Jimquisition: Sequel or Slaughter

[Bobic]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Dragonbums]

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]

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.

 

[daxterx2005]

I'm proud of you Jim, Not lumping Mario in with that

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

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]

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]

So, jim, you give The Last of us a 10/10 and you weren't expecting a sequel? lolwut? You know better.

 

[Igor Yakovina]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.