Jimquisition: Sequel or Slaughter

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.
 

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.
 

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.