On Sequels
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
What did you expect, Yahtzee.
This whole forum is filled with nerds...
There's guaranteed to be someone who'll call foul on an ill-considered statement, however anal it is to do so.
Ahem. That reminds me...
Space in the sense of dimensions is an entirely mathematical construct to begin with.oppp7 said:
The 'dimensionality' of a fractal relates to how it folds in on itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_dimension
But since the whole concept of Dimensions is an abstract one to begin with, the point of wether fractals count or not is moot.
I think it's not a matter of who writes it, but what it is they are offering to the franchise.
Let's take the Alien franchise, for example. This first film turns what people expected of a horror flick around. Every time they expect something to happen, something different happens. When they expect a character to die, they are fooled until finally they actually bite it. It's a classic film and arguably the best of the series.
Then James Cameron comes along what...six years later? Maybe even more? And he decides "hey, let's have MULTIPLE aliens this time!" Only he does more than that. While the main draw is "guess what? This time there's marines fighting aliens!", there's also a lot of depth added into the universe. "The Company" is given a name and purpose: Weyland Yutani. In the director's cut, we discover that Ripley had a daughter back home, but now she is dead. This adds to her relationship with Newt, who has lost her entire family. Androids have been changed, but due to Ripley's previous experience her character has difficulty trusting Bishop. So on and so forth.
In other words, the Aliens franchise not only promised the untrustworthy "BIGGER AND MORE BAD ASS!" exclamations, but also provided more depth to the universe. Even Predator 2 managed to delve into the culture more. It's not only non-combatants that the Predator doesn't face, but pregnant women as well. There's a shit ton more weaponry. At the end, we discover that the Predators have been coming since the Revolutionary War and probably even earlier than that. Plus, if you defeat a Predator, then you are no longer prey but instead accepted into one of their own (all of this added depth is, ultimately, why I prefer Predator 2 over the first film, despite "worse acting" and a "lame story"....even though the first wasn't that great in those departments either).
Alien 3 is debatable. It was demanded by Fox so they could make more money, and it didn't add to the universe in any way. It was, overall, pointless. However, it still remains my favorite because the the director, David Fincher, took the script and got some writers to help turn it into something much more interesting. The movie is now about Ripley becoming her own worst enemy, and she is now in a situation the other films hadn't tackled: a woman alone in a prison of Double-Y chromosome males that have found God and are struggling with redemption. Sure, it's back to one Alien, but at least they defeated it in a different manner than tossing it out into space. Ripley's death was also intended to put a definite end on the series so Fox couldn't clamor for more cash.
Too bad. They got Joss Whedon, a fan, to write another script, and his was better than what the asshole French director did to it (why would you get a romantic artistic director to tackle an Aliens film?), but it added nothing to the franchise. It merely played with what we knew of the universe and revived Ripley.
There is nothing wrong with fans writing a sequel, as James Cameron was clearly a fan of Alien but managed to make a fantastic follow-up that expanded the universe. There is also nothing wrong with a company trying to milk a franchise if the right person is put in charge (Alien 3 is not the best, but as a film it IS good and continues to be my favorite, but if you won't accept that then I present the old kid's show Mighty Max. A guy was told to create a show for a new line of toys, and instead of creating a mere commercial the guy created an entire universe that explored all kinds of cultures, ancient legends and paranormal theory. It was also the first kids cartoon to actually have people die since I watched Robotech, which was bad ass).
I think the biggest problem isn't necessarily a fault of fans. It is people trying to make a sequel without having a purpose. James Cameron had a purpose in returning to the Aliens franchise, and it shows. David Fincher created a purpose, albeit a rather weak one (then again, that's what happens when Fox demands a sequel). No purpose, and it'll just be absolutely worthless as a game or film.
Interestingly enough, I couldn't play through the first F.E.A.R. game. I found it rather...boring? I dunno. I think I didn't like how it controlled or something, but overall despite having some cool ideas it never grabbed me. I really enjoyed F.E.A.R. 2 though, even if the story was...well, it was there.
Let's take the Alien franchise, for example. This first film turns what people expected of a horror flick around. Every time they expect something to happen, something different happens. When they expect a character to die, they are fooled until finally they actually bite it. It's a classic film and arguably the best of the series.
Then James Cameron comes along what...six years later? Maybe even more? And he decides "hey, let's have MULTIPLE aliens this time!" Only he does more than that. While the main draw is "guess what? This time there's marines fighting aliens!", there's also a lot of depth added into the universe. "The Company" is given a name and purpose: Weyland Yutani. In the director's cut, we discover that Ripley had a daughter back home, but now she is dead. This adds to her relationship with Newt, who has lost her entire family. Androids have been changed, but due to Ripley's previous experience her character has difficulty trusting Bishop. So on and so forth.
In other words, the Aliens franchise not only promised the untrustworthy "BIGGER AND MORE BAD ASS!" exclamations, but also provided more depth to the universe. Even Predator 2 managed to delve into the culture more. It's not only non-combatants that the Predator doesn't face, but pregnant women as well. There's a shit ton more weaponry. At the end, we discover that the Predators have been coming since the Revolutionary War and probably even earlier than that. Plus, if you defeat a Predator, then you are no longer prey but instead accepted into one of their own (all of this added depth is, ultimately, why I prefer Predator 2 over the first film, despite "worse acting" and a "lame story"....even though the first wasn't that great in those departments either).
Alien 3 is debatable. It was demanded by Fox so they could make more money, and it didn't add to the universe in any way. It was, overall, pointless. However, it still remains my favorite because the the director, David Fincher, took the script and got some writers to help turn it into something much more interesting. The movie is now about Ripley becoming her own worst enemy, and she is now in a situation the other films hadn't tackled: a woman alone in a prison of Double-Y chromosome males that have found God and are struggling with redemption. Sure, it's back to one Alien, but at least they defeated it in a different manner than tossing it out into space. Ripley's death was also intended to put a definite end on the series so Fox couldn't clamor for more cash.
Too bad. They got Joss Whedon, a fan, to write another script, and his was better than what the asshole French director did to it (why would you get a romantic artistic director to tackle an Aliens film?), but it added nothing to the franchise. It merely played with what we knew of the universe and revived Ripley.
There is nothing wrong with fans writing a sequel, as James Cameron was clearly a fan of Alien but managed to make a fantastic follow-up that expanded the universe. There is also nothing wrong with a company trying to milk a franchise if the right person is put in charge (Alien 3 is not the best, but as a film it IS good and continues to be my favorite, but if you won't accept that then I present the old kid's show Mighty Max. A guy was told to create a show for a new line of toys, and instead of creating a mere commercial the guy created an entire universe that explored all kinds of cultures, ancient legends and paranormal theory. It was also the first kids cartoon to actually have people die since I watched Robotech, which was bad ass).
I think the biggest problem isn't necessarily a fault of fans. It is people trying to make a sequel without having a purpose. James Cameron had a purpose in returning to the Aliens franchise, and it shows. David Fincher created a purpose, albeit a rather weak one (then again, that's what happens when Fox demands a sequel). No purpose, and it'll just be absolutely worthless as a game or film.
Interestingly enough, I couldn't play through the first F.E.A.R. game. I found it rather...boring? I dunno. I think I didn't like how it controlled or something, but overall despite having some cool ideas it never grabbed me. I really enjoyed F.E.A.R. 2 though, even if the story was...well, it was there.
regarding sequels,
I believe that fan made sequels can and should exist. But if the content is fan made i don't think it should tie in to the original content in the way, say, a sequel should. What I'm saying is that sequels are usually takeoffs of the original featuring characters and expansions on the plot from the original. A fanmade sequel should use the themes and characters to its advantage, but it should be tangent to the original. a creators vision of his own themes and visuals using the universe already set out by the original creator. that would be a lot more interesting.
I believe that fan made sequels can and should exist. But if the content is fan made i don't think it should tie in to the original content in the way, say, a sequel should. What I'm saying is that sequels are usually takeoffs of the original featuring characters and expansions on the plot from the original. A fanmade sequel should use the themes and characters to its advantage, but it should be tangent to the original. a creators vision of his own themes and visuals using the universe already set out by the original creator. that would be a lot more interesting.
Maybe that's it--that's the middle ground. Maybe sequels are more acceptable if made by the same creators. This isn't foolproof (q.v. George Lucas), and any concept can be beaten to death with too much repetition, but if the original creators are involved there's a greater chance of staying true to the original character of the game without devolving into fanboy-worship.SHODANFreeman said:
Lately, there have been some shows that should have only had one season. I'm looking at you, Heroes and Veronica Mars! The writing on some of these shows is so good now, they tend to shoot their wad early on, then try to extent things beyond their initial plan.wildpeaks said:
That's his point. Fans try to put the original on a pedastal and compare their own game to it, with generally negative results. What he's saying is that to improve the game, you need a dev who hates it and visualises something so much better.Zenode said:
I would place a fairly wide line between "fan" and "fanboy" here, and the explanation of the difference is thus: A "fan" is someone who enjoys the franchise, who has interest in seeing it succeed but has a frank view of the pitfalls and shortcomings where improvement could be had. A "fanboy" is someone whose feelings about the franchise have become so monomanaical that his/her favorite iteration is "the best ever", and all future efforts should contain nothing that deviates from that, or it will "ruin" the franchise.
A sequel written by a fan can definitely do well by the franchise. In a best-case scenario, they'll want to expand its world, combine the best of what the franchise already offers with new ideas and better technology, and create a game that could stand alone on its own yet gives other fans of the franchise an even deeper experience. I'll point to Half-Life 2 and its episodes for an example of this done mostly right; Yahtzee is a professed fan of the series, though he rightfully points out some flaws (repetitive set pieces being a primary culprit).
A sequel written by fanboys, however... well. For a while I was a member of a rather lively forum that included a large section dealing with the Thief series. When Thief: Deadly Shadows was announced, there was quite a bit of discussion as the details slowly came to light. Many of us were hopeful, some of us were a bit upset about certain issues (concurrent development for the XBox, design decisions, etc.), and a few adamantly decried it as a sure failure destined to "ruin" the entire series. They picked apart every last piece of information, comparing it (almsot always unfavorably) to the first two games in the series, coining derisive names like "Deadly Blue Shadows". Almost in unison, when asked what they would prefer to see in development, their answers: "I want more of the old games, because they were perfect."
Now, TS was definitely what I'd call a "diamond in the rough", but despite its flaws I am not at all sad that I bought it on release day. (XBox players may disagree with me, as there was a serious bug involving difficulty settings that was never patched for that version, but I digress.) The experience I had with missions like Robbing the Cradle, St. Edgar's Eve and The House of Widow Moira just couldn't have been managed on the older games, and if the fanboys had had their way, we might never have seen those missions.
Fanboys take their chosen obsession personally, and any criticism regarding it is seen as an attack on them. Letting them have ANY say in the development of sequels is a bad, bad idea, because given their druthers, they would have us in a game-development Groundhog Day scenario, where release day is the same thing over and over again, only with higher polygon counts and more chances to scream "BOOM HEADSHOT!" into a microphone. Fans, however, can give a sequel the respect that will help it succeed while turning a critical eye to the original's flaws.
I personally would view FEAR 2 (and both non-canon expansions to the original, for that matter) as an example of what you get when you let someone who doesn't like the original head up efforts for a sequel. Just by playing FEAR 2's demo, I could tell that the design committee had some guy with a clipboard saying, "Bullet-time- check, creepy girl that kills with her mind- check, cloned soldiers- check... let's throw in regenerating health and self-reparing robots, the kids like those some day. Now let's go snort some cocaine."
A sequel written by a fan can definitely do well by the franchise. In a best-case scenario, they'll want to expand its world, combine the best of what the franchise already offers with new ideas and better technology, and create a game that could stand alone on its own yet gives other fans of the franchise an even deeper experience. I'll point to Half-Life 2 and its episodes for an example of this done mostly right; Yahtzee is a professed fan of the series, though he rightfully points out some flaws (repetitive set pieces being a primary culprit).
A sequel written by fanboys, however... well. For a while I was a member of a rather lively forum that included a large section dealing with the Thief series. When Thief: Deadly Shadows was announced, there was quite a bit of discussion as the details slowly came to light. Many of us were hopeful, some of us were a bit upset about certain issues (concurrent development for the XBox, design decisions, etc.), and a few adamantly decried it as a sure failure destined to "ruin" the entire series. They picked apart every last piece of information, comparing it (almsot always unfavorably) to the first two games in the series, coining derisive names like "Deadly Blue Shadows". Almost in unison, when asked what they would prefer to see in development, their answers: "I want more of the old games, because they were perfect."
Now, T
S was definitely what I'd call a "diamond in the rough", but despite its flaws I am not at all sad that I bought it on release day. (XBox players may disagree with me, as there was a serious bug involving difficulty settings that was never patched for that version, but I digress.) The experience I had with missions like Robbing the Cradle, St. Edgar's Eve and The House of Widow Moira just couldn't have been managed on the older games, and if the fanboys had had their way, we might never have seen those missions.Fanboys take their chosen obsession personally, and any criticism regarding it is seen as an attack on them. Letting them have ANY say in the development of sequels is a bad, bad idea, because given their druthers, they would have us in a game-development Groundhog Day scenario, where release day is the same thing over and over again, only with higher polygon counts and more chances to scream "BOOM HEADSHOT!" into a microphone. Fans, however, can give a sequel the respect that will help it succeed while turning a critical eye to the original's flaws.
I personally would view FEAR 2 (and both non-canon expansions to the original, for that matter) as an example of what you get when you let someone who doesn't like the original head up efforts for a sequel. Just by playing FEAR 2's demo, I could tell that the design committee had some guy with a clipboard saying, "Bullet-time- check, creepy girl that kills with her mind- check, cloned soldiers- check... let's throw in regenerating health and self-reparing robots, the kids like those some day. Now let's go snort some cocaine."
Sequels aren't always just developers/publishers (I'm looking at you, Universal...) trying to milk their cows for all their worth. Some companies felt that they didn't do everything they could with the original game.
A few years ago I read an article in Game Informer magazine about the game Jak II on the PS2, and in it they mentioned about how they hadn't intended for Jak and Daxter to be so collection-based. Jak II was much more mission-oriented, and while stylistically it seemed to be copy-pasting GTA3 shamelessly, they only really took a few of the basic ideas to make gameplay more smooth than it likely would have been. And it doesn't matter as much that the design director was on the original team, it matters that the original team dissolved. My own favorite company, Insomniac, has built itself mostly around the Ratchet & Clank universe. They are also responsible for the three good Spyro the Dragon games, before Universal dropped Insomniac and Naughty Dog for whatever reason. Insomniac's games, while being new stories with the same characters sometimes in the same locations, are still fresh and original and always making improvements where they can (in spite of the fact that there are still races in them).
I think that another factor in the whole sequel business is the old console vs. computer war. Console games are much more self contained, and for developers to maximize their potential within a series, sequels are necessary so that they don't fall into the Duke Nukem Forever trap. Computer game content can be continually upgraded and expanded (as long as it doesn't go into cataclysmic proportions) to fully realize the potential.
The bottom line may very well be something Yahtzee has already stated in an earlier review: "...if the original creators of something don't want to continue it, maybe you should listen to them..." A new team may come in with all sorts of wonderful ideas, and be so full of vim and vigor that the whole building feels like getting up and dancing to some salsa music, but putting any franchise/series name on something not originally their own comes with so much of its own baggage that no matter what they do they're pissing somebody off, and hopefully somebody's trying to avoid that.
A few years ago I read an article in Game Informer magazine about the game Jak II on the PS2, and in it they mentioned about how they hadn't intended for Jak and Daxter to be so collection-based. Jak II was much more mission-oriented, and while stylistically it seemed to be copy-pasting GTA3 shamelessly, they only really took a few of the basic ideas to make gameplay more smooth than it likely would have been. And it doesn't matter as much that the design director was on the original team, it matters that the original team dissolved. My own favorite company, Insomniac, has built itself mostly around the Ratchet & Clank universe. They are also responsible for the three good Spyro the Dragon games, before Universal dropped Insomniac and Naughty Dog for whatever reason. Insomniac's games, while being new stories with the same characters sometimes in the same locations, are still fresh and original and always making improvements where they can (in spite of the fact that there are still races in them).
I think that another factor in the whole sequel business is the old console vs. computer war. Console games are much more self contained, and for developers to maximize their potential within a series, sequels are necessary so that they don't fall into the Duke Nukem Forever trap. Computer game content can be continually upgraded and expanded (as long as it doesn't go into cataclysmic proportions) to fully realize the potential.
The bottom line may very well be something Yahtzee has already stated in an earlier review: "...if the original creators of something don't want to continue it, maybe you should listen to them..." A new team may come in with all sorts of wonderful ideas, and be so full of vim and vigor that the whole building feels like getting up and dancing to some salsa music, but putting any franchise/series name on something not originally their own comes with so much of its own baggage that no matter what they do they're pissing somebody off, and hopefully somebody's trying to avoid that.
My personal feelings on the subject can be summarized as such:
"The best person to add to a mythos is one who enjoys it, delights in it, but observes glaring flaws in it and hopes to fix them."
That's a summary, mind you. I like several games and movies, and I like to write, but I wouldn't touch most of them. And if I did, I'd use the same general universe, but leave the individuals alone unless they reached fame within their universe during their original appearance.
I've read enough fanfiction to know full well how horribly something can be mangled once fans get ahold of it.
Like that one with Trilby and that kid 'reminiscing' about the horror of the DeFoe manor.
"The best person to add to a mythos is one who enjoys it, delights in it, but observes glaring flaws in it and hopes to fix them."
That's a summary, mind you. I like several games and movies, and I like to write, but I wouldn't touch most of them. And if I did, I'd use the same general universe, but leave the individuals alone unless they reached fame within their universe during their original appearance.
I've read enough fanfiction to know full well how horribly something can be mangled once fans get ahold of it.
Like that one with Trilby and that kid 'reminiscing' about the horror of the DeFoe manor.
So by that logic, is Transformers 2 good? Michael Bay was never a Transformers fan and seems to have no respect for the mythology.
But I guess he didn't really let it evolve.
Hm...
But I guess he didn't really let it evolve.
Hm...
The problem with "time is half a dimension" thing, especially as applied to gaming, is that *all* games suddenly become 2.5 or 3.5 dimensional games. Unless you make a game that never progresses in time, which kind of limits interactivity. Maybe MS Paint would fit the bill.
Does that mean that games with time manipulation mechanics are 4-dimensional?
Does that mean that games with time manipulation mechanics are 4-dimensional?
Watch his Fear 2 review. He recognizes that there are good sequels, but thinks that sequels produce more overall negative than positive.Macgyvercas said:
i hate the halo sequals. it's just the pointless continuation of something for the sake of money. h2 was OK. i just think the 3rd one was stupid... then there's halo wars... *VOMITS*SantoUno said:
HOWEVER, i do like your display pic, arch enemy XD
Exactly what confuses me. The guys at Telltale aren't fans of old Lucasarts games, a lot of them are the same guys that used to work on the originals back in the day. While I agree that both the Sam & Max episodes AND Tales aren't quite on par with the old ones, I still think that they managed to capture a lot of the old atmosphere.SHODANFreeman said:
Okay, okay, I agree with the main point. Fans usually have a very differing views of what they love about a game franchise so usually what comes of it is them making their dream game and then slapping the franchise name onto it. And often times it just doesn't work.
Well, I'd have to say that while Yahtzee has a point, it isn't nessecarily one I agree with.
Yes, there are some horrid sequels out there, and there are pieces of a franchise that should have every copy burned until there's naught left but bitter ashes (I'm looking at you, Castlevania Judgement), there are plenty of good sequels out there, provided the developers hit their stride- in this case, I'd solidly point at TellTale's Sam & Max games as an example of hitting said stride.
Missing it...well, let's just say it can range from bad (How I tend to view most of the recent GTA games) to George Lucas Interfered Horrible (The aforementioned Castlevania Judgement).
I'd like to say it's mostly in the eye of the beholder as to whether a sequel is bad or good. While that's true, I don't think Yahtzee will ever get his wish of having sequels banned. Not so long as the corporations keep making money from them.
Yes, there are some horrid sequels out there, and there are pieces of a franchise that should have every copy burned until there's naught left but bitter ashes (I'm looking at you, Castlevania Judgement), there are plenty of good sequels out there, provided the developers hit their stride- in this case, I'd solidly point at TellTale's Sam & Max games as an example of hitting said stride.
Missing it...well, let's just say it can range from bad (How I tend to view most of the recent GTA games) to George Lucas Interfered Horrible (The aforementioned Castlevania Judgement).
I'd like to say it's mostly in the eye of the beholder as to whether a sequel is bad or good. While that's true, I don't think Yahtzee will ever get his wish of having sequels banned. Not so long as the corporations keep making money from them.