On Sequels

[Koujow]

I almost always agree with Yahtzee, but not this time.

Sequels in general do suck. But it is not part of the way of the sequel. It is the way of the designers. Whenever someone makes a new game/move/book, they put a lot of effort into it but when they get the chance to make a sequel, they go "Well, most of the work is already done! I can just breeze through this and get paid."

I think you should change the law to "Whenever you make a sequel, don't be a pissant and actually work on the sequel."

Sequels exist because people want to partake in that world more or there was something in the original that was cool to watch/play. Take the Matrix (This is a bad example, since the sequels sucked, but go with it). The movie was cool to watch and I know at least that I wanted to know more about and see more of the Matrix's world. This is why I saw the second Matrix in theaters, but the crappy-ness of it made me watch the third one when it was on TV many years later.

There ARE good sequels that don't have to follow that silly trilogy rule (AKA- If there are 3 movies, then all 3 are good. Hence why you can't include Star Wars, Indiana Jones, LoTR, etc.) The Dark Knight was as good as, if not better, than Batman Begins. The Terminator movies and the Bourne movies have both received high marks on IMDB. (Note: Bourne movies are not a Trilogy because there is another movie releasing soon)

The same can be applied to games and books. Yes, more often than not, the sequel is just a cash whore. But sometimes developers can actually create something worthwhile.

And your entire point is moot. Your favorite game is Silent Hill 2. 2. TWO. AKA- Sequel.

 

[tobyornottoby]

Instead of sequels, develop new games and add to the old ones. That's my take on the subject, and it's sad to see the gaming environment devolve itself into that of the movie industry all for the sake of money. No one takes pride in their work anymore, I guess..."

That's simply because game budgets devolve into hollywood budgets. New games simply have a hard time being made. Unless it doesn't cost millions which is exactly what's happenening in the indie scene.

Face it. Without sequels, next-gen wouldn't exist.

 

[Naheal]

Keep in mind that I consider KOTOR 2 to be better than KOTOR 1. So do several other people. And Starcraft 2 ISN'T EVEN RELEASED YET!

Nice try though.

It's nice that stupid people have opinions, but, really, if you think that KotOR 2 was better then KotOR 1, you really need to reevaluate what you consider to be a "good game".

I also do realize that Starcraft 2 isn't released yet, but, again, this is from Blizzard. Do we really need to get into what they consider to be a good sequel (oh, sorry, expansion)?

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

Note to self: DO NOT correct Yahtzee. Caring about his mistakes is just as bad as disagreeing with him.

I don't think he has a problem with people disagreeing with him, per se. It's my impression that he doesn't care all that much what everyone's personal stance on his reviews are, i.e., people disagreeing with him, but what he most likely IS annoyed by includes A) people idolizing him, and B) people being incredibly nitpicky regarding his mistakes. I say this not because I know him personally, but because it's only logical. Were I in his position I wouldn't want to be incessantly worshipped by fanboys and/or nitpicked by grammar Nazis.

That said, I found this article fairly interesting. I agree on most of Yahtzee's points, but I wish he could have defined 'fan' a little better. Just because a developer likes a game they're working on the sequel for, doesn't necessarily make them fans, does it? Or that they're putting the game itself on a pedestal? Or maybe I'm just misinterpreting things.

I'd go with "sequels shouldn't be made by the fanboys... But then again shouldn't be made by the haters".

Seconded.

 

[UtopiaV1]

Yhatzee - "If memory serves, it was the Fear 2 review where I dreamed of a world in which sequels are banned. And I still believe such a thing would be a veritable utopia..."

You called?

Also, gee, i wonder where he got the idea for Monkey Island in Space? *ahem* http://www.duelinganalogs.com/comic/2009/08/13/two-for-one-special/

 

[Canadamus Prime]

How about we just outlaw sequel hooks and cliffhanger endings then? That way we could at least be assured some fucking closure.
Anyway I've said it before and I'll say it again, there's nothing worse for a franchise then it's fans. It's why I don't write fan fiction, not that I haven't had an idea or 2, but I know I couldn't do it justice. It probably end up being a tongue bath as Yahtzee put it.

 

[Mr Brightside65]

after watching a fair amount of your videos i would like to specify that you and i have the same taste if not i like a little bit more

 

[Mr Brightside65]

yahtzee can u do a video on phantasy star universe i would expect you to enjoy it after watching your other videos and hopefully grasping what u like (not a gay joke) k thanx bye

 

[NeoSilver]

Putting a little more thought into this, part of what can cause damage to a sequel is the developer needing to tweak or change a system that really doesn't need it. Tales of Monkey Island is one such case; play ToMI and then go and play Sam & Max or SBCG4AP and notice that TellTale well and truly fracked up a system that didn't need any improving.

Another example would be the seventh and eigth MegaMan games, which altered the items system (both) and the Rush Adaptors (8). Neither of them needed to be changed.

 

[Pizzapete32]

I'll just post what I had in a similar thread:

"...Instead of sequels, develop new games and add to the old ones...."

I agree with you on this, it would add variety to games.

 

[deleted_scifidownbeat]

DELETED

 

[Sovvolf]

I'd give both a chance to do it, but I'd set the fan as more of an advisor rather then giving him any real power over the influence of the game, from a person who hates the game or who even sort of liked the game but not to the extent of a fan boy. A person who hates or only moderately likes a game as an unbiased look on it, sure get a man who likes the genre, you don't get some one who only likes FPS games to make an Point and click adventure but don't get a guy who's desperately in love with the mythos that he wont allow radical change.

 

[Manji187]

good points but you would have been better using the Dino Crisis series as an example. The first one was really good, kinda of Resident Evil like, the 2nd gained a bit more action and was different but still good. Then the 3rd was actually dinosaurs in space!wtf was that about!

Yeah lol. Conclusion: As soon as developers are making a "insert franchise name" in space...that's when they're out of ideas. Unless it's Mario...or the game is actually set in space (Dead Space).

 

[Uncompetative]

If games were correctly authored with infinite replayability we would have no need of sequels, or dumb-ass stories that belong in B-Movies.

e.g. like Robotron 64

Which, in case you were wondering, isn't the 64th sequel, but the Nintendo 64 remake in 2/3D.

 

[LesIsMore]

Enjoying the columns more and more, but his argument here is invalidated by three words: Silent. Hill. 2. If one were to completely abolish sequels, it would remove the game he has come within a hair of describing as the best game ever. Between Silent Hill 2, Thief 2, Fallout 3 and Half-Life 2, there's enough examples of wonderful sequels to forgive the endless string of Tomb Raiders and Sonics and Metal Gear Solids.

Endless string of metal gear solids?

There aren't that many Metal Gear Solid games and every one of them so far has improved upon the last one greatly.

Not so much MGS4, but MGS1 was good, MGS2 smoothed out the controls, gave us a new character to play and made the enemies smarter. MGS3 had the best gameplay, the most responsive cntroles and another new character and story.

I simply refuse to allow Metal Gear Solid to be put on the same level as Tomb raider or Sonic. The series constantly improves and changes and has a great story.

Okay, that was a little harsh I admit - even though I stopped taking the series seriously once the whole possessed arm subplot came along. My reply is more based on the fact that Hideo Kojima said that MGS4 would be the last in the series, and then all of a sudden he turns around and starts taking a firm hand in new games like MGS Rising. It shows an unwillingness to let go in my book.

 

[Ninja_X]

Enjoying the columns more and more, but his argument here is invalidated by three words: Silent. Hill. 2. If one were to completely abolish sequels, it would remove the game he has come within a hair of describing as the best game ever. Between Silent Hill 2, Thief 2, Fallout 3 and Half-Life 2, there's enough examples of wonderful sequels to forgive the endless string of Tomb Raiders and Sonics and Metal Gear Solids.

Endless string of metal gear solids?

There aren't that many Metal Gear Solid games and every one of them so far has improved upon the last one greatly.

Not so much MGS4, but MGS1 was good, MGS2 smoothed out the controls, gave us a new character to play and made the enemies smarter. MGS3 had the best gameplay, the most responsive cntroles and another new character and story.

I simply refuse to allow Metal Gear Solid to be put on the same level as Tomb raider or Sonic. The series constantly improves and changes and has a great story.

Okay, that was a little harsh I admit - even though I stopped taking the series seriously once the whole possessed arm subplot came along. My reply is more based on the fact that Hideo Kojima said that MGS4 would be the last in the series, and then all of a sudden he turns around and starts taking a firm hand in new games like MGS Rising. It shows an unwillingness to let go in my book.

Well at least Solid Snake is done if not the series, MGS4 ensured he won't go the way of Nintendo characters and get tirelessly reused again and again.

Hideo said he was unsatisfied with MGS4 (I can see why) and that MGS Rising will be the series true ending.

Also the new games technically won't be Hideo Kojima. Rising will be done by some up and coming newblood apparently. Hideo will still be greatly involved I'm sure. But on top of new talent, we will be playing Raiden again but this time as a cyborg ninja. New enhanced Raiden along with the new talent ensures a completely new Metal Gear Solid is on the way in Rising.

In my opinion, as long as the games continue to be fun stealth games with new characters and stories then they can milk it as much as they want. Just as long as they continue to be great games, they can make as many of them as they want.

So far every MGS game has been an improvement on the last one while at the same time doing something different, except for MGS4. But if Hideo Kojima didn't like it then they probably won't repeat the same mistakes.

 

[wildpeaks]

So I think most of us here agree to the original argument that fanboys can harm a sequel, but also that a sequel is best served by middle ground developers, people who appreciated the original without starting a cult over it, instead of people who hated the original as it usually leads to "complete makeovers" that basically turn the sequel into a new IP of its own (which can be either good or bad, but is usually not faitful to the original).

 

[Evan Waters]

I'd like to disagree with you. Perhaps completely spontaneous sequels (for example, the Pirates of the Caribbean movie sequels) should also be abolished?

There are good films in that category, too. Wrath of Khan, Aliens, Dawn of the Dead (Romero didn't plan on any sequels when he made NOTLD), etc.

The one type of sequel I would say needs to be avoided is the "More of the Same" variety- the old model where you just rehash whatever happened in the first one with slight alterations. This worked great in the years before home video (let alone video games), because you hadn't seen the first one in a while. And with video games, sometimes it's nice to get a tech upgrade. But a sequel that's a logical continuation of what has gone before, because the story or game concept left room for expansion, is another thing altogether.