you. A lot. Especially with this new generation out which will probably push budgets up even more. They also can't keep relying on an old engine most of the time because unless it's very well designed, there will be a limit as to what you can do with it before you need to make another one.

Is it right to just keep making franchises? Not really. But try to understand the place where these guys stand when they are saying this at least.
 

Aedwynn

New member
Jan 10, 2009
294
0
0
Mr. Q said:
Perhaps companies need to take a page from the Bene Gesserit and recite this in their corporate offices.

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
I don't know any other quotes that would speak against greed that are as cool as one from Dune but perhaps this will help.

Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction. - Erich Fromm
There's a wonderful quote from Dune which is one of my favourites. It goes like this - 'Arrakis teaches the attitude of the knife--chopping off what's incomplete and saying: 'Now, it's compete because it's ended here.'

It's what I tell myself whenever I hear of an unnecessary sequel.
 

KungFuJazzHands

New member
Mar 31, 2013
309
0
0
Big_Willie_Styles said:
Personally, games that require a wholly new game engine be built for them nearly necessitate a sequel of some kind to make use of the same game engine.
That's a pretty poor excuse to justify sequelitis. Plenty of designers license their in-house engines for use in other games and by other developers -- DICE being one such example. Just because a shiny new engine is used in a new game, it doesn't necessitate the creation of a whole new IP.

We as consumers need to face facts: IPs these days are made specifically to line pockets, and we're the ones willfully handing them the money.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Arnoxthe1 said:
Jimothy Sterling said:
It IS about public perception, and the public does NOT perceive graphics to be that important. Source Engine games can be frighteningly popular, despite being based on positively archaic tech. And to re-use the COD example, sure, it's still doing enough to hang with other games, but that doesn't alter the fact it's reused an engine all generation and not suffered from it. Point being, you don't need to be like Square and build a new engine constantly. Games do not have to be as expensive as they are.
But the Source Engine is highly modifiable by the looks of it and updates to its power are constantly being made, thus rendering the point that it's an old engine, moot. And they could reuse the main CoD engine because, as I said, it was a great engine for the 360. There wasn't really any need at all from a graphical standpoint to change it that I know of. And I didn't say that a new engine needed to be built all the time. Not at all. What I'm saying is that to even come into the ballpark of current gen graphics will cost you. A lot. Especially with this new generation out which will probably push budgets up even more. They also can't keep relying on an old engine most of the time because unless it's very well designed, there will be a limit as to what you can do with it before you need to make another one.

Is it right to just keep making franchises? Not really. But try to understand the place where these guys stand when they are saying this at least.
Left 4 Dead is nowhere near the level of Battlefield 3. It does not matter.

You're asking me to understand things I already understand, which is patronizing, and clearly off-base considering you're assuming I've said games are cheap to make when I have not. People go where the games are best, not where they look best. Another case -- PS2, last in its class in the tech department, best in show when it comes to success.

Besides which, we're supposedly arguing about the cost of making a game people perceive to be good. Modding a source engine is not as expensive as building a new one. You're saying I don't understand that a game must spend extra money to hang with the big dogs, then telling me Valve games can hang with the big dogs because they can use their engine that doesn't need extra money to be rebuilt. Telling me you need to spend a ton of money to be in the same ballpark as a successful game, then telling me Source Engine can be tweaked to look good, does not compute.

What YOU're not considering is that engines can be reused for many things, and can last a long time, so unless you decide to build every new IP on a new engine, the costs just aren't gonna stay the same.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Everything in moderation. Jim's not really stating anything new here :)

It's unlikely that we'll ever see a Minecraft 2, but we did see another game(Scrolls) that's not all that good and hasn't begun to scrape the surface of CCG games. So, not every one-off pays off either. (I'm sure it's a financial success, mostly because of Mojangs brand and the low costs. I hope people get the point.)

This attitude is just a consequence of devs wanting to make big titles and spending ridiculous amounts of money on them, without hope of getting the sales they want.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Lightknight said:
Not sure why you think he farts cinamon and can do no wrong.
Because he already has everything. He has nothing left to gain, and he never set out to gain much in the first place. Again, he's self-taught. He never went to film school, and even back when he was working for peanuts he made the films he wanted to make. He didn't make Bad Taste and Meet the Feebles because he wanted a lot of money, he made them because he loved those kinds of films and he made connections to get them done. Hell that's why he linked up with Weta workshop--because they were willing to help him get what he wanted done, regardless of how niche his early films were. He grew up living and breathing film, and as far as I can tell he's still living and breathing it.

Lightknight said:
Then answer this riddle all of us cynical people have been pondering. If it's not about money, why did they think it was a good idea to split it into three movies?
Because they had enough material to make three movies, I imagine. The Hobbit is being created in much the same way LotR was being created, in that they are doing rewrites and altering scenes even on the day of filming. Both during LotR and now during the Hobbit, the actors are getting rewrites as they arrive on set to shoot the scenes. It's a very organic process, and it would seem they're getting more material than they bargained for. And I'm excited, as at this moment I have no reason to doubt the quality of that material.

But Jackson has a very critical eye when it comes to editing, so I'm certain he wouldn't have made the call if he didn't know that all three films would have definitive beginnings, middles, and endings that would both work as standalone films and as a trilogy.

Yes I am a bit of a fangirl, but I know all of this because I've watched all the extra features for LotR and the vlogs they've released showing the production of The Hobbit. Jackson doesn't do stuff because it's easy or it'll make money. He does it because he loves to do it, and he would never sacrifice quality for money. That's not to say he can't make a bad film, I hear the Lovely Bones was all around pretty terrible. But as far as LotR, he knows what he's doing and he knows what he wants. Not everybody has to like or agree with it, but strictly speaking his approach to the Hobbit is pretty much the same way he approached LotR. His calls are based on what will give his films quality, not on fulfilling any demands put on him. He fought demands for certain things when he was risking even more with LotR[footnote]Originally, New Line didn't want a prologue in Fellowship, and Peter and the writers Fran and Philippa had to fight to keep it in. Then for Two Towers, New Line actually DID want a prologue, and Peter and Co didn't. In both cases they got their way, and in both cases it worked out.[/footnote], so I don't see why he would need to give into demands now when he's risking almost nothing regardless of what he does.
 

Mike Fang

New member
Mar 20, 2008
458
0
0
Okay, just to get this out of the way, that ending gag? I had to fight my gag reflex.

That out of the way, I wholeheartedly agree with the message here. Setting up a game so that it HAS to be turned into a franchise seriously runs the risk of taking what could be a great idea for a standalone game and piledriving it face first into a steaming bucket of dog shit. And yes, this is a business practice that really got off the ground in Hollywood and the games industry following example is akin to watching someone play Russian roulette, see them shoot themselves in the head, then picking up the gun and giving the cylinder a spin yourself.

The absolute best example I can think of here is the "Saw" movie franchise. The first Saw movie, for its time, was very impressive. It was a very clever way of focusing more on the victims than on the killer, making the crisis and threats to the characters very creative and disturbing. The first sequel expanded well on the first movie, extrapolating what came before and explaining a bit more behind the killer's past and making him seem more human, accentuating the flaws in his reasoning but showing he was incapable of admitting his philosophy's drawbacks and faults. The third movie, while not great, brought the killer's reign of terror to an end and saw his death.

And then...the franchise KEPT. GOING. The parade of half-baked, poorly done, torture porn sequels that came after was a stark, unabashed look at Hollywood's unadulterated greed and complete indifference to the quality of its work. The characters were made deliberately unsympathetic so people would have no emotional interest in their survival and could see them dying in slow and sadistic ways without any feelings of discomfort outside of the physical brutality of the spectacle. The main antagonist, long dead and buried, was dragged back through flashbacks over and over, attributing him with absurd degrees of foresight to the point it bordered on him being fucking clairvoyant. Not a single movie ever ended on a sense of any sort of closure; not even the very final movie, which they KNEW wasn't going to have a sequel, they KNEW was planned to be the last installment in the series. Still they couldn't end it with any sense of closure, letting the last of Jigsaw's protege's walk away Scott free in the very same manner as all the other hackneyed and trite installments of the franchise; sequel bait for a movie the film makers and producers never intend to create, but are incapable of resisting the urge to leave the door open for. Those. Fucking. ASSHOLES.

The Saw franchise, past the third installment, in my opinion, was a metaphorical stage light shining full on the mainstream film industry as it loudly said in front of its entire audience "all we care about is taking your money." And the games industry is behaving increasingly like it. How many fucking Halo sequels are we going to get? Master Chief was supposed to have come to the end of his journey in Halo Reach, wasn't he? And then suddenly, boom, he's right back where he started; different planet, sure, but the same old conflict, if I recall. How many increasingly nonsensical installments is Final Fantasy going to get? It's up to 13 now, right? And from what I've heard, the plots aren't getting any more thought provoking, they're just becoming increasingly ridiculous in their made-up words and failure to have a sensible narrative or logical setting. And how many old school gamer's childhood memories are they going to piss all over with what they've done to the Sonic the Hedgehog series? Everything I've heard about any of the 3D installments to the franchise can be summed up as "Oh dear God, what have they done to Sonic THIS time?!"

Much like Jim, I too enjoy and have enjoyed sequels. I LIKE it when a character I enjoy playing as and following their adventures returns with a new challenge to face. But there's a right way to do it and a wrong way. To me, the core of the problem can be summed up in two words: Sequel Baiting. For the love of GOD, stop ending games with an ending stinger that takes all sense of closure and grinds it under a heel. A story can have potential to lead to a sequel without making it fucking obvious. An audience isn't fucking stupid; if a hero conquers an enemy and they end with something akin to "The great threat has finally ended; now we can start to rebuild," anyone past the age of five knows that means more can happen in the future. This chapter is over, but could a new chapter start later? It's a distinct possibility, but there's no loss of the feeling that something has been accomplished.

A good example here would be the ending to Dishonored. Now okay, I realize there were two endings, but assuming one of them (for the sake of argument let's say the good ending) was canon, it brings one chapter to a close and leaves the door open for another. Corvo returns the child empress Emily to the throne; with her trusted bodyguard at her side as advisor and protector, she leads Dunwall from the bring of destruction to an age of hope and opportunity, during which Corvo eventually passes away from natural causes and is buried beside Emily's mother. It's a story that brings the tale of Corvo to an end, but with the empire only just having recovered from a plague and a massive bout of political intrigue and corruption, what happens in the future is really anyone's guess. There is definitely material for a sequel here, but it's not blatantly obvious, so it doesn't wreck the self-contained story of the game.

Why the industry can't follow this example more, I can't imagine.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
KungFuJazzHands said:
We as consumers need to face facts: IPs these days are made specifically to line pockets, and we're the ones willfully handing them the money.
And how is that a bad thing? It takes money to make new IPs. If said companies have investors (i.e. public companies,) they have to show profit. That's how American accounting standards work.

You think a company that will forever operate at a loss will somehow make better games than one making mass profit? Because the former can't exist in that form. It just can't.

The motive behind a game is to explore something, a new idea or new take on a character or whatever. The game requires, usually, some sort of investment to make. Said investors expect a return on said investment. That's just how things work. Without start up capital, a game never gets made.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Arnoxthe1 said:
Jimothy Sterling said:
It IS about public perception, and the public does NOT perceive graphics to be that important. Source Engine games can be frighteningly popular, despite being based on positively archaic tech. And to re-use the COD example, sure, it's still doing enough to hang with other games, but that doesn't alter the fact it's reused an engine all generation and not suffered from it. Point being, you don't need to be like Square and build a new engine constantly. Games do not have to be as expensive as they are.
But the Source Engine is highly modifiable by the looks of it and updates to its power are constantly being made, thus rendering the point that it's an old engine, moot. And they could reuse the main CoD engine because, as I said, it was a great engine for the 360. There wasn't really any need at all from a graphical standpoint to change it that I know of. And I didn't say that a new engine needed to be built all the time. Not at all. What I'm saying is that to even come into the ballpark of current gen graphics will cost you. A lot. Especially with this new generation out which will probably push budgets up even more. They also can't keep relying on an old engine most of the time because unless it's very well designed, there will be a limit as to what you can do with it before you need to make another one.
I still fail to see anywhere that you've presented graphics as the end-all demand in the market. I'll present Nintendo's continued existence and even profitability over the past generaiton as enough evidence of that. Just Dance 4(just dance 3 for the Wii), Paper Mario, Angry Birds Trilogy, and Lego Batman were all in the top 100 best sellers in the video game category of Amazon in in 2012.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/2012/videogames#1

Do any of those strike you as particularly demanding of hardware?

Is it right to just keep making franchises? Not really. But try to understand the place where these guys stand when they are saying this at least.
Right? It's a bad business decision but there's no ethical quandary here. No more so than a hotdog stand refusing to sell hamburgers even if it'd make them more money.
 

Arnoxthe1

New member
Dec 25, 2010
3,374
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
Left 4 Dead is nowhere near the level of Battlefield 3. It does not matter.

You're asking me to understand things I already understand, which is patronizing, and clearly off-base considering you're assuming I've said games are cheap to make when I have not. People go where the games are best, not where they look best. Another case -- PS2, last in its class in the tech department, best in show when it comes to success.

Besides which, we're supposedly arguing about the cost of making a game people perceive to be good. Modding a source engine is not as expensive as building a new one. You're saying I don't understand that a game must spend extra money to hang with the big dogs, then telling me Valve games can hang with the big dogs because they can use their engine that doesn't need extra money to be rebuilt. Telling me you need to spend a ton of money to be in the same ballpark as a successful game, then telling me Source Engine can be tweaked to look good, does not compute.

What YOU're not considering is that engines can be reused for many things, and can last a long time, so unless you decide to build every new IP on a new engine, the costs just aren't gonna stay the same.
But most engines aren't made to be reused. Here's a brilliant example. Halo 4 was built off of the Reach engine. While they got it to play nice for the most part, they couldn't get Theater for campaign or Spartan Ops to work right so they had to cut it because the engine wasn't meant to be modified so. And that's not exactly a small feature to cut.

Can Publishers make adaptable engines? Certainly. Do they? Most of the time, no. I don't really know why though. Most likely because it's cheaper. If a publisher has a good old engine they can use, more power to them but not all publishers have this luxury.

Yes, engines can be reused but as I stated in the above point, it can cause a lot of headaches if it's not meant to be modified. Further, making a new engine, eeven if you do have a good modifiable engine, is inevitable sometime.
 

Malisteen

New member
Mar 1, 2010
86
0
0
The problem with Dragon Age II wasn't that the first game wrapped up all its loose ends. There was still plenty of room for a new story exploring new facets of the same setting. The problem with DAII wan't DAI, it was DAIII - specifically that unlike the first game II was designed to be part of an open ended franchise, and as such had no conclusion or resolution.

Worse, it was rushed out in a year to fit the sequel factory mentality. While the first game's team had the time to craft a fully fleshed out and rounded game, the second game had to cut every conceivable corner so it could be rushed to market.

So it's not that a sequel couldn't have worked for Dragon Age, it's that the sequel factory mentality ruins even the sequels that are worth making in the first place. And even original games are getting ruined by being forced to leave all their ends loose to begin with.
 

OniYouji

New member
Jan 4, 2011
119
0
0
Off Topic: What is that game with that white cloaked figure fighting monsters that kept getting shown?

On Topic: I couldn't agree more with this. If sequels are justified, if it is intended to be a series for artistic reasons, then more power to you. If it wasn't intended for sequels from the start, but you can come up with an artistic reason to continue, then that's perfectly fine as well. But if you are making sequels and intending them to be series because that's what makes money, then you're doing it for all the wrong reasons.

It's why I was so apprehensive when they announced a sequel to Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors, despite wrapping up just about everything. It's why I'm cautiously optimistic at best at rumors of a sequel to The World Ends With You. It's why I actually appreciate David Cage for taking a stance against sequels and just doing what he wants. Because I'm worried about what may happen when one is driven not by what one wants to do, but by how much money they want to make.

One of my favorite games is Fragile Dreams: Farewell Ruins of the Moon. It had great atmosphere, wonderful story, beautiful graphics and music, especially for a Wii game...and not a sequel in sight. Because it doesn't need one. It will never need one. It is perfectly good on its own. So why do so many game developers fear the very concept of something done in one? Well, obviously for greed. But some of the best games out there are ones you don't need to slap a new number on every year.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Lilani said:
Lightknight said:
Not sure why you think he farts cinamon and can do no wrong.
Because he already has everything. He has nothing left to gain, and he never set out to gain much in the first place.
This has not been the case for even the wealthiest people on the planet. Gates still slogged into work a decade after being a Billionaire because there was more money to be made. He only recently decided to start doing things he really wants to do with his time and make the world a better place. I'm afraid you're mistaken regarding human nature. There's always more to be had. As of 2012 Peter is apparently worth around $400 million with nearly half of that being made from the LOTR series:

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/directors/peter-jackson-net-worth/

Just the first Hobbit movie has already made over $1 Billion at the box office. If Peter Jackson managed to negotiate a higher pay rate then he could be looking at a tremendous payday. Like with King Kong when he negotiated $20 million up front and then 20% of the box office.

He can always have more and what if having a TON more means he can start funding his own movies without fear? $400 million net work is a lot, but it isn't enough to pay for the kind of movies he's been making. Or maybe for just one if he's not shooting for LOTR porportions.

Because they had enough material to make three movies, I imagine.
You didn't feel like the first movie dragged on? Spread thin like, I don't know, butter spread over toast? It seems like $3 billion gross sounded better to everyone than $2 billion. I don't blame them.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
I understand and appreciate the point, and I agree... But I'm not sure anything was said that couldn't have been said in, say, six minutes rather than nine and a half. It felt rather like for every point, sub-point, clarification or support, there was an attached moment of "and that sucks and people suck and the industry sucks and these games suck and these programs suck and it's all so screwed up and aaaarrrrgh."

I can't entirely pin it down, because there are definitely times when hearing Jim go off on a subject that he feels passionately about fills me with glee and a warm sense of shared righteous indignation. This time, I found myself sort of tuning out, despite my general agreement with the sentiment. Maybe it's me?
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Arnoxthe1 said:
Jimothy Sterling said:
Left 4 Dead is nowhere near the level of Battlefield 3. It does not matter.

You're asking me to understand things I already understand, which is patronizing, and clearly off-base considering you're assuming I've said games are cheap to make when I have not. People go where the games are best, not where they look best. Another case -- PS2, last in its class in the tech department, best in show when it comes to success.

Besides which, we're supposedly arguing about the cost of making a game people perceive to be good. Modding a source engine is not as expensive as building a new one. You're saying I don't understand that a game must spend extra money to hang with the big dogs, then telling me Valve games can hang with the big dogs because they can use their engine that doesn't need extra money to be rebuilt. Telling me you need to spend a ton of money to be in the same ballpark as a successful game, then telling me Source Engine can be tweaked to look good, does not compute.

What YOU're not considering is that engines can be reused for many things, and can last a long time, so unless you decide to build every new IP on a new engine, the costs just aren't gonna stay the same.
But most engines aren't made to be reused. Here's a brilliant example. Halo 4 was built off of the Reach engine. While they got it to play nice for the most part, they couldn't get Theater for campaign or Spartan Ops to work right so they had to cut it because the engine wasn't meant to be modified so. And that's not exactly a small feature to cut.

Can Publishers make adaptable engines? Certainly. Do they? Most of the time, no. I don't really know why though. Most likely because it's cheaper. If a publisher has a good old engine they can use, more power to them but not all publishers have this luxury.

Yes, engines can be reused but as I stated in the above point, it can cause a lot of headaches if it's not meant to be modified. Further, making a new engine, eeven if you do have a good modifiable engine, is inevitable sometime.
Which all goes back to the wanton waste that feeds into overspending. Meanwhile, the makes of Unreal, and CryEngine, and Source are doing quite well making and also licensing their engines, so they can make money rather than just cost it.

It gets to the point where I'm gonna have limited to zero sympathy for a company that makes disposable, expensive engines.
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,847
0
0
Ubisoft could at least have the decency to end one shriveled up husk of a franchise when they move on to another. Is there any need for MORE Assassin's Creed at this point, especially when all they've done is stray further and further from what made Assassin's Creed Assassin's Creed in the first place? I can understand not officially ending Assassin's Creed just in case Watch Dogs bombs (sure looks boring as fuck, I don't want to play it) and they need to go back to it to make more easy money, but is there any reason why AC couldn't have had the year off so the focus was on Watch Dogs? Instead they're shoving another rushed and completely unpolished game out to maintain the one a year thing they have going because for some reason they want to obtain the same scorn gamers have for Call of Duty but without making the same amount of money as Call of Duty.

Speaking of Call of Duty, stop making new engines for everything. People may whine about how Duty uses the same engine over and over, but it keeps development cheap and that's part of how they make money.

It really just amazes me how bad all of these big publishers are at doing their jobs.

Johnny Novgorod said:
I like to see Shadow of the Colossus and ICO cited but I'm not sure they deserve to? Shadow was marketed as a "spiritual prequel" to ICO after all. And Sony's making Last Guardian, the third in a trilogy of similarly-themed games. So why cite them as examples of one-off stand-alone games, Jim?
Maybe we watched different videos, but I didn't see Jim mention any of those games.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Wenseph said:
It is ridiculous that the hobbit, a children's book much shorter than LoTR was turned into a freaking trilogy. I don't even care to watch it, because they're overdoing it. Simpsons should have ended long ago too.
Damn it, I hate it when people call The Hobbit a kids book. Have you even read it? Let me tell you that although it may not be as long or elaborate as the Lord of the Rings doesn't make it any less of a great story. Just because a game is rated E doesn't mean only children can play or like it. Lord of the Rings was thought to have been impossible to film before Peter Jackson adapted it and if anyone can do it for the Hobbit, he can.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
16,691
752
118
Country
Argentina
mjc0961 said:
Ubisoft could at least have the decency to end one shriveled up husk of a franchise when they move on to another. Is there any need for MORE Assassin's Creed at this point, especially when all they've done is stray further and further from what made Assassin's Creed Assassin's Creed in the first place? I can understand not officially ending Assassin's Creed just in case Watch Dogs bombs (sure looks boring as fuck, I don't want to play it) and they need to go back to it to make more easy money, but is there any reason why AC couldn't have had the year off so the focus was on Watch Dogs? Instead they're shoving another rushed and completely unpolished game out to maintain the one a year thing they have going because for some reason they want to obtain the same scorn gamers have for Call of Duty but without making the same amount of money as Call of Duty.

Speaking of Call of Duty, stop making new engines for everything. People may whine about how Duty uses the same engine over and over, but it keeps development cheap and that's part of how they make money.

It really just amazes me how bad all of these big publishers are at doing their jobs.

Johnny Novgorod said:
I like to see Shadow of the Colossus and ICO cited but I'm not sure they deserve to? Shadow was marketed as a "spiritual prequel" to ICO after all. And Sony's making Last Guardian, the third in a trilogy of similarly-themed games. So why cite them as examples of one-off stand-alone games, Jim?
Maybe we watched different videos, but I didn't see Jim mention any of those games.
The video shows clips of both games while Jim's talking about original IPs near the beginning.
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,847
0
0
Arnoxthe1 said:
Jim, you keep having this misconception that these games are cheap to make. Cliff B. mentioned a great video on used games in one of his recent blog posts and I think you should watch it. It may seem disconnected from what I'm saying at first but trust me, it will all connect in the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G_f8YBy39M
You have a misconception that games have to be expensive to make. That's part of the point of this video and many of his other videos: games cost to much to make because publishers suck at their jobs, not because games are actually expensive to make. Jim himself made a great video on this and I think you should watch it.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7121-Dark-Souls-and-Dark-Sales

Johnny Novgorod said:
The video shows clips of both games while Jim's talking about original IPs near the beginning.
I guess he shouldn't have mentioned prawns in this video either, right? There's also a part where he specifically mentions Sony and doesn't bring up Team Ico at all. I think you're reading a bit too much into video clips and not paying enough attention to the words.
 

Rebel_Raven

New member
Jul 24, 2011
1,606
0
0
As per usual, Jim has a fantastic point, and the ever appreciated apreciation for Dynasty Warriors.

Also, guilty. I want a Remember Me sequel, a sequel to Tomb Raider, and so forth.

Still, there is room for both one shots and sequels.
RJ 17 said:
Ohhhhhh GOD! It's dripping! xP

As a fellow lover of Dynasty Warriors, I know exactly where you're coming from Jim. On the other hand, that's kinda a guilty pleasure seeing as how the DW games are almost all exactly the same, therefor failing your "need to be made" test. I like the improved graphics, the new characters, the various tweeks in interpretation to the stories and characters, but in the end if you've played one DW game you've pretty much played them all.
I'm not too sure I can agree on this. Yes, when you get to the root of the series, it's basically the same hack and slash, but having played since Dynasty Warriors 3, and branched out into other Warriors series, I can safely say that experiences will vary from game to game, even if it is slight.
I think more changed than actually changed than stayed the same. Heck, Dynasty warriors started as a 1 on 1 fighter.
Then considering the difficulty tweaks, deepened fighting system (ex attacks to say the least), the various weapons, the changing musou systems, the ability to switch to and use near any weapon, the ability to customize your loadout, the ever improving roster, the new items/items system, the new game modes like Conquest Mode, online mode, 3d graphics option, the adjustments to the battlefield tactics, the evolving sound track, and so forth. There's been a lot of changes that few seem to notice.
Then there's a few of the concepts that didn't stay like the occassional arena/cage duel between officers.

It's safe to say that the series is evolving slowly and steadily, and Tecmo-Koei are willing to experiment without changing the core concepts of it revolving around RotK, being a brawler, and the ever welcome X-treme Legends, and even more welcome Empires standalone/DLC content, and the idea that if you have the original game, that the extra content can merge, thus kinda rewarding consumers.
Dynasty Warriors -deserves- sequels. Each one is justified in having enough alterations around the core concepts. While at the very basic, the gameplay and story are the same, Koei does not stagnate.
Lets not forget the Strike Force spinoff of Dynasty Warriors.

Frankly I think Koei has one of the best strategies for sequels. Don't fix what isn't broken, but add ingredients and season to taste.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
Which all goes back to the wanton waste that feeds into overspending. Meanwhile, the makes of Unreal, and CryEngine, and Source are doing quite well making and also licensing their engines, so they can make money rather than just cost it.

It gets to the point where I'm gonna have limited to zero sympathy for a company that makes disposable, expensive engines.
I'm not 100% sure why you have any sympathy for them now. You're too good to them, Jim. A company that doesn't understand budgeting or leveraging existing assets in new projects deserves to lose the money they foolishly throw at a problem they've already solved. Feeling sorry for them is like feeling sorry for a bankrupt person who bought a new car to get to work just because he's forgotten it's in his garage and ready to go.

Not to Jim in particular:
Some of the most successful companies already understand this. Bethesda's a nice example of a company that makes good use of licensed engines.

Example: Morrowind, Fallout 3, Oblivion, Fallout 3: New Vegas (made by Obsidian, published by Bethesda) were all made on the Gamebryo engine. That's a pretty impressive spread of time and quality while being a great example of a company who can work wonders with licensed engines.

Skyrim was developed by an in-house engine and it looks like they're going to try and use some other titles in it. Either way, once the cost of the engine is sunk, making more games on that engine is significantly less. If you can spread the cost of an engine over multiple games then it's a good investment. If you can't then licensing is the way to go, not engine creating.

The best company would be able to create an in-house engine that is good enough to also license out.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
orangeapples said:
Another video where Sony are the heroes of gaming? I mean, yeah sure they are, but still...
Haha, it is interesting what kind of things they invest in. I'm really happy that they support little games and seem to see value in it. But with recent successes like Journey that they've published, they'd be stupid not to see the value in it.

It's funny that I had such a very different opinion of them four years ago. Hopefully they don't revert if they become drunk with power this coming gen.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Rebel_Raven said:
I never said they didn't change anything at all, in fact I'm pretty sure I covered just about everything that you brought up, albeit in a much less detailed manner.

What I was getting at is what you say is the strength of their formula: all they do is tweek each new incarnation a little. Slap on a new feature, change the map layouts, add some characters, swap in some new moves. You're still playing the same game though. You're still hitting X a bunch and occasionally Y (for me, at least, as an Xbox player). You're still fighting through the Yellow Turban Rebellion, taking down Dong Zhou, engaging in the battle of Chi-Bi. It's all the same, just with little tweeks here and there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm up-to-date on my DW franchise, I've been with it since 4 and I'm up through 7 (having heard that Strike Force sucked, I skipped that one, and I haven't had a chance to get 8 yet). I've even got all 3 Orochi games and Samurai Warriors 2 (never could find 1). Look at the core gameplay mechanics of all of them, though, and they're all essentially the same just with minor alterations from one to another (i.e. the weapon-swap in 7). The biggest innovation that they've had in a LONG time was actually continuing the story all the way out to it's actual end with the establishment of the Jin Dynasty, and that just happened in DW7.

Personally I was one of the few the liked the continuous motion of the Renbu move system in DW6, but then they actually took a step backwards and returned to the system of having 6 normal attacks with the choice to throw in a charge attack somewhere in there. I'm not saying I don't like series because of the rather straight line it's taken, but to deny that all the games are essentially (that being the keyword, not "exactly") the same is just naïve.
 

Fappy

\[T]/
May 1, 2020
12,010
0
0
Country
United States
Oh come on Jim, you can't even pretend the taste of jizz would make you gag ;D

I mean, what is a god that cannot stomach the taste of his own seed?

Amirite?
 

GonzoGamer

New member
Apr 9, 2008
7,063
0
0
Quiotu said:
WashAran said:
Love that you included the consumer as a part of the problem.
He pretty much has to. This wouldn't be a problem if people didn't mindlessly snatch up the next FIFA or CoD or Assassin's Creed. I like these games, and I wouldn't mind wanting to play another game in their world again. But for FUCK's sake, I don't need one every year. Give me some time to appreciate and grow fond of the goddamn thing before you push the next one in my face.

It's why some series get a bigger pass than others. GTA4 had a load of problems, but it still sold over 20 million copies because people waited 4 years and longed for it again, and GTA5 will sell just as well because it's been another 4 years. This is why Rockstar can also try out other ideas and give others chances, throwing out games like Manhunt or Bully or RDD... or hell even LA Noire. They try those out because they know GTA will bring in a mountain of money, and they can experiment in between the iterations.

Assassin's Creed I'm done with, because they're pushing too many out for me to grow fond of them again, and the more they throw the same tired gameplay at me the more I see its problems and loathe them.
This was pretty much exactly what I was going to say. Even though I feel R* games have gotten a little pretentious this gen I like the fact that they have continued to do new things. Sure it's almost always some sort of open world GTAish thing but at least it's not the exact same thing.

Assassins Creed, CoD, I like these games but I don't have time to play every one they come out with.
 

OtherSideofSky

New member
Jan 4, 2010
1,051
0
0
You know what would be cool? If they still did all that re-using of assets and engines from ridiculously expensive AAA games, but used it to let developers make weird, interesting things unrelated to the original game instead of just churning out sequels.

Actually, I'm pretty sure this is the model that gave me Blood Dragon for $15. I would generally describe myself as a fan of business models that give me a game like Blood Dragon for the price of a particularly good sandwich.
 

LordMonty

Badgerlord
Jul 2, 2008
570
0
0
Now I totally agree, some games even blur the lines like bioshock who just uses the name and more or less reworks a new story entirely(yes i know they nod to the original but it wasn't something you had to get) but in general variety is the spice of life, don't close a door just bacause you like it easy, its just lazy. Anyhow cheers Jimkeep on truth saying.
 

Sehnsucht Engel

New member
Apr 18, 2009
1,890
0
0
tehpiemaker said:
Wenseph said:
It is ridiculous that the hobbit, a children's book much shorter than LoTR was turned into a freaking trilogy. I don't even care to watch it, because they're overdoing it. Simpsons should have ended long ago too.
Damn it, I hate it when people call The Hobbit a kids book. Have you even read it? Let me tell you that although it may not be as long or elaborate as the Lord of the Rings doesn't make it any less of a great story. Just because a game is rated E doesn't mean only children can play or like it. Lord of the Rings was thought to have been impossible to film before Peter Jackson adapted it and if anyone can do it for the Hobbit, he can.
I've read it twice. I called it a children's book because that's what it is. That's what it was written as, and marketed as. It doesn't matter what you think. It is a children's book. Although you clearly think less of things for children, doesn't mean everyone does.

Anyone could do the hobbit, without turning it into a trilogy.
 

Orks da best

New member
Oct 12, 2011
689
0
0
Jim these the episodes of your that I love. When you discuss a very important topic for both the industry and the consumer not just the industry.

And truthfully speaking many of the games are one offs just as many being a sequel or a prequel, such as Deus ex HR.

It about Varity and moderation, not black or white all or nothing, something that most people seem to get wrong...
 

Rebel_Raven

New member
Jul 24, 2011
1,606
0
0
RJ 17 said:
Rebel_Raven said:
I never said they didn't change anything at all, in fact I'm pretty sure I covered just about everything that you brought up, albeit in a much less detailed manner.

What I was getting at is what you say is the strength of their formula: all they do is tweek each new incarnation a little. Slap on a new feature, change the map layouts, add some characters, swap in some new moves. You're still playing the same game though. You're still hitting X a bunch and occasionally Y (for me, at least, as an Xbox player). You're still fighting through the Yellow Turban Rebellion, taking down Dong Zhou, engaging in the battle of Chi-Bi. It's all the same, just with little tweeks here and there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm up-to-date on my DW franchise, I've been with it since 4 and I'm up through 7 (having heard that Strike Force sucked, I skipped that one, and I haven't had a chance to get 8 yet). I've even got all 3 Orochi games and Samurai Warriors 2 (never could find 1). Look at the core gameplay mechanics of all of them, though, and they're all essentially the same just with minor alterations from one to another (i.e. the weapon-swap in 7). The biggest innovation that they've had in a LONG time was actually continuing the story all the way out to it's actual end with the establishment of the Jin Dynasty, and that just happened in DW7.

Personally I was one of the few the liked the continuous motion of the Renbu move system in DW6, but then they actually took a step backwards and returned to the system of having 6 normal attacks with the choice to throw in a charge attack somewhere in there. I'm not saying I don't like series because of the rather straight line it's taken, but to deny that all the games are essentially (that being the keyword, not "exactly") the same is just naïve.
Call me naïve if you want, but I still think you're being too hard on the series. I get what you're saying in that it retreads the same story, and at the very base, is the brawler we've all come to know, and love, but pretending playing Dynasty Warriors 7 is the same as Dynasty Warriors 4? I think that's a bit of a leap.

I wouldn't call weapon swap a minor alteration, nor the perks system, nor the ability to have improved attacks based on affinity with a weapon. The ability to jump differently based on your weapon can be something of a game changer.
EX attacks might be a minor addition, but a second musou added recently, and I hear a 3rd Musou in DW8?

I played Warriors Orochi 3 recently after a stint of DW7 Empires, and it was, aside from the very very basic combat ideas, very diffirent from 7 and it's expansions. Yeah, I was still hitting people with combos, but the mechanics beyond that was what made the game practically something else.

I'm not sure what they could do to the story since it's based on the historical novel, and history, "what if" missions aside. It's like WW2, except it's probably more sacred in Asia. Granted Koei does take considerable liberties with characters, I think they're trying to be careful about it.

Dare they change the game into a FPS, or something so the base gameplay isn't the same? Though they kinda did for Samurai Warriors Katana, though I never played it.
At the point it's at, asking Dynasty Warriors to change gameplay is like asking Madden to stop being about football.

I'm not saying all the changes are in your face, and obvious, but Play one Warriors entry long enough, and go to another, and there will be a difference you can feel, IMO.

Strikeforce series was okay, but I wouldn't try it for full price. It is a real departure from traditional Dynasty Warriors.

I'm looking forward to getting my mitts on Dynasty Warriors 8 as every character is supposed to have a unique moveset, and possibly weapon which seems pretty amazing for 70 some odd characters.

But opinions are opinions. You have yours, and I have mine. :p We'll prolly have to agree to disagree on this one.
 

Imp_Emissary

Mages Rule, and Dragons Fly!
Legacy
Aug 9, 2020
2,315
1
3
Country
United States
Jimothy Sterling said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
Jimothy Sterling said:
Left 4 Dead is nowhere near the level of Battlefield 3. It does not matter.

You're asking me to understand things I already understand, which is patronizing, and clearly off-base considering you're assuming I've said games are cheap to make when I have not. People go where the games are best, not where they look best. Another case -- PS2, last in its class in the tech department, best in show when it comes to success.

Besides which, we're supposedly arguing about the cost of making a game people perceive to be good. Modding a source engine is not as expensive as building a new one. You're saying I don't understand that a game must spend extra money to hang with the big dogs, then telling me Valve games can hang with the big dogs because they can use their engine that doesn't need extra money to be rebuilt. Telling me you need to spend a ton of money to be in the same ballpark as a successful game, then telling me Source Engine can be tweaked to look good, does not compute.

What YOU're not considering is that engines can be reused for many things, and can last a long time, so unless you decide to build every new IP on a new engine, the costs just aren't gonna stay the same.
But most engines aren't made to be reused. Here's a brilliant example. Halo 4 was built off of the Reach engine. While they got it to play nice for the most part, they couldn't get Theater for campaign or Spartan Ops to work right so they had to cut it because the engine wasn't meant to be modified so. And that's not exactly a small feature to cut.

Can Publishers make adaptable engines? Certainly. Do they? Most of the time, no. I don't really know why though. Most likely because it's cheaper. If a publisher has a good old engine they can use, more power to them but not all publishers have this luxury.

Yes, engines can be reused but as I stated in the above point, it can cause a lot of headaches if it's not meant to be modified. Further, making a new engine, even if you do have a good modifiable engine, is inevitable sometime.
Which all goes back to the wanton waste that feeds into overspending. Meanwhile, the makes of Unreal, and CryEngine, and Source are doing quite well making and also licensing their engines, so they can make money rather than just cost it.

It gets to the point where I'm gonna have limited to zero sympathy for a company that makes disposable, expensive engines.

Side note about the argument Jim;
MovieBob did an Overthinker episode a while ago about while things are getting more expensive in the video game industry. He noted like you that it's part of it greed in the industry, and the consumer eating it up then asking for more. However, most of what he talked about was the part of it I don't hear about most often.

The blame of the game designers. The artists. The episode is called "Starving Artist". http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.com/2013/05/episode-84-starving-artists.html

Basically what he talks about is how the artists sometimes in the games industry want the newest(and most expensive) tools to make there games. For some reasonable reasons, and some kind of selfish ones.

Also, one question about this whole "we can't afford to make games that just end after one" thing.
For the sake of argument, lets say what Ubisoft is saying is true for at least them. That they just can't afford to make a game that just ends the story.(I agree with you that they more than likely can, but don't want to, but again for the sake of the argument lets go with this hypothetical).

Anyway, if they can't afford to do that, I have to ask; Can they then afford to make only games that can be turned into franchise?

I don't just mean can they take the risk over and over again and put lots of money into new IPs hoping to make them into franchises, but even if they do make very cool games can they support themselves with that system if they can't afford to make a game on a budget? For example; say they have five game franchises, but only 2 are selling really well(and seeing as some say selling 5 million copies is a failure my guess would be having 2 out of 5 selling well would be optimistic).

They would have some of their franchises doing well, but the others suffering and costing them A LOT of money. Video games are expensive to make, and buy. It's not reasonable to expect all of their fans to be able to buy every one of there games, or even want to.

I really liked Assassin's Creed, but I didn't buy every game, and I'm not likely to be buying their yearly installments. To much of a good thing makes you get a bit sick of it eventually. Especially if you don't get enough time away from it to miss it.

Thank God For you, Jim.
Sorry about the long post.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Rebel_Raven said:
I'm not trying to come off as being hard on the series, as I've said a couple times now, I absolutely love it. In fact, it's the story itself that I love the most. Sadly I've never had a chance to get my hands on the actual novel, but back on the NES there was an RPG-like game called Destiny of an Emperor which is based off the 3 Kingdoms story. You start as Liu Bei with Guan Yu and Zhang Fei making the oath in the garden, you go on to fight the yellow turbans, and it basically follows Liu Bei's quest to bring peace to the land.

And it is true, all the changes do add up in the end. DW7 is VERY different than DW 4 because there's been time for the tweeks to pile up. But getting back to the point of this topic: look at the Assassin's Creed series. Sure, there's different things from game to game, but are any of the games really that different from one another? I'd argue that the DW tweeks are going in the right direction, for the most part the changes they make actually do add to the game rather than keep it neutral or make it worse unlike the AC series, I'm just saying that I don't deny that fundamentally the DW games are all very much alike.

>.> there was one change in DW 7 that I absolutely hated though: no special horses in the campaign. Like I said, I really love the story, that's one of the main reasons why I happily play through it game after game after game. But to stick you with either walking on foot or having a bottom-of-the-barrel garbage horse in the campaign? That was a horrible idea! I fought my way through Conquest mode all the way to the bottom of the map to get the Red Hare and you can only use it in Conquest Mode. That really chapped my caboose...it takes forever and a day to get anywhere in the campaign, and there's way too many battles out there where you'll be all the way across the map and all of a sudden *AMBUSH!!!* and 6 guys are beating the crap out of your leader. You hurry back only for him to die because you couldn't get there in time. Would be nice if I had a horse that could actually run faster than I would walk... >.>
 

KungFuJazzHands

New member
Mar 31, 2013
309
0
0
Big_Willie_Styles said:
KungFuJazzHands said:
We as consumers need to face facts: IPs these days are made specifically to line pockets, and we're the ones willfully handing them the money.
And how is that a bad thing? It takes money to make new IPs. If said companies have investors (i.e. public companies,) they have to show profit. That's how American accounting standards work.
Look, if you can't see how the quest for higher profits can have a noticeably negative effect on the quality of any particular piece of long-running work, then I'm not sure exactly what that says about your personal taste in movies, music, video games, or art.

Profit over artistry is what gives us a constantly-flowing river of soggy shit like the Assassin Creed and Call of Duty series. It's what gives us brain-dead ADHD crap like the Transformers movies. It gives us the Twilight books. It gives us late-career Metallica. When ingenuity takes second stage to profit, the final creative result can suffer greatly.

Are there exceptions? obviously. But they are -- far and away -- the exceptions, not the rule.

The motive behind a game is to explore something, a new idea or new take on a character or whatever. The game requires, usually, some sort of investment to make. Said investors expect a return on said investment. That's just how things work. Without start up capital, a game never gets made.
Capital isn't the problem. Overbudgeting and unrealistic expectations on the part of shareholders are certainly issues, however.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Wenseph said:
tehpiemaker said:
Wenseph said:
It is ridiculous that the hobbit, a children's book much shorter than LoTR was turned into a freaking trilogy. I don't even care to watch it, because they're overdoing it. Simpsons should have ended long ago too.
Damn it, I hate it when people call The Hobbit a kids book. Have you even read it? Let me tell you that although it may not be as long or elaborate as the Lord of the Rings doesn't make it any less of a great story. Just because a game is rated E doesn't mean only children can play or like it. Lord of the Rings was thought to have been impossible to film before Peter Jackson adapted it and if anyone can do it for the Hobbit, he can.
I've read it twice. I called it a children's book because that's what it is. That's what it was written as, and marketed as. It doesn't matter what you think. It is a children's book. Although you clearly think less of things for children, doesn't mean everyone does.

Anyone could do the hobbit, without turning it into a trilogy.
If it's kids book regardless of what I say then I can take that logic and fire right back at you. It's not a kids regardless of what you say--regardless of anyone says. It doesn't matter what you "think". No, not anyone could do the hobbit. Or at least, not anyone could do it well. I don't think less of children's stories. In fact, I think every story, regardless of the age it is usually told, is in fact for all ages. My mother read the giving tree to me when I was young but she still cried at the story's end the most. I'll argue that I respect children stories more than you. The Hobbit is more accessible, not for children. And you're a child for thinking accessibility is a measure of what makes a story mature.
 

Rebel_Raven

New member
Jul 24, 2011
1,606
0
0
RJ 17 said:
Rebel_Raven said:
I'm not trying to come off as being hard on the series, as I've said a couple times now, I absolutely love it. In fact, it's the story itself that I love the most. Sadly I've never had a chance to get my hands on the actual novel, but back on the NES there was an RPG-like game called Destiny of an Emperor which is based off the 3 Kingdoms story. You start as Liu Bei with Guan Yu and Zhang Fei making the oath in the garden, you go on to fight the yellow turbans, and it basically follows Liu Bei's quest to bring peace to the land.

And it is true, all the changes do add up in the end. DW7 is VERY different than DW 4 because there's been time for the tweeks to pile up. But getting back to the point of this topic: look at the Assassin's Creed series. Sure, there's different things from game to game, but are any of the games really that different from one another? I'd argue that the DW tweeks are going in the right direction, for the most part the changes they make actually do add to the game rather than keep it neutral or make it worse unlike the AC series, I'm just saying that I don't deny that fundamentally the DW games are all very much alike.

>.> there was one change in DW 7 that I absolutely hated though: no special horses in the campaign. Like I said, I really love the story, that's one of the main reasons why I happily play through it game after game after game. But to stick you with either walking on foot or having a bottom-of-the-barrel garbage horse in the campaign? That was a horrible idea! I fought my way through Conquest mode all the way to the bottom of the map to get the Red Hare and you can only use it in Conquest Mode. That really chapped my caboose...it takes forever and a day to get anywhere in the campaign, and there's way too many battles out there where you'll be all the way across the map and all of a sudden *AMBUSH!!!* and 6 guys are beating the crap out of your leader. You hurry back only for him to die because you couldn't get there in time. Would be nice if I had a horse that could actually run faster than I would walk... >.>
The novel is avaliable for free in an online web page based version. Not sure I can link it here, but an internet search should unocover it.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in you not wanting to come off as hard on the series.

I grant you that the story mode retreads the same story, but in diffirent ways.

I agree with you that the tweaks in DW have piled up a lot over the years, and that they are going in the right direction. I'm not denying DW games, fundamentally, are the same, but I think it underselling all the changes that were made is a bit much.

Yeah, I think they changed that in 8 having seen Red Hare in gameplay vids, but that might just be free mode.
 

Matthi205

New member
Mar 8, 2012
248
0
0
Sequels are not inherently bad.
When you've got a story that you want to tell that is very long and interesting (upwards of 70-80 hours of gameplay), it makes sense to split it into 2 games. I don't get trilogies in this respect, but 2 games that tell one story seems OK to me. Anyhow, I'm thinking of a smaller development house that, after the first ~40 hours of gameplay are finished, needs money to come in to keep itself alive.

This doesn't make sense with big dev houses and publishers like EA and Ubisoft though... it really doesn't. Those two are companies that can take a risk, and they should, seeing as their stock market value is dwindling. They've got tons of money they could give to developers to develop good games to sell, broadening the audience they can reach (more different games means more genres get covered, not just action-adventure) and the audience that plays and enjoys playing games. Further, they could thus risk making games that don't sell very well, because some other games are bound to become popular.

Getting back to my original point now. Sequels aren't inherently bad, but a needlessly drawn-out story with a shit ending is (See Mass Effect for that, without the padding and with good mechanics from the start, the game would be an enjoyable 50 hours long[footnote]Please don't get me wrong - I love all the Mass Effect games. There are just some things about them that I need to get off my chest. I'll probably do a review some time, when I can actually play the complete ME series back-to-back so I can actually rate the story as a whole, and not just as the parts I remember + the parts I replayed[/footnote] ).

I find that a sequel that explores a well-made world with a different character and a whole new story is very interesting and very much enjoyable, because it presents us not only with a new story, but a new story in a universe whose rules we know, that has locations we know about and are happy to revisit again, and a story that actually has some fucking closure. Also a smaller, self-contained story means that the focus must be on the characters, forcing devs to give us some interesting characters again and also giving us an opportunity to experience the game's world from a completely different perspective.
I don't mean the Bioshock 2 way of doing it. More like the Bioshock:Infinite way of doing it. It must always be the same team doing the sequel in this case, and it's actually better if it's more tangentially related to the story of the first game than directly following it or asking for prior knowledge of the first game's events.

Another good way to do sequels is the Far Cry way of doing it. Making games with more or less common mechanics and a common theme, but with a new story and a new location every game. It is interesting, allowing people to immediately recognise what the game is about in today's "action-adventure" genre. It is easy to say that this type of sequel is not very good too, but I think it's quite the opposite: The gameplay is more polished and enjoyable every game, and this type of sequel gives the artists and writers a chance to explore a broader concept with as many different approaches to making a story or environment design as they please.
 

brazuca

New member
Jun 11, 2008
275
0
0
I have a game for you: FarCry and GTA, well that is in fact two games. You get the point right? It's about branding. I know what I get in Farcry series. Open world shooters. I know what I get with GTA open world crime dramas. The sequel is not the issue. The bad using is not even an issue. I agree with you that the issue is doing a game to be a sequel without that game even being on the market. It is like saying Universal transformed Fast and Furius in a franchise due to the quality of it's first two movies.
 

V TheSystem V

New member
Sep 11, 2009
996
0
0
That is what irritated me about BioShock. It was an amazing game, with a gripping story throughout and a satisfying enough ending for Rapture. We saw Fontaine die, we saw the Little Sisters being saved, and we saw our character escape the 'utopia' which had been a piece of his past and the place that had prospered and had fallen underneath all its ambition. All of that was explored, all of that was discovered by the gamer and there was no need to go back there. Yes, I would have been happy to see how Rapture fell, but it was unnecessary because we all know how Rapture fell.

Instead, 2K commissioned a sequel. Not a prequel like what was wanted by the fans, but a sequel. It was unnecessary due to the ending of the first one, and the story just wasn't interesting because, I repeat, of the first one. It was an intriguing idea, stepping into the boots of a Big Daddy, but it was one we experienced a bit of in the first game, and it wasn't a concept which could have carried over well to a full game. They improved the gameplay, I will give Irrational that, but it wasn't a good game. It was not what the BioShock fans (from what I could see) wanted from the franchise following the first one. This kinda reminds me of Jim's video about the perfect pasta sauce - people were intrigued about how the Big Daddy came to be, or liked the idea of controlling one, so they took that idea (and not the prequel idea and made a game out of it...THROWING IN MULTIPLAYER.

However, BioShock Infinite exists, and for that I am grateful. It is an exception to the rule, as it doesn't explore Rapture, but a different city. It takes the franchise name and goes to different places with it. Hell, it could have lost the name and could have been something else, and it would have still been as amazing as I believe it to be. It wasn't a sequel, but something that took place in the vein of the original. It worked, which is more than I can say for BioShock 2.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Imp Emissary said:
Side note about the argument Jim;
MovieBob did an Overthinker episode a while ago about while things are getting more expensive in the video game industry. He noted like you that it's part of it greed in the industry, and the consumer eating it up then asking for more. However, most of what he talked about was the part of it I don't hear about most often.
I could point out that if the game developers are doing it,
and the gamers are going for it It's rather patronizing of jim to say "there's a problem."

I understand Jim's point. But again I intend to agree with him most of the time.
I am one of Jim's sheep (and proudly so).

If the people making the game want to make sequels, and people want sequels,
on the other hand,
what are you gonna do? He makes a fantastic well made point, but that won't even get
you seconds at the soup line. What can we the fans do?
stop asking for sequels even though we want them?

who's patronizing who.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Fappy said:
Oh come on Jim, you can't even pretend the taste of jizz would make you gag ;D

I mean, what is a god that cannot stomach the taste of his own seed?

Amirite?
maybe it's his diet.
(Feel free to call that a troll, and not look on why that might be a valid response lol).
 

PcaKes

New member
Jul 8, 2013
18
0
0
Movies are JUST as bad and I hate it. I DON'T NEED A SEQUEL TO FINDING NEMO. I DON'T NEED A SEQUEL TO THE LAST OF US.
 

Imp_Emissary

Mages Rule, and Dragons Fly!
Legacy
Aug 9, 2020
2,315
1
3
Country
United States
Magog1 said:
Imp Emissary said:
Side note about the argument Jim;
MovieBob did an Overthinker episode a while ago about while things are getting more expensive in the video game industry. He noted like you that it's part of it greed in the industry, and the consumer eating it up then asking for more. However, most of what he talked about was the part of it I don't hear about most often.
I could point out that if the game developers are doing it,
and the gamers are going for it It's rather patronizing of jim to say "there's a problem."

I understand Jim's point. But again I intend to agree with him most of the time.
I am one of Jim's sheep (and proudly so).

If the people making the game want to make sequels, and people want sequels,
on the other hand,
what are you gonna do? He makes a fantastic well made point, but that won't even get
you seconds at the soup line. What can we the fans do?
stop asking for sequels even though we want them?

who's patronizing who.
Firstly; I see what ya mean, and as for what's wrong with it? Well, you saw today's Jimquisition.
Sequels aren't always bad. Hell, sometimes a bad game can get a sequel that is really great. Jim's saying that the developers should be making the games because they want to, and they think the players will find it fun.

The problem with having all new games be the first of a line of sequels is that it is limiting. You always have to put a lot of money into them so you can make it good, and get sales(not always the amount of money they put into some AAA games, but even the ones made on a budget need a lot of money). This can lead to them always playing it safe because if they take a risk, and fail, they'll be screwed.

It's also limiting from a story perspective. You always have to end the games so that you can have another one after it.

Again, Jim's point isn't that there should never be any sequels, but having ALL games made for sequels is a bad idea.
Having all games have sequels, and having no games have sequels are both bad ideas because they both limit what you can do with the game and story.
As for what we, the fans, can do? We can tell the people in charge that we don't like what they're doing, and make a fuss.

Secondly.
Because I only know one sheep here at the Escapist. I demand a test to prove yourself!
Kill these lambs to prove you are a real sheep!
 

Roman Monaghan

New member
Nov 20, 2010
101
0
0
I disagree on The Last Of Us point. I've seen nothing but condemnation at the idea of a sequel and flat out pleading for Naughty Dog to let the story end where it ended. From what I saw that game is one of the few times the idea of a sequel seems flat out scarey to us.

I'm also amused by just how long the Dynasty Warriors footage lasted at the end there. It's like Jim wanted to show off how much fun he's been having with DW 8 or something XD
 

Fiairflair

Polymath
Oct 16, 2012
94
0
0
Article said:
Art and business, despite what they tell you, aren't mutually exclusive. Not until they make it that way.
This is the lesson learned. Many gaming stories deserve multiple games, just like many written stories work best in a trilogy or extended series (take The Lord of The Rings or A Song of Ice and Fire). But imagine a book publisher declaring that they wouldn't even consider printing your material unless you left your ending open. Almost every classic would have been lost to us were this to have been the mainstream publishing bias.

The story is what brings me to any form of entertainment. Profit may be paramount but diversity is fundamental.
 

FinalHeart95

New member
Jun 29, 2009
2,164
0
0
I think that if a company goes into a series knowing exactly how it will play out, then planning sequels beforehand is okay. Assuming they do it for artistic reasons and not just out of greed.
This said, I would be lying if I said that a lot of games I really enjoy are unnecessary sequels. The Kingdom Hearts series has many sequels they most certainly haven't planned on since over ten years ago, yet I love them. Fallout New Vegas is pretty awesome, even if the use of "Fallout" is unnecessary. Things like that.
I'm also cautious about the upcoming inFamous game, however. inFamous 2 had the perfect ending, and I can't help but feel that they're going to ruin it.
 
Jan 27, 2011
3,741
0
0
People are asking for a sequel to The Last of Us?!?! ARE THEY HIGH?! The story wrapped up really nicely, why would they want a sequel?! I mean, you can't even make an indirect sequel since the whole world is kinda...not that special when you think about it.

Seriously anyone asking for a sequel to the last of us insane or has no idea what they're asking for. What they SHOULD be asking for is more well crafted games with good stories. That will scratch the itch much more than a freakin sequel.

Also, the ending to this episode had me nearly rolling on the floor laughing. XD
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
I think the problem with sequels and prequels is that the developers forget the REASONS people liked the first game somewhere along the line in their pursuit of widespread appeal. They turn a game praised for it's horror elements into a bland action shooter, they turn a story driven RPG into a shooter, (they seem to turn EVERYTHING into a shooter) and so on. They miss why people bought the first game, as a result they alienate the fans, losing them as customers, and then because so many games are going to "widespread appeal" there's too much competition for it have much of a chance without an already stable fanbase to hold them up, and since they've destroyed that the game will only manage to do mediocre at best.

Really though, there's only 2 things that need to be done to make a good sequel/prequel:

1. Find out what most people liked about the last game(s) and keep it in as best as they can manage.

2. Find out what most people hated about the last game(s) and at least TRY to fix it.

The worst that can happen is they'll only make a game that was just as good as the last this way.

I've also never agreed with the idea that a game "doesn't have room" for a sequel/prequel, that the previous game(s) have tied up all the loose ends so there's nowhere for the future games to go from there. All that idea shows is a lack of imagination on the part of the audience, nothing more.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
So, Jim, when are you going to get a decent camera and a backdrop that doesn't suck?

The things you say are pretty good, but the technical execution is just terrible,,, is that supposed to be part of the shtick? It really doesn't add anything.
 

Scars Unseen

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
3,028
0
0
I don't even think that games designed to have sequels are bad by default. Sure, sometimes it's just a company milking their audience, but that's not always the case. Look at the Legacy of Kain series. Blood Omen 2 aside, each of those games was a wonderfully fun game(assuming you like puzzles), but what made the series stand out for its time was the voice acting(of which it was one of only a handful of good examples at the time) and the storytelling. That series just would not have been as good had it just stopped at Blood Omen.
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
Deathfish15 said:
Here's a list of sequel spewing series that need to die:

-Call of Duty

-Battlefield

-Diablo

-Starcraft

-Assassin's Creed

-Tomb Raider

-Fallout

-Grand Theft Auto

-Total War

-Halo

-Killzone

-

-<insert anything with "Mario" here>

-Sonic

-Crysis

-Final Fantasy
What? StarCraft? They only made 2 games in the last 15 years.
 

DRTJR

New member
Aug 7, 2009
651
0
0
OI! I loved the fact that they made the Hobbit into three movies to better showcase everything that both happened in the Hobbit and around the Hobbit in middle earth. Harry Potter and the deathly Hallows P1 and P2 would have been a better example of what you were talking about, Or Twilight. I not only own but ADORE the extended cut of the LotR movie(Because it is one giant movie) and all I wanted was the book made into movie form, and it mostly delivered.
 

Hippogriff

New member
Apr 11, 2013
6
0
0
synobal said:
Personally I think Studios should not be attached so much of creating squeals but instead creating new games with in the same setting. Unfortunately this means a lot of times they will be tempted to do the same thing again and again rather than explore new aspects of the setting.
You. You are what I have been trying to say for YEARS.
I like Deus Ex: HR for instance. But I don't want to see Adam Jensen shoehorned into the plot of a 'sequel' of the game. But I would love for there to be a sequel.
Something that uses the same world, that looks into transhumanism. Something that allows for a cyber-hacker-assassin-y bit of fun with some gunplay. I'm all down for that.
Hell, use the same engine. Use old resources, I don't care. Just engage me and make me interested in your world and story. Throw a couple extra augments at me if you must to keep people happy.

So many games could do this, and I honestly can't think of many that do it. How about making one world in story and gameplay, then use that same world over many games, with completely different stories, aims and genres. In one game, you're a racecar driver in illegal street racing. Another game comes out, you're a corporate spy stealing secrets, using underground contacts who may very well be in contact with underground racing. And not even the same 'circuit' the last game was in, but merely tangentially related. We can then use that to describe the world further. And so on, and so forth..

This is in essence why I'm interested in the new Mass Effect. I'm already substantially invested in the world, I'm familiar with the basic ideas and rules behind it. But only from the viewpoint of Mister Awesomepants Shepard. Only from a very singular combat style, with power, and a very straightfoward aim.
If the next one had us as in a completely different combat style it would be interesting in gameplay terms at least. And if they had us as not all-powerful beyond-the-law secret agents it would allow us to see the universe through different eyes.
I'm really hoping Bioware are doing something like this, but who wants to bet it'll have near-identical mechanics with a single new feature shoved in our faces?
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
Cecilo said:
Though I doubt Jim will see this I would have a question for him.

Is creating a world, and then creating multiple games inside that world acceptable? Like, Sword of the Stars, it created it's own universe, lore, backstory etc. First Two games, (Not including the expansions) Were 4X games, Third game, Sword of the Stars The Pit was a Roguelike set in Sword of the Stars, included lore, artwork that made it fit, the story for the game fit in with the rest of the lore.

Is that acceptable, because it is still kind of milking the fans of the series, sure it isn't the same game once it goes to the Pit. It tried new things, and they made a profit off of it as a standalone game, but would it be bad if companies started doing that. Let's say. Assassin's Creed. More games set in that universe. But instead of being an action game about stabbing templars, you are now commanding squads of Assassins or Templars in a Dawn of War 2 style. Would that make the Assassin's Creed series okay? Since it is no longer just rehashing the same game over and over?
For me it all comes down to creative justification. I love the idea of a world in which many stories can be told, if they're good stories, and the world can support them. Likewise, I'm happy to get a sequel with good artistic reasoning behind it.

All these things -- franchises, expansions, spirital followups, multiple stories in one universe -- are terrific, so long as the motivation for doing them comes from a place where cynicism isn't the primary factor.
I don't see any cynicism coming from Ubisoft; I thought they exude passion for an enjoyable gameplay experience in everything they put out. I'm not opposed to sequels when a game is meant to be part of a series of games from the get go. This is why I don't get the hate for Assassin's Creed on this thread. So maybe the Ezio portion of the series didn't need to be stretched out into 3 games, but the point is people played them and liked them enough to buy and play the next game in the series. I do hate it when sequels are needlessly cranked out and disregard anything we liked about the series story-arcs [glares menacingly at God of War and Call of Duty, which I though Jim defended once], so I don't get how Bioshock Infinite is a sequel to the first game at all.
 

Looming_Shadows

New member
Jun 21, 2012
41
0
0
Great episode, although it did feel a little repetitious on some points, I believe it hits spot on with the reality of the situation!
 

Scars Unseen

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
3,028
0
0
Darth_Payn said:
Deathfish15 said:
Here's a list of sequel spewing series that need to die:

-Call of Duty

-Battlefield

-Diablo

-Starcraft

-Assassin's Creed

-Tomb Raider

-Fallout

-Grand Theft Auto

-Total War

-Halo

-Killzone

-

-<insert anything with "Mario" here>

-Sonic

-Crysis

-Final Fantasy
What? StarCraft? They only made 2 games in the last 15 years.
Actually I feel that, while not on the same level as Call of Duty or any of the EA Sports games, Starcraft deserves at least a bit of scorn for breaking up Starcraft 2 into three games. I refuse to buy any of those until there is a "Starcraft 2 Battlechest" on discount.

I do take issue with a few titles on that list though.

Diablo 3 may be shit, but I'd hardly call any series with 12 years between titles "sequel spewing."

Fallout's sequels each are distinct enough from each other that I'd hardly say it's being milked either.

Total War certainly has a lot of titles under its belt, but again, the differences between each title(such as location and era) as well as the nature of strategy games makes me give the series a pass.

Mario needs a change in direction at least, but telling Nintendo not to make sequels is like... umm... telling a person to do a thing they aren't going to do.

Likewise, someone needs to punch the Final Fantasy team in the teeth and tell them to stop making shit games, but each game is different enough from the last that being sequels isn't the problem.
 

Looming_Shadows

New member
Jun 21, 2012
41
0
0
Deathfish15 said:
Certain games should get sequels and certain games should not. Binary Domain is an example of one that left a semi-cliffhanger out of the ending, but was still a great enough story plot to not have a follow up.


The problem with the AAA market right now is that every other game, they decide to make a new engine ($$$), new character models ($$), hire new voice actors ($$$), conduct a symphony for the sound track ($$$), and get as many story writers as possible ($$$). But with all that, where's the game? You see the problem, right? There's no game there, it's basically the set up for a new movie that is "one-sitting and done"


I will say this: some sequels do it right. Guild Wars 2 took much of the background story, the character models, races, and the like...and then built on from there. However, it's still a completely different game with a different type of mechanics, newer style gameplay. Though many of the old game's fans [like Jim said] had demanded a sequel to be just like the first, the developers said "no" and went a completely different route. And it works. And it's good.


Here's a list of sequel spewing series that need to die:

-Call of Duty

-Battlefield

-Diablo

-Starcraft

-Assassin's Creed

-Tomb Raider

-Fallout

-Grand Theft Auto

-Total War

-Halo

-Killzone

-

-<insert anything with "Mario" here>

-Sonic

-Crysis

-Final Fantasy

Although I agree with you on most games, FUCKING GTA?! Fallout (it's a miracle you didn't add The Elder Scrolls)?! These games frankly get better 100 fold with each new installment
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
/Applause

That rant was superb, forget the issues the delivery was really impressive. Several minutes of a clear and well enunciated statement filled with great analogies and enough swearing to hammer the point home, how he did it and managed to breath I do not know and the pacing was also superb. Jim really is a master of ranting, he was also spot on with everything he said.

Thank God for Jim.
 

PunkRex

New member
Feb 19, 2010
2,533
0
0
Deathfish15 said:
Here's a list of sequel spewing series that need to die:

-Call of Duty

-Battlefield

-Diablo

-Starcraft

-Assassin's Creed

-Tomb Raider

-Fallout

-Grand Theft Auto

-Total War

-Halo

-Killzone

-

-<insert anything with "Mario" here>

-Sonic

-Crysis

-Final Fantasy
But I LIKE the Mario RPG's and I loved the crap out of Fallout 3 and would gladly play another. Jims point was that the buisness practice of pumping out stock sequels needs to stop, not that already milked francises need to die.
 

GrimHeaper

New member
Jun 1, 2010
1,012
0
0
synobal said:
Personally I think Studios should not be attached so much of creating squeals but instead creating new games with in the same setting. Unfortunately this means a lot of times they will be tempted to do the same thing again and again rather than explore new aspects of the setting.
Oh you mean like stuff like Mario does?
Yea it's a good idea, but people complain anyway.
Wilco86 said:
God how I love Bayonetta, and when I say that I kinda dislike the idea of Bayonetta 2 people usually say that it's because I don't have a Wii U. Well, for me the first Bayonetta ended with a perfect upbeat note and I think the sequel has more to lose than to win;

I prefer coolheaded Jeanne way over Bayonetta as a character, so maybe they do something nasty to Jeanne to force Bayonetta to a new adventure. Is there anything *reasonable* (yeah, right!) to challenge Bayonetta after she demolished friggin' Creator and the Four Virtues?

I did not ask for a sequel, but I understand those who do. It's just that I'm a bit worried for the setting of my favourite PS3 game...

PS: But I'll be getting the Wii U when Bayonetta 2's release date gets closer.
If you fought Balder and understand the creator wasn't at full power you should understand.
 

jpoon

New member
Mar 26, 2009
1,995
0
0
Excellent vid Jim, and spot-on yet again you jizz eating genious!
 

Don Incognito

New member
Feb 6, 2013
281
0
0
There are sequels, and then there are "sequels".

Some franchises are set in the same world, but the games themselves have almost nothing to do with one another (Fallout, TES).

Some are games without stories at all, but simply franchises that have new mechanics each iteration (think strategy titles, like Civilization or Total War).

Then there are franchises that have no new ideas each subsequent iteration (spunkgargleweewee).
 

spiffleh

New member
Jul 12, 2010
167
0
0
As always an excellent point. I think the easy way for game companies to cash in on "sequels" while still having fully contained stories.. go the Final Fantasy route. Don't make a true sequel. Reuse the name, while making a game that has the same appeal (story, gameplay, setting etc.) Of course this requires a development team and publisher who are willing to listen to their audience and ask specifically what the main draw was instead of "This game had multiplayer and was successful. People must always want multiplayer!"

As for this video, I do think you repeated yourself a lot here. I get repetition is important for getting a point across but 9 minutes was a taaad long.
 

Bobic

New member
Nov 10, 2009
1,532
0
0
Wenseph said:
It is ridiculous that the hobbit, a children's book much shorter than LoTR was turned into a freaking trilogy. I don't even care to watch it, because they're overdoing it.
Doesn't that seem a bit daft? You can't judge it if you haven't actually watched it, your opinion is meaningless (and in fact, no one can really judge if it deserves to be a trilogy because only the first third has been released so far). I thought the same thing when they first announced it. But then I saw it. I expected crappyness, but it didn't drag, and certainly didn't seem padded, also, they seem to be tying it to the Lord Of The Rings a lot more than J.R.R.Tolkien did in the original novels, which means new story-points to be added. Honestly, it was a really great, cheery, fun film. I also think it should be noted that, though the books may be massively different in size, that's mostly due to different writing styles. It takes more words for Frodo to get from Hobbiton to Rivendell than it does Bilbo to complete his entire journey.

So please, at least watch the damned film(s) before tarring it with the same brush as Ubisoft's stupidity.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
I'm a fan of the Twisted Metal series, it has 8 games in it so far and I want them to keep doing sequels. Twisted Metal is incredibly easy to justify a sequel with. It's another year, another tournament. If you can't justify Sweet Tooth still being in the tournament then make it a reboot/spin-off (there's been 3 so far). I don't mind.

Meanwhile I also like God of War and I really wish Sony would end it already. Just end it before it becomes a milked to death corpse, the story and character arcs have suffered enough abuse. If it's too painful then I have an idea. Make a new franchise that's like God of War, set it in Egyptian mythology (or Norse, or whatever), have a new protagonist that isn't Kratos, and have Sony Santa Monica make it so you can say 'from the creators of God of War' in the marketing. There.
 

RobfromtheGulag

New member
May 18, 2010
931
0
0
Back in the day I'd fear that this sort of thing was going on. Now sadly, I'm certain of it.

Silent Hill. What a great game. 2 was good too, what a larf. Now look at the IP. Dragon Age? Bioshock seems to have resurfaced after the panning 2 took, but all in all I agree I wish they could leave successful releases alone if a sequel wasn't warranted. Everyone I talk to would have enjoyed Matrix more if it were standalone.
 

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
Well it's good to hear it again, though we've been through this many times. Heck, I brought this up when Blizzard or Cashtivision decided to make the Starcraft 2 campaign across three different packs.

Now do an episode about how game developers are trying to imitate movies, when we all know games are better than movies and should aim to teach us everything in subtle ways.
 

Redd the Sock

New member
Apr 14, 2010
1,088
0
0
It's not that we demand sequels over IPs. I've never run into anyone that didn't seem to think new series coming out wasn't a good idea. It's just that when the new IP and "popular game n+1" comes out, guess what sells. A new IP needs 3 heaps helpings of hype and a popular developer to do serious numbers. It's small wonder someone would rather slap Final Fantasy on the cover and let the name do the work.
 

Mangue Surfer

New member
May 29, 2010
364
0
0
I agree with Ubisoft's vision. For me it is as valid as any other. Some will just bet big, all or nothing. Others will grow slowly. We have those who only want to experience. I don't see why they need justify their style. Life is this way.
 

TheUnbeholden

New member
Dec 13, 2007
193
0
0
I cannot believe that Ubisoft is so completely out of touch with reality that they seriously believe their own patter. Everybody has to work on a budget, Ubisofts answer to game design is "throw more money at it" that does not make a great game, that only guarantees that the game will be "alright", "middle of the line", "passable but not offensive". You have to know your demographic and come up with a safe budget to work on. That way even if you don't meet a sensible expected sales outcome, you've still made some profit... and ended up with a better project because you made the best you could with the limitations imposed.

If they seriously believe that spending millions of dollars on a game is "necessary", so much so that you cannot make a single game without hiring multiple famous hollywood actors, tons of advertising, and plan for sequels before you've even finished making the game, then they are deluded idiots.
The key to making money is to know you're audience, in particular the size of your audience. You'll never get COD or Madden sized sales, so trying to shoot for it is only dooming yourself, the creativity of your team, and the audience that have to play something that has streamlined mechanics, no personality but a amalgamation of the shit we've played before. Critics may or may not eat it up, but people already know which critics are the ones they trust. People are much more aware of games and the developers behind them then ever before. Thanks to the internet. You can't be saying stupid things or making the same mistakes over and over again.

Ubisoft has reached a point where they don't care anymore about anybody but themselves, and they also don't care how they look. That's how bad they've gotten.

Mangue Surfer said:
I agree with Ubisoft's vision. For me it is as valid as any other. Some will just bet big, all or nothing. Others will grow slowly. We have those who only want to experience. I don't see why they need justify their style. Life is this way.
They are saying much more than just "betting big". They said that they can't make single games... that is far more ridiculous a statement then the vague philosophy you outlined. It implies that Ubisoft say that you can't make good money while working on a budget. Or that the rising costs of game development is something you just have to jump on board with.. hollywood stars and ads are a must have thing. It's bullshit.

A big company can make COD while also making a Hotline Miami on the side with a smaller development team. It's about time that triple A developers started getting indie branches to their studio's. Smaller more focused dev teams that work on creativity and testing rather just a huge project that can make or break the devs. Such a team could influence the bigger dev by showing what works and what doesn't. It also brings in new talent from the outside (which helps pretty much every industry), the indie team may also bring a greater focus on audience based feedback (public beta's ect), rather than unreliable focus groups.
 

Grabehn

New member
Sep 22, 2012
630
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
I like to see Shadow of the Colossus and ICO cited but I'm not sure they deserve to? Shadow was marketed as a "spiritual prequel" to ICO after all. And Sony's making Last Guardian, the third in a trilogy of similarly-themed games. So why cite them as examples of one-off stand-alone games, Jim?
Most likely because, while they are considered "spiritual" sequels, they are not direct sequels, they're not the same game again and gain with a different excuse of a twist for the plot to go on.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
KungFuJazzHands said:
Look, if you can't see how the quest for higher profits can have a noticeably negative effect on the quality of any particular piece of long-running work, then I'm not sure exactly what that says about your personal taste in movies, music, video games, or art.

Profit over artistry is what gives us a constantly-flowing river of soggy shit like the Assassin Creed and Call of Duty series. It's what gives us brain-dead ADHD crap like the Transformers movies. It gives us the Twilight books. It gives us late-career Metallica. When ingenuity takes second stage to profit, the final creative result can suffer greatly.

Are there exceptions? obviously. But they are -- far and away -- the exceptions, not the rule.

Capital isn't the problem. Overbudgeting and unrealistic expectations on the part of shareholders are certainly issues, however.
Once again, you're ignoring the whole point of public companies. Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, they're all public companies. Their first responsibility is to their shareholders, which means profit and growth.

"Profit over artistry" is what happens with public companies. Small boutique gaming companies have the ability to pursue artistry all they want, since they're not big enough yet. But once a company goes public, profit is the name of the game.

Millions of dollars to make a game must return on such an investment of capital. If a game doesn't, people get fired. The game company that helped make "Playstation All Stars Battle Royale" even got dissolved.

No, the expectations of shareholders is not a problem. That's the first thing a company needs to concern itself with if a public company. Or you don't have shareholders very much longer and you're filing for bankruptcy.

Overbudgeting can be a problem, yes, which is why public video game companies rarely have problems with that as much as the big AAA developers who aren't that yet. Nintendo is "safer" than, say, Bethesda, because Nintendo is a public company.
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
I feel with the Last of Us, it can have sequels(many if they wish) however each would have to focus on a different character(s)
The story of the two main protags is over.
However what's to say the other inhabitants of that world don't have a compelling story of their own?
That's the kind of thing I'm missing. There are games that are so ripe with telling a story of a different character within the same universe but they never do it.

Heck, it's why I've put up so much with Pokemon.
Yeah, it's basically the same. Then again I play it for the new monsters. however each installment is basically self contained.
There are no illusions to past characters or organizations.(with the exception of Team Rocket) so it leaves them with the ability to make each new version whatever the fuck they want because they don't have an obligation to keep specific characters running.
Despite Prof. Oak

On that note, this video really does have me thinking about Mass Effect 4 now.
The game that was a trilogy that ended in a sour note is now just going to be milked until it's sucked dry.
I have no clue what they are going to do in their next installment.
All I know is that there is going to be a lot of paid under the table bullshit positive reviews and disappointment.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Deathfish15 said:
Here's a list of sequel spewing series that need to die:

-Tomb Raider
Why?

The latest Tomb Raider is COMPLETELY different from the last nine. Heck, I'd go so far as to say it's more original than some original properties.

And why Starcraft? Sure, it may be a money-spawner, but it also has a huge narrative that I'm enjoying following that needs multiple games to be fully told (because I prefer my campaigns to be less than 200 hours long).

Reading some of these comments, I get the feeling that some people have confused "make it a franchise or die" with "have any sequels at all", and have thus picked up the baby and heaved it out the window, sprinkling bathwater after it.
 

ZexionSephiroth

New member
Apr 7, 2011
242
0
0
Hmm...

After watching, I've been thinking about things like "Unconventional Sequels", which range from a Separate Story with the same world and/or characters, to neither if you're Final Fantasy.

That way, you can wrap up one story and go headlong into another later. Provided your world and/or Characters exist in a state where Another Disaster can happen, and the Heroes can do something about it.

Basically this would make the Sequels as good as Standalone Stories in thier own right. The last story being Wrapped up in a fairly neat little bundle while they continue on with a mostly unrelated Adventure.

That is... If your Story, characters and World can actually support all this...

...

One Variant that follows the pattern and could work, is having the "powers" or whatever for the world come into existence in the first game and be useful to most characters, refuse to end after the Big demon or whatever is slain. And in the sequel, deal with life with Powers after the Demon, with a focus on a more "Human" enemy that wants to use the powers to take over the nation.

No Specific link is there between the Demon and the Tyrant, The Demon's Story is done and Wrapped up, and the Tyrant is completely unrelated. The Thing that follows through is the Powers, Characters and World. With a possible chance to look at how life has changed between the two games.

...

Of course... As mentioned before, your world kinda has to be set up so that major things can, and often do happen. To the point that such stories may as well be about an Adventuring Guild, which essentially makes your Heroes Mercenaries.

...Which I doubt everyone is too keen to have in every story. Even though I would really like it.
 

The Feast

New member
Apr 5, 2013
61
0
0
DRTJR said:
OI! I loved the fact that they made the Hobbit into three movies to better showcase everything that both happened in the Hobbit and around the Hobbit in middle earth. Harry Potter and the deathly Hallows P1 and P2 would have been a better example of what you were talking about, Or Twilight. I not only own but ADORE the extended cut of the LotR movie(Because it is one giant movie) and all I wanted was the book made into movie form, and it mostly delivered.
I agree, I don't really understand why people want The Hobbit to be just a single movie. Honestly, if I really want to adapting the book to just one movie, especially with the success of the LOTR trilogy, it will probably feel like a fan made movie that people never even want to mention anymore, and they will probably want more, especially about the book that explores more Middle Earth.

I don't want just to watch the Hobbit like a 'movie', I got plenty of those kind movies to think it that way. For example, a recent movie that based on a book, World War Z, how quickly it have being diminished on for being just a typical movie, because the people who make it want it that way. Other people may watch the The Hobbit and thinking it for being too long, well I don't and I want more.
 

mad825

New member
Mar 28, 2010
3,379
0
0
So, jim, you give The Last of us a 10/10 and you weren't expecting a sequel? lolwut? You know better.
 

Igor Yakovina

New member
Jul 23, 2013
1
0
0
Big fan of the show, first time commenting.

I'm normally in support of the points you make on the show, Jim. Usually there's an unambiguously illegal or at least unethical problem in the videogaming community and you take a passionate and humorous stance. This time, though, I really don't understand the vitriol. Here's my thinking, and please let me know if I'm off the mark.

Ubisoft has decided to make games with tremendous budgets. So much so, that it can't really support one story games. That might not be the most practical idea, but there's nothing outwardly harmful about that, is there? In order to make money back from these high-budget games, they've decided to hedge their bets and make all future content into series/sequels. Again, if it's wise to continue a story after a certain point may be questionable, but it's their game and their right to expand it if they want.

Believe me, I fully understand that most of the more poignant stories in any media come from self-contained books/movies/games. I get that. I just don't see why it's so wrong to decide not to do that. Not every game has to be art, and even you said sequels can be fun.

Someone mentioned Ubisoft's decision was like a hotdog stand that refuses to sell burgers, even if they'd make a profit. I like burgers, but I don't see why I should be angry if Ubisoft stops selling them. I should just go somewhere that does.
 

Balkan

New member
Sep 5, 2011
211
0
0
That's why I think that the industry should have more big names rather than brands. Everyone got exited about Bioshock Infinite, but was that the case with Bioshock 2?
 

Metalrocks

New member
Jan 15, 2009
2,406
0
0
at times i think about canceling my pre order of watchdogs and maybe even AC4. a game can be fine and all that but forcing every franchise to be a sequel means mostly bad news.
so far max payne did an amazing job that every game was really good and explained the story very well and still provides great gameplay. and of course half life.
sequels are all fine, dont see a problem there either but with ubisoft, i have some concerns. i already gave up with the GTA series since SA, dint bother to keep playing splinter cell since part 3.

some games need sequels to tell the story more in to detail, as long they dont screw it up like capcom with dino crisis 2 and 3.
 

Piorn

New member
Dec 26, 2007
1,097
0
0
The reason I gave up on AC was because I got tricked into buying the same game 3 times. I can't be arsed to support this any longer. I can understand why they do it though, any salesman would cream his pants over the thought of selling the same product to the same person multiple times.

Sure, they need their cash cows, I just find it paradoxical that the most reliable enjoyment I get from video games are indies and smaller developers.
You'd think all the CoDs and whatever would be able to support a medium-sized Dead Space Sequel that was actually survival horror.
 

Superior Mind

New member
Feb 9, 2009
1,537
0
0
To be fair the reason the consumer base starts asking for or suggesting sequels is because its expected now. People ask and explore what would happen in a sequel because we're conditioned to believe that one's coming.
 

Bat Vader

New member
Mar 11, 2009
4,996
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
Lilani said:
Lightknight said:
So you're saying he doesn't, in fact, like money anymore?
No, I'm saying he has access to so many ways of gaining obscene amounts of money that he didn't have to spend another three years exhaustively tramping across huge uninhabited swathes of New Zealand in order to get it. If money was all he was after, he has many easier and faster ways of getting it than three Hobbit movies produced on the same scale as LotR.

Johnny Novgorod said:
Yes, it all makes sense, in a technical, hand-wavy sort of way ("Oh, Legolas would be around", "Oh, we should show Gandalf's actions, even though we could not and let him be the mysterious character he was written as", "Oh, we could totally stretch every single setpiece to turn an adventure story into an action story"). I can't get over the fact how unimportant Bilbo, The Hobbit, is. I love Martin Freeman as Bilbo but he's pushed aside for the most part even though he's supposed to be the main protagonist and narrator of the story bearing his name. We see more of Legolas and "Tauriel" in the new trailer than we do of Bilbo. And speaking of the trailer - they show they're going as far as Bilbo stepping into Smaug's lair. So what's the third movie going to be about? 170 minutes of the Battle of the Five Armies, which Bilbo totally didn't miss in the novel?
Again, a lot of the LotR stuff was treated this way. Hell, they even gave totally different characters different lines in LotR. They moved the Old Man Willow scene to the Fangorn so that Treebeard could recite a few of Tom Bombadil's lines, in order to pay tribute to that event. That was not only the wrong place and wrong character, but also the wrong film since that was in the Two Towers, and Tom Bombadil should have been in Fellowship.

While I also adore Martin Freeman as Bilbo, I don't feel he was neglected at all. Yes the Council of Elrond took up time, but it was used to explain how he and the dwarves got out of Rivendell even though Elrond wasn't going to allow them to go on. Yes it took them a while to get out of Goblin Town, but how else could they have stripped that down? They had to fight their way out, and it wasn't as though they were near a door. And then Bilbo's role in the battle against the wolves was greatly increased from what it was in the book. In the book, the eagles basically hear the racket they were making and pick them out of the trees. But in the movie, they had Bilbo fight to make the finale about him and to finish his arc with Thorin. While a lot of the story wasn't about Bilbo, they made sure both the beginning and end were all centered around him.
What about the third film though? Bilbo is already confronting Smaug in the second movie. What do we have left? Lake Town and 5 Armies? Seems like a stretch. I predict the movie will be 50% filler.
I'm assuming that it will pry show the battle of the five armies and then also show what happens between the end of The Hobbit and the beginning of the Fellowship of The Ring.

On Topic: I get that games are expensive to make but at the same time though many indie developers have made fun, interesting, and good story driven games with pretty low budgets. Heck, look at the VN Katawa Shoujo. They spent all those years making it and when it was done they gave it away for free. I think both developers and publishers can start lowering the budgets for their games and still release great games. A game that doesn't need a sequel that gets a sequel is pretty annoying.

I gotta say though releasing one shot games are good but at the same time they can also backfire like with Heavy Rain. Loved the gameplay but the plot holes and the lying David Cage did about the endings in it really kinda made me judge it harshly.
 

Dryk

New member
Dec 4, 2011
981
0
0
synobal said:
Personally I think Studios should not be attached so much of creating squeals but instead creating new games with in the same setting. Unfortunately this means a lot of times they will be tempted to do the same thing again and again rather than explore new aspects of the setting.
It really bugs me that we've been spending so much time and money on world building as a society and doing absolutely nothing with it. How many times will someone make a 500-page document mapping out the entire history of their world only to make a trilogy of games/movies focusing on one guy doing one thing in a few places.

It makes me wish anthology stories were way more common than they are.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Darth_Payn said:
What? StarCraft? They only made 2 games in the last 15 years.
I think Deathfish15 just made a list of franchizes he/she doesn't like. If you really go through it and figure out what game types/franchises aren't in there, you'll find what their preferred games are. It'd be like saying that I don't like horror movies so that genre needs to stop.

Looming_Shadows said:
Although I agree with you on most games, FUCKING GTA?! Fallout (it's a miracle you didn't add The Elder Scrolls)?! These games frankly get better 100 fold with each new installment
I wouldn't say they get better. They certainly get more impressive. But it's hard to get better when you're already starting with a bar set as high as Morrowind set it.

The Feast said:
I agree, I don't really understand why people want The Hobbit to be just a single movie. Honestly, if I really want to adapting the book to just one movie, especially with the success of the LOTR trilogy, it will probably feel like a fan made movie that people never even want to mention anymore, and they will probably want more, especially about the book that explores more Middle Earth.

I don't want just to watch the Hobbit like a 'movie', I got plenty of those kind movies to think it that way. For example, a recent movie that based on a book, World War Z, how quickly it have being diminished on for being just a typical movie, because the people who make it want it that way. Other people may watch the The Hobbit and thinking it for being too long, well I don't and I want more.
You don't want to just watch the Hobbit like a movie? It is a movie. Not sure how else you'd watch it.

The problem isn't that it's more than one movie. The problem is that it's three 3-hour-long movies that are trying to include just one much smaller book. Originally it was going to be two movies which would have been plenty. If the movies were two hours long, it would be about the same as just two movies. But as is, the movie feels drawn out and spread thin. That's not what should be wanted.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
You know, there are two kinds of sequels: the ones people do because they still see potential in their idea and the ones that are farted out for a quick buck.

Deus Ex and Bioshock come to mind.

The first sequels to both games came out pretty quickly to ride on the success of the originals. While the critics mostly considered them being okay while not reaching the quality of their predecessor, the gamers panned them as lackluster, unnecessary cash-in's. Hell, denying the existence of Invisible War has become a running gag amongst Deus Ex fans. I know that IW failed hard on the market, dunno how well Bioshock 2 sold.

Years later, both franchises get yet another sequel. Though chronologically, they're both prequels.

Human Revolution and Infinite took way more development time, got a bigger budget, better writing and lots of new game mechanics. The critics love them, and so do the fans.

Would they have been absolutely necessary to continue the story? Not at all. Have they been neccessary because the developers had plenty of new ideas they wanted to realize? Hell yeah! Did they become commercial successes? You bet your ass they did!

So, what did we learn today?

Half assed cash ins crash and burn sooner or later, sequels that are made with heartblood become hits at both the register and the people who bought them.

Looming_Shadows said:
Although I agree with you on most games, FUCKING GTA?! Fallout (it's a miracle you didn't add The Elder Scrolls)?! These games frankly get better 100 fold with each new installment
Rockstar takes its time with GTA, every new installment (not counting the handheld spin off's) gets new characters, new stories, new gameplay elements and on top of that a completely new engine. Unlike games like Call of Duty and Assassins Creed, whose sequels would rather qualify as add ons.

And yeah, about Fallout...

While the fanchise does indeed have lots of potential for sequels (America is big and there are plenty of Vaults left), Bethesda butchered it. Badly.

The transition from an isometric RPG with tactical combat to a post-apocalyptic shooter was indeed an act of heresy. Dull characters, large scale environment recycling and the boring story did the rest. Don't get me started with the bugs, Bethesda being Bethesda and all...

New Vegas on the other hand was made by the people who did the old Fallouts before. They had more in mind than just reskinning Oblivion, and it shows. They realized many of the ideas they had for Van Buren, put lots of effort into story and characters and took their time for the environment. The landscape is full of small little details.

The question is if you work on a game because you overflow of creativity and the drive to realize your ideas or if you just watch the clock, hoping you get this shit done in time to go home at six.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
I suspect companies like sequels because they require much less marketing than new games. As long as this remains the case publishers would be stupid to make games that can't have sequels.
 

DarkhoIlow

New member
Dec 31, 2009
2,531
0
0
fantastic episode Jim and I couldn't agree more.

The greed of getting more money along with the games being so expensive to make will eventually turn them most of the franchises we love into sequels being milked annually. I hope against hope that this will not be the case, but I'm very curious to see if Ubisoft will do that to Watch Dogs.

Guess we are lucky to still have those indies that will not succumb to big publishers and still release full games without any sequel baits.
 

Raso719

New member
May 7, 2011
87
0
0
I want to be clear for a moment. People actually complained about the idea that all games should be fun? As in there are people who would make that argument because they actually do not believe that all games should be fun? As in there are people out there who do not believe that games should be fun?

Wow. Just wow. The hell is wrong with you people? Why would you play a game that wasn't fun or that you did not enjoy? If you are enjoying the game that means it is fun. Even if you are not enjoying the game it doesn't mean it's NOT fun you're just not having fun with it. What possible reason could anyone have to believe that games should not be fun.... unless you're just mindlessly parroting what you heard some developer say in an effort to make it THAT much easier to make soulless, over budgeted garbage designed from some sort of algorithm.

And people wonder why the industry looks the way it does today....
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Chaosritter said:
And yeah, about Fallout...

While the fanchise does indeed have lots of potential for sequels (America is big and there are plenty of Vaults left), Bethesda butchered it. Badly.

The transition from an isometric RPG with tactical combat to a post-apocalyptic shooter was indeed an act of heresy. Dull characters, large scale environment recycling and the boring story did the rest. Don't get me started with the bugs, Bethesda being Bethesda and all...

New Vegas on the other hand was made by the people who did the old Fallouts before. They had more in mind than just reskinning Oblivion, and it shows. They realized many of the ideas they had for Van Buren, put lots of effort into story and characters and took their time for the environment. The landscape is full of small little details.

The question is if you work on a game because you overflow of creativity and the drive to realize your ideas or if you just watch the clock, hoping you get this shit done in time to go home at six.
Highly subjective. Allow me to explain as someone who is currently wearing a t-shirt that combines Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail with Fallout New Vegas (which clearly gives me authority on the matter :p )

http://shirt.woot.com/offers/condition-fleshwound

Fallout 1 was a great game in its day but it doesn't translate well into today's market. This was the way that the game could exist and be successful. I, for one, really enjoyed Fallout 3. Would I like another top-down fallout game? Maybe. Fallout 2 was awful or perhaps I'm thinking of Fallout tactics. But I'd point out that according to metacritic, Fallout 3 has a slight edge over New Vegas in metacritic score (91 to 84) while New Vegas has a slight lead over Fallout 3 in user score (8.2/8.0). They are very evenly matched with people on very opposite sides. Your position that one is better than the other is strictly your personal taste. I say this knowing full well that I loved New Vegas but I also loved Fallout 3. Both had a great setting that felt real, both had great characters and memorable storylines. They're so similar that you do one disservice by denouncing the other.

Scores of old games are also usually higher for nostalgia purposes. For example, FO1 got a really high user score but I doubt even half of them replayed the game through today's eyes to score it. It's a difficult game to play today. Would I like a modern version of that style of game? Maybe, but I know that the current two FOs are my favorite so far.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Lightknight said:
wall of text
First of all, congratulations for your excellent taste in fashion.

I've played the original two Fallout's pretty late (sometime around 2007). Tried it before, but got turned off after getting slain by a random pack of Raiders three time in a row. When I was lucky and got a 10mm SMG in the very beginning, I got into it really fast. I played through the nights worth of one week and did not regret it. Fallout 2 was even better since they polished the game mechanics quite a bit. When you liked Fallout 1, chances are that you loved Fallout 2. But yeah, Tactics really was a ricochet.

Now for your argument that there's no market for isometric RPG's anymore, I guess several Kickstarter projects speak a different language. Just take Shadowrun Returns and Wasteland 2 for example. Certainly, the FPS' Fallout's would sell way better in comparison, but that doesn't mean the genre is dead.

And for the Metacritic scores, I wouldn't give them too much credit. I mean seriously, even Call of Duty and Assassins Creed are being considered the greatest things since sliced bread. I give you that tastes differ indeed, but a high score does not equal a good game, let alone a worthy sequel.
 

Drejer43

New member
Nov 18, 2009
386
0
0
Deathfish15 said:
-Total War
Sorry what?
each Total war game has a different setting or different mechanics usually both, not to mention there are no other games like the total war series on the market. (except King Arthur which is apparently terrible)
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
Raso719 said:
I want to be clear for a moment. People actually complained about the idea that all games should be fun? As in there are people who would make that argument because they actually do not believe that all games should be fun? As in there are people out there who do not believe that games should be fun?

Wow. Just wow. The hell is wrong with you people? Why would you play a game that wasn't fun or that you did not enjoy? If you are enjoying the game that means it is fun. Even if you are not enjoying the game it doesn't mean it's NOT fun you're just not having fun with it. What possible reason could anyone have to believe that games should not be fun.... unless you're just mindlessly parroting what you heard some developer say in an effort to make it THAT much easier to make soulless, over budgeted garbage designed from some sort of algorithm.

And people wonder why the industry looks the way it does today....
I assume people are looking at the game for the "experience," not the "fun." You know, like how some people actually listen to music that you can't dance to.

There are books you don't read for pleasure--I doubt Anne Frank's diary is enjoyed by many--that expand your views or horizon. Same with virtually every other medium. I don't see why this would be different for games. I also don't see how this would benefit teh big soleless ebul compuneez, especially since unlike film and literature and music you rarely see these come from the same companies.
 

The Feast

New member
Apr 5, 2013
61
0
0
Lightknight said:
You don't want to just watch the Hobbit like a movie? It is a movie. Not sure how else you'd watch it.

The problem isn't that it's more than one movie. The problem is that it's three 3-hour-long movies that are trying to include just one much smaller book. Originally it was going to be two movies which would have been plenty. If the movies were two hours long, it would be about the same as just two movies. But as is, the movie feels drawn out and spread thin. That's not what should be wanted.

When I said it is not just a movie, I meant that people already know that the story based on Middle Earth isn't something like 'just' an adaptation from the book. It's already become like Star Wars in its own way, the character and the stories need to be invested long enough to make them stands out when comparing to LOTR story and characters. Most fans probably want to see Thorin and fellow dwarves, Benedict Cumberbatch as the necromancer and the dragon. Believe me when I said they want to see more of them, because the fans want more of Middle Earth and its characters, whether you think that it spreads thin and drawn out.

Because in the end of the day, it is all based on people's taste and hey, if it bother you so much to have a three part movies, why watch it? Tolkien's legacy need to be shown in the big screen more often even if his son won't allow it. The Silmarillion, why not?
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
... and the Wii trouncing its competitors.
Wait, when did that happen? Sure, the Wii had initially strong console sales, but in terms of ongoing game sales, it's been a dismal failure, and the Wii U is a total non-starter.
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
Jimothy Sterling said:
... and the Wii trouncing its competitors.
Wait, when did that happen? Sure, the Wii had initially strong console sales, but in terms of ongoing game sales, it's been a dismal failure, and the Wii U is a total non-starter.
The Wii a failure?



Neither the PS3 or 360 has, or likely ever will, catch up to it on total sales, much less actual profits. Even with the Wii being obsolete for over a year while the other 2 continued to get support it's still about 20 million units ahead of the 360 in units sold. I'm pretty sure it's only second to the PS2 in terms of unit sales for a home console.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
OlasDAlmighty said:
Neither the PS3 or 360 has, or likely ever will, catch up to it on total sales, much less actual profits. Even with the Wii being obsolete for over a year while the other 2 continued to get support it's still about 20 million units ahead of the 360 in units sold. I'm pretty sure it's only second to the PS2 in terms of unit sales for a home console.
But very few people are buying games for the Wii, meanwhile Sony and Microsoft continue to rake in money based on their cut of game sales and online subscriptions. The number of consoles sold is not the only metric that counts toward profitability.
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
OlasDAlmighty said:
But very few people are buying games for the Wii, meanwhile Sony and Microsoft continue to rake in money based on their cut of game sales and online subscriptions. The number of consoles sold is not the only metric that counts toward profitability.
Obviously, otherwise Nintendo would be the only company to have even profited, the Wii being the only console that sold for more than it cost to make. You might be right about the 360 making more money overall if you include game sales and other subscriptions, though you also have to factor in the money people spent of Wii peripherals. I've never seen or heard the numbers on overall money earned.

But even if the 360 does come out ahead in that regard you could never call the Wii a failure. It was almost inarguably probably Nintendo's biggest success to date.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
Jimothy Sterling said:
... and the Wii trouncing its competitors.
Wait, when did that happen? Sure, the Wii had initially strong console sales, but in terms of ongoing game sales, it's been a dismal failure, and the Wii U is a total non-starter.
The Wii was a dismal failure wut?

Wut?

Wut?

Wut?
 

Alar

The Stormbringer
Dec 1, 2009
1,356
0
0
Bastion could have easily merited a sequel, and many fans seemed to think it did, yet the company decided not to. They let the story rest where it was, and that takes balls. I personally would've enjoyed a sequel, but I'm just as looking forward to the new game they're coming out with.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
OlasDAlmighty said:
Obviously, otherwise Nintendo would be the only company to have even profited, the Wii being the only console that sold for more than it cost to make.
Do you have any data to support that assertion?
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
The Wii was a dismal failure wut?
Yes. Generally the idea of a console is to make a profit and have people play and buy its games. The Wii hasn't been doing much of either lately. Yes, there are plenty of Wii consoles in people's homes, but from what I've seen, they don't tend to get used very much.

Do you think the Wii U has been a success? Because in this business, it's generally about building a franchise or platform that lasts for longer than one model. Nintendo's main success has been in the DS series, not the Wii.
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
OlasDAlmighty said:
Obviously, otherwise Nintendo would be the only company to have even profited, the Wii being the only console that sold for more than it cost to make.
Do you have any data to support that assertion?
If your going to ask a condescending question like that, you should actually make sure that I don't. Otherwise you make yourself look like a fool.

The fact that only the Wii makes a profit off each console's sale is actually fairly common knowledge, it didn't take long to find these 4 sources.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/reggie-wii-makes-immediately-6157690

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/12/01/forbes-nintendo-making-6-profit-on-every-wii-sold/

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Nintendo-Makes-6-Dollars-Profit-on-Each-Wii-Sold-99524.shtml

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/nintendo-nets-6-profit-off-each-wii

Now, it's your turn to prove that Microsoft and Sony made more money than Nintendo with game sales. Because I've never heard that before and was pretty much just giving you the benefit of the doubt.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Alar said:
Bastion could have easily merited a sequel, and many fans seemed to think it did, yet the company decided not to. They let the story rest where it was, and that takes balls. I personally would've enjoyed a sequel, but I'm just as looking forward to the new game they're coming out with.
I would say not so much balls as Integrity, Pride in your work and motivation to create anew where as most publishers only have greed to spur them on.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
OlasDAlmighty said:
The fact that only the Wii makes a profit off each console's sale is actually fairly common knowledge, it didn't take long to find these 4 sources.
That wasn't the question. Where is your evidence that Sony and Microsoft don't make money off their hardware sales? They aren't exactly cheap consoles, so the idea that they are losing money from each sale doesn't seem very credible.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
Aardvaarkman said:
Jimothy Sterling said:
... and the Wii trouncing its competitors.
Wait, when did that happen? Sure, the Wii had initially strong console sales, but in terms of ongoing game sales, it's been a dismal failure, and the Wii U is a total non-starter.
The Wii was a dismal failure wut?

Wut?

Wut?

Wut?
I'm glad this i