I think that, in sequels, there is a general tendency of cutting corners and inertia. The lack of new concepts usually means deficiency of worthy ideas and inspiration which will ultimately lead to mediocrity.
On Sequels
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Do I need to mention Dave Grossman [http://www.telltalegames.com/company/ourteam/davegrossman] again? Man, Dave gets no respect. Everyone's all "oh Ron Gilbert Ron Gilbert!" or "oh Tim Schafer Tim Schafer!" but Dave Grossman was just as big a part of these classic franchises as they were.Fightgarr said:
Ron initially intended Monkey Island to be totally serious, it was Dave and Tim writing funny filler lines into the dialogue trees that ultimately turned the game into a comedy.
In addition to Dave, they also have Mike Stemmle [http://www.telltalegames.com/company/ourteam/mikestemmle] on the design team, who was a project lead on Sam and Max Hit the Road, so they have big names from both series.
Not to mention that Ron Gilbert himself consulted on the design document for Tales of Monkey Island, and Steve Purcell painted the cover art for the first time since MI2, and Michael Land himself is even back to do the music. In many ways, Tales is the "truest" Monkey Island since MI2.
In a recent interview with Good Game (Australian video game show on the ABC), Gabe Newell explained how when he was given the quake engine, he created Half Life as a fan of Quake.
"Trying to think like a fan is a super valuable thing to any developer".
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/goodgame/webexclusives/
"Trying to think like a fan is a super valuable thing to any developer".
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/goodgame/webexclusives/
The only good sequel is a canceled sequel.
Those are the ones that combine 3 important things that a successful sequel needs:
- agonised and hurt fans bawwing on the internet (I love using the word schaudenfreude);
- NOTHING reused from the first game creating a unique experience (since there's no game its an completely difference experience from the first game, which was absolutely a game of some kind or other)
- and thirdly a sense of closure for the series that stupid fans clearly had not have picked up upon when the credits rolled on the first game.
Those are the ones that combine 3 important things that a successful sequel needs:
- agonised and hurt fans bawwing on the internet (I love using the word schaudenfreude);
- NOTHING reused from the first game creating a unique experience (since there's no game its an completely difference experience from the first game, which was absolutely a game of some kind or other)
- and thirdly a sense of closure for the series that stupid fans clearly had not have picked up upon when the credits rolled on the first game.
Like so many other things about entertainment and media, sequels should be approached with a sculptor's approach: remove everything that isn't needed. If a story doesn't absolutely require another chapter, then it should not be written. If the chapter is only going to repeat and glorify stuff that happened in a previous chapter, then it is not required, and therefore should not be written.
Imagine transposing this idea to another medium--books. Now, there are a lot of differences between books and games, but if you'll stay with me I do in fact have a point I'm working towards. If an author wrote an absolutely fabulous first chapter of a book, and then spent the next 20 chapters referring back to the excellent first chapter and making sickening little in-jokes about it, would the book be considered good? It wouldn't go anywhere, and the brilliance of the first chapter would be diluted across the pages. The book would be better if it was just the first chapter--instead of being a novel, it would be better as a novella, or a short-story, or whatever. People expect a novel, so even if the author doesn't have a novel's worth of stuff to say he or she will still crank out a novel. People's expectations seem to be increasing as time goes on, and therefore people now expect trilogies instead of single titles, even though many things would be much improved if they were simply short little experiments. Portal was amazing, but if it had been any longer its amazingness would have been greatly diminished because any more would have just weighed it down. If they made Portal 2 it would probably not be very good because the story was completed in the first one. There's nothing left to tell. Calling it a 'sequel' would probably be incorrect--it would be more of an 'encore' than a 'sequel.'
The danger with simply repeating past brilliance is that eventually you get to the point where you stop caring about what made the original brilliant, and instead only see it as familiar. You laugh at the jokes not because they're funny, but because you recognize them, and you remember laughing at them before. Generally, on a quick, visceral, impulsive level humans respond better to things that are familiar as opposed to things that are new and strange, because of some deep-seated evolutionary hard wiring. Game designers, movie makers, and many other producers are learning this fact. But if we want something that will be more to us than a quick, visceral, impulsive flash in the pan, we will have to be more selective about what we choose to spend our money on, because as long as we are willing to pay big bucks to see the same thing twice or more, fewer and fewer people are going to take the trouble to try something new.
Imagine transposing this idea to another medium--books. Now, there are a lot of differences between books and games, but if you'll stay with me I do in fact have a point I'm working towards. If an author wrote an absolutely fabulous first chapter of a book, and then spent the next 20 chapters referring back to the excellent first chapter and making sickening little in-jokes about it, would the book be considered good? It wouldn't go anywhere, and the brilliance of the first chapter would be diluted across the pages. The book would be better if it was just the first chapter--instead of being a novel, it would be better as a novella, or a short-story, or whatever. People expect a novel, so even if the author doesn't have a novel's worth of stuff to say he or she will still crank out a novel. People's expectations seem to be increasing as time goes on, and therefore people now expect trilogies instead of single titles, even though many things would be much improved if they were simply short little experiments. Portal was amazing, but if it had been any longer its amazingness would have been greatly diminished because any more would have just weighed it down. If they made Portal 2 it would probably not be very good because the story was completed in the first one. There's nothing left to tell. Calling it a 'sequel' would probably be incorrect--it would be more of an 'encore' than a 'sequel.'
The danger with simply repeating past brilliance is that eventually you get to the point where you stop caring about what made the original brilliant, and instead only see it as familiar. You laugh at the jokes not because they're funny, but because you recognize them, and you remember laughing at them before. Generally, on a quick, visceral, impulsive level humans respond better to things that are familiar as opposed to things that are new and strange, because of some deep-seated evolutionary hard wiring. Game designers, movie makers, and many other producers are learning this fact. But if we want something that will be more to us than a quick, visceral, impulsive flash in the pan, we will have to be more selective about what we choose to spend our money on, because as long as we are willing to pay big bucks to see the same thing twice or more, fewer and fewer people are going to take the trouble to try something new.
Were you playing the same Monkey Island 2 as the rest of us? The ending was left wide fucking open for a sequel; otherwise, you have to believe that the designers intended to end the story with their hero under a voodoo curse at the mercy of his arch-nemesis, while his lady love stands around waiting for him to come back to her for all eternity. What's going to happen next?Yahtzee Croshaw said:
Nothing. That's it. Sorry if you were expecting closure, but thanks for playing all the same.
That makes no damn sense at all. Even if you interpret it as a "sad ending," that still doesn't make sense, because what kind of idiot would try to end a comedy series on a sad ending when there were absolutely no sad bits preceding it? It would be like trying to end The Naked Gun with a heart-wrenching death scene, or Oedipus Rex with a pie fight.
Actually in many ways it makes sense to me, but whatever. The reason I do is that he seems to be demanding that if someone is going to make a sequel to something, it should be someone who has the intention to bring new things to the table rather than just rerelease the same game but with better graphics, and a slightly different story.Grampy_bone said:
CoD4 is a sequel, Sure its the FORTH one, But its completely different too.
Ok, There are exceptions, But in a world where there are no sequels we wouldn't get the odd gem like this.
I think for the number of turkeys that are out there its easy to have a "all sequels are crap" attitude, but i personally think sequels are a necessary evil.
Ok, There are exceptions, But in a world where there are no sequels we wouldn't get the odd gem like this.
I think for the number of turkeys that are out there its easy to have a "all sequels are crap" attitude, but i personally think sequels are a necessary evil.
Same developers =/= fans.Toty54 said:
The entire problem here is the mindset. Fans walk into it holding the previous installments as a "holy grail". They don't try to improve them (because in their mind you can't), they try to "live up to them". Not only does this become immensely limiting (because whatever the previous game did will be this game's boundaries, so most likely there'll be nothing new) but it's ultimately futile fan wank... There's nothing new... It's just necromancing old material basically. If we wanted the "old material" we would play the old material...
Developers, generally, don't have that. They do tend to also be their own critics, and rarely will you find, say, a game developer or movie director, that doesn't try to improve their own work (unless you're Hideo Kojima... Or Michael Bay... Or work for EA...).
I think it's important to clarify what is meant by 'sequel.' When I think sequel, I think of a continuation of a story from a previous story. As was mentioned in the article, we should exclude serials--subsequent chapters of a story that are their own project but part of a greater storyline--when talking about sequels, because they are often (but not always) less annoying than true sequels.
As an example: the Back to the Future movies are a serial--they were one big story chopped up into three wonderful movies, and the pacing of each movie necessitated the chopping up. The Mummy Movies, on the other hand, are sequels of the most repugnant variety. The Pirates of the Caribbean movies are sequels. The first Pirates movie was a complete story, but because it was surprisingly successful the producers decided to make some more. The next two were nothing more than long, drawn-out encores of the cleverness the first movie found, surrounded by a lot of dull, un-clever crud.
I'm not incredibly familiar with the Call of Duty series, but I am under the impression that each game is separate from the others, is that correct? Separate characters, separate storyline, etc? If so, then I wouldn't really call that a sequel. It's more like another issue. That can get old, too, but I don't think it's inherently bad. Sequels, as I described above, are, in my opinion, inherently bad because they are largely unnecessary. At best, they are tolerable. It's a lot like playing russian roulette--at best, nothing will happen to you.
As an example: the Back to the Future movies are a serial--they were one big story chopped up into three wonderful movies, and the pacing of each movie necessitated the chopping up. The Mummy Movies, on the other hand, are sequels of the most repugnant variety. The Pirates of the Caribbean movies are sequels. The first Pirates movie was a complete story, but because it was surprisingly successful the producers decided to make some more. The next two were nothing more than long, drawn-out encores of the cleverness the first movie found, surrounded by a lot of dull, un-clever crud.
I'm not incredibly familiar with the Call of Duty series, but I am under the impression that each game is separate from the others, is that correct? Separate characters, separate storyline, etc? If so, then I wouldn't really call that a sequel. It's more like another issue. That can get old, too, but I don't think it's inherently bad. Sequels, as I described above, are, in my opinion, inherently bad because they are largely unnecessary. At best, they are tolerable. It's a lot like playing russian roulette--at best, nothing will happen to you.
well there are some games that dont go into sequels any more. usualy it when a company stops making the game and move on to other ideas , but the there come other companies that get the franchise make the game they're own why. i can only call 2 games that do that its crash bandicoot and spryo. crash bandicoot didnt change much till the third part. then another company took over the game and it was similar to the old 3 , then there was another crash bandicoot game made by sierra , they made crash twinsanity the fans still loved it but felt taht something changed. then sierra changed the game completly a lot of fans were angry about because "it wasnt how they wanted it to be", but to people who hadnt played the old parts actually even liked the new ones better.
Rats. Ninja'd. But there are few truer points out there. Sequels, by and large, tend to be worse than the original, often even terrible. And while many people can name great sequels (like Team Fortress 2 and Silent Hill 2), the exceptions prove the rule.aristos_achaion said:
Personally I don't mind sequels, depending on how many their are. for the one character, i believe 1-2 sequels for the original game are acceptable, before the plots get a bit dry. After the 3rd game of the same character, it gets worrisome. (see, spyro, crash bandicoot and soon Rachet and Clank). If it is the same universe, but not the same character, that is acceptable for more then 2 sequels.
Good points but they fail before simple market logic
game has enough fans to make sequel worthwhile = make fan boy squeal = profit = return to stage one
this wonderful logic will keep such events going for a long time.
game has enough fans to make sequel worthwhile = make fan boy squeal = profit = return to stage one
this wonderful logic will keep such events going for a long time.
I'd say that sure generally speaking sequels tend end up being worse than the original of a title, this is true even between Secret of Monkey Island and Monkey Island 2; both of which developed by the exact same team.
However you flip to that other Lucasart favourite Manic Mansion and suddenly the whole situation is completely reversed. Again it's the same team that worked on both Manic Mansion and Day of the Tenticle but the sequel is undeniably far better.
Especially when it would be extremely important to not that Monkey Island 3 & 4 both had some of the original staff involved in development. Even TellTale's new "Tales of Monkey Island" have the original staff involved to a degree; as well as the original voice actors that brought the characters to life in the CD releases of the originals.
I think the main issue isn't who made the game, but that after two unimpressive sequels this has affected how ZP feels about the game. Personally prior to Tales being released, I played throught the recently released Secret of Monkey Island Special Edition (for XBLA, Steam and PSN) which isn't a new game but rather a revamp of the original providing it with a more modern interface system and full voices which the original lacked. Alright so the new Tales does push some "fan service" in it's dialog but the puzzles and story feel quite new and unique. Alright so it might not be everyones' cup of tea, but as a long-standing fan of the series I thought despite feeling a little short; that it got back to it's roots with the puzzles and storyline. Especially the humour, as it has that black streak to it that makes you swear Tim Shaffer was involved in some part.
Still I can see what Yatzee is trying to say about fan sequels, and as a rule... yeah they tend to be worse; but there are always exceptions to the rule and you don't prove anything by actually using one of the exceptions. It's like saying that all gamers are fat and lazy using CliffyB as the posterboy for the "fact", it's just retarded.
If anything I think his beloved Silent Hill series (which btw Yatzee I'm one of those people who only actually liked Silent Hill 3 .. ya know the one you so-called real fans don't want to believe even exists) the last few titles honestly have just been crap; Homecoming for example, sure it checks all the right boxes as far as a sequel goes. Still there'in is the issue, there is a) nothing new but more importantly b) it feels like a Silent Hill 1 remake where the guys involved completely forgot what happened.
I have nothing against sequels or even fan sequels, what I think the real issue at work here and there should be a rule for is developers pumping out crap generic games. Alright so you have a good game idea, eh? Well how about this PLAY THE DAMN THING BEFORE RELEASE!
How many games have you played where it was good except for fundimental issues that actually make you never want to play it again? Or rather reluctently play it cause everyone else does. There are other games, where you just wish they'd fix certain issues.
However you flip to that other Lucasart favourite Manic Mansion and suddenly the whole situation is completely reversed. Again it's the same team that worked on both Manic Mansion and Day of the Tenticle but the sequel is undeniably far better.
Especially when it would be extremely important to not that Monkey Island 3 & 4 both had some of the original staff involved in development. Even TellTale's new "Tales of Monkey Island" have the original staff involved to a degree; as well as the original voice actors that brought the characters to life in the CD releases of the originals.
I think the main issue isn't who made the game, but that after two unimpressive sequels this has affected how ZP feels about the game. Personally prior to Tales being released, I played throught the recently released Secret of Monkey Island Special Edition (for XBLA, Steam and PSN) which isn't a new game but rather a revamp of the original providing it with a more modern interface system and full voices which the original lacked. Alright so the new Tales does push some "fan service" in it's dialog but the puzzles and story feel quite new and unique. Alright so it might not be everyones' cup of tea, but as a long-standing fan of the series I thought despite feeling a little short; that it got back to it's roots with the puzzles and storyline. Especially the humour, as it has that black streak to it that makes you swear Tim Shaffer was involved in some part.
Still I can see what Yatzee is trying to say about fan sequels, and as a rule... yeah they tend to be worse; but there are always exceptions to the rule and you don't prove anything by actually using one of the exceptions. It's like saying that all gamers are fat and lazy using CliffyB as the posterboy for the "fact", it's just retarded.
If anything I think his beloved Silent Hill series (which btw Yatzee I'm one of those people who only actually liked Silent Hill 3 .. ya know the one you so-called real fans don't want to believe even exists) the last few titles honestly have just been crap; Homecoming for example, sure it checks all the right boxes as far as a sequel goes. Still there'in is the issue, there is a) nothing new but more importantly b) it feels like a Silent Hill 1 remake where the guys involved completely forgot what happened.
I have nothing against sequels or even fan sequels, what I think the real issue at work here and there should be a rule for is developers pumping out crap generic games. Alright so you have a good game idea, eh? Well how about this PLAY THE DAMN THING BEFORE RELEASE!
How many games have you played where it was good except for fundimental issues that actually make you never want to play it again? Or rather reluctently play it cause everyone else does. There are other games, where you just wish they'd fix certain issues.
So here's the scenario: You own some intellectual property. Let's pick an example completely out of the air - Monkey Island. The last game was Monkey Island 2, which ended the story about as thoroughly as it could, without sawing its own legs off. But the cocaine trough is running low and you want to make a sequel. Two people want the job. One didn't really like Monkey Island 2 much because it got a bit too morbid at times and Guybrush looked like a member of Spinal Tap, so he wants to set the new one in space. The other is a die-hard fan of the series who swears he will pay proper respect and bring back all his favorite characters and running gags and give it great big cuddles and make sure no nasty men do it any harm for ever and ever and ever. Who do you give the project to?
I have no idea who'd I give the project to. It's look like I have to choose between two poor draws. The one I would like to give the project to is someone who liked the game, but see room for improvement. Most likely I'll also ask the guy what he thinks needs improving.
Pick the guy who doesn't like the game and we likely get a sequel which differs from the original to the point where it's probably better to start a new series instead of making a sequel. Which gamers are the most likely to buy a sequel? That should be people who liked the first game. Someone who didn't like Monkey Island is unlikely to buy the sequel. So why would you want someone who didn't like Monkey Island make a game that's to a large extent for people who liked Monkey Island?
The problem with the fanboy was already covered in the article, so I will not repeat that. I will however add that the fanboys aren't the main customer base. Even if it may sometimes seem as if the fanboys are everywhere, there's still more players who consider Monkey Island one enjoyable game among many others. So just as it doesn't make any sense to let someone who doesn't like the game make a sequel for people who did like the first mentioned game, it doesn't make any sense either to let someone who see no flaw make a game for people who does see flaws.
I have no idea who'd I give the project to. It's look like I have to choose between two poor draws. The one I would like to give the project to is someone who liked the game, but see room for improvement. Most likely I'll also ask the guy what he thinks needs improving.
Pick the guy who doesn't like the game and we likely get a sequel which differs from the original to the point where it's probably better to start a new series instead of making a sequel. Which gamers are the most likely to buy a sequel? That should be people who liked the first game. Someone who didn't like Monkey Island is unlikely to buy the sequel. So why would you want someone who didn't like Monkey Island make a game that's to a large extent for people who liked Monkey Island?
The problem with the fanboy was already covered in the article, so I will not repeat that. I will however add that the fanboys aren't the main customer base. Even if it may sometimes seem as if the fanboys are everywhere, there's still more players who consider Monkey Island one enjoyable game among many others. So just as it doesn't make any sense to let someone who doesn't like the game make a sequel for people who did like the first mentioned game, it doesn't make any sense either to let someone who see no flaw make a game for people who does see flaws.
I don't dislike all sequels (and I recognize that Yahtzee doesn't either), but there needs to be a line drawn somewhere, especially in games where story is hardly part of the game: Mario Party. It was worth it to buy one of the titles in the series, but it gets to the point where the only things that serious change up are the boards and the way things are written.
My sister bought into the series in a major way, so I had the wonderful opportunity of seeing the opening screen to 6 (or 7? 8? Who the hell knows, really?) where the narrator says, "Mario was taking his morning constitutional one day." Really? Is this what it's come down to? Needing to trash words like "walk" for fancy smanshy words in order for people not to immediately see that, yes, this sequel is rather copy and paste of the previous! And clearly, companies that have been putting out over 8 sequels to a game within a decade and can afford to can get away with subtly calling their audience retarded.
On Monkey Island, I am quite the fan and was introduced by Curse of Monkey Island as the odd Christmas present I knew nothing about. That really sunk me into PC gaming, unlike say Kings Quest VI, which is more punishing than the text of a research study to an illiterate child. Since that fateful day, I've played all of the games in the series with the exception of the second one seeing as that's butthurt all to find...reasonably. However, the series began to melt at the fourth iteration, especially with that dry Monkey Kombat (as such, I'd rather watch the Disney Channel for a full day than play that game again).
It is of my opinion that the new episodic Tales of Monkey Island (from Tell Tale? Get it? ToMI?) is subpar. At first, I was squealing with delight, thinking, "Oh good! We're not going to end on that sour note. And Ron Gilbert gives his blessing? Bless him," but it seems that this one isn't turning out any better thus far.
Don't get me wrong. As is, Tales could be doing much much worse, but it could also be doing better. The relationship Guybrush has with Elaine and LeChuck, for instance, is going in odd directions that are all pointing to tragedy. And one thing I really miss are all the things you could do with individual items, "I can't talk to the ramrod," not to mention needlessly, yet entertainingly so, long dialog trees. Sure I can understand why these decisions were made, but they are sad ones that take away a chunk of flavor to what made the games so appetizing. No one would eat Cheetos without that diabetes cheese.
All the same, we talk as if Shakespeare's son would be the ideal candidate for crafting a game. I'd rather a fan make a sequel than someone that's completely alien to the series for the following beautiful reasons: No sprinkling of MI references (though I agree that over saturation of these are unwarranted), characters doing things that are uncharacteristic (yet we see that occurring already), and Bomberman: Act Zero. No one wants another Act Zero. No one.
Still, it's very hard for me to say to other people, "This isn't worth your time," as the series was a sort of wunkerkind to me. But I suppose I must admit defeat, especially once I saw a nearly identical jungle maze in the second episode that was in the first. It's heart breaking, but hopefully, we can still be friends. Kiss kiss.
My sister bought into the series in a major way, so I had the wonderful opportunity of seeing the opening screen to 6 (or 7? 8? Who the hell knows, really?) where the narrator says, "Mario was taking his morning constitutional one day." Really? Is this what it's come down to? Needing to trash words like "walk" for fancy smanshy words in order for people not to immediately see that, yes, this sequel is rather copy and paste of the previous! And clearly, companies that have been putting out over 8 sequels to a game within a decade and can afford to can get away with subtly calling their audience retarded.
On Monkey Island, I am quite the fan and was introduced by Curse of Monkey Island as the odd Christmas present I knew nothing about. That really sunk me into PC gaming, unlike say Kings Quest VI, which is more punishing than the text of a research study to an illiterate child. Since that fateful day, I've played all of the games in the series with the exception of the second one seeing as that's butthurt all to find...reasonably. However, the series began to melt at the fourth iteration, especially with that dry Monkey Kombat (as such, I'd rather watch the Disney Channel for a full day than play that game again).
It is of my opinion that the new episodic Tales of Monkey Island (from Tell Tale? Get it? ToMI?) is subpar. At first, I was squealing with delight, thinking, "Oh good! We're not going to end on that sour note. And Ron Gilbert gives his blessing? Bless him," but it seems that this one isn't turning out any better thus far.
Don't get me wrong. As is, Tales could be doing much much worse, but it could also be doing better. The relationship Guybrush has with Elaine and LeChuck, for instance, is going in odd directions that are all pointing to tragedy. And one thing I really miss are all the things you could do with individual items, "I can't talk to the ramrod," not to mention needlessly, yet entertainingly so, long dialog trees. Sure I can understand why these decisions were made, but they are sad ones that take away a chunk of flavor to what made the games so appetizing. No one would eat Cheetos without that diabetes cheese.
All the same, we talk as if Shakespeare's son would be the ideal candidate for crafting a game. I'd rather a fan make a sequel than someone that's completely alien to the series for the following beautiful reasons: No sprinkling of MI references (though I agree that over saturation of these are unwarranted), characters doing things that are uncharacteristic (yet we see that occurring already), and Bomberman: Act Zero. No one wants another Act Zero. No one.
Still, it's very hard for me to say to other people, "This isn't worth your time," as the series was a sort of wunkerkind to me. But I suppose I must admit defeat, especially once I saw a nearly identical jungle maze in the second episode that was in the first. It's heart breaking, but hopefully, we can still be friends. Kiss kiss.