Jimquisition: Sequel or Slaughter

[Roman Monaghan]

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]

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]

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.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

/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]

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]

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.

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]

Excellent vid Jim, and spot-on yet again you jizz eating genious!

 

[Don Incognito]

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]

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.