Jimquisition: Sequel or Slaughter
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.Jimothy Sterling said:
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.
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.orangeapples said:
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.
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.Rebel_Raven said:
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.
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.Quiotu said:
Assassins Creed, CoD, I like these games but I don't have time to play every one they come out with.
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.
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.
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.
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.tehpiemaker said:
Anyone could do the hobbit, without turning it into a trilogy.
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...
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...
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.RJ 17 said:
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.
We'll prolly have to agree to disagree on this one.
Jimothy Sterling 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.
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.
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.Rebel_Raven said:
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... >.>
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.Big_Willie_Styles said:
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.
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.RJ 17 said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Firstly; I see what ya mean, and as for what's wrong with it? Well, you saw today's Jimquisition.Magog1 said:
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!
