Jimquisition: Sequel or Slaughter

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
24,759
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.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,465
3,005
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.

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
Jan 10, 2009
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
Mar 8, 2013
1,966
1,430
118
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
Feb 9, 2012
18,465
3,005
118
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.