Poll: Actionizing Sequels.

[Soviet Heavy]

Yeah, it happens all the time. Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2. Dragon Age Origins to Dragon Age 2. Metro 2033 to Metro: Last Light.

I get that making games more appealing to a wider audience is important from a business standpoint. I also get that devs should not always listen to their fans either.

I'm just curious as to what you guys think about actionizing sequels to games. Do you like the shift towards more immediate combat? Or is it just another way to pander to the lowest common denominator?

 

[PeePantz]

This is way too vague. In some games it would help. In others, it is not necessary. Just look at Resident Evil.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, Mass Effect 1 was very "actiony" with Mass Effect 2 just tinkering with it.

 

[Kryzantine]

To be fair, Metro 2034 as a pure sequel, based off the book, would have sucked. The whole thing about art after the apocalypse and the inherent spirituality of humans just doesn't sit well with video games. And it is an FPS that was known for being problematic with its actual shooting elements, so it makes sense to tighten that up.

As for the RPGs, it makes little sense to give them more action for the sake of having a sequel with more action. However, many unique games end up being criticized for their gameplay for one reason or another, and especially if it changed things around in the first place. This is true of both Mass Effect and The Witcher; it's not surprising that their sequels veered into more familiar territory. I can't say if it's a bad thing or not, it's really run on a case-by-case basis.

 

[AlternatePFG]

It worked for Mass Effect, because face it, it wasn't a good RPG anyways. Good game, with a good story but it was bad as an RPG. Making it more of a shooter made it more fun to play, and other than the terrible main plot (Which is a really small part of the game and doesn't matter because it's Act 2 of 3 act story. Act 2 is always about characterization than anything else, and ME2 more than delivered on that front.) it didn't sacrifice much.

Didn't work well at all in Dragon Age 2, because it was supposed to be a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate and other tactical RPG's, which still is kind of funny considering Origins played closer to an MMO than anything else. It's MMO/Tactical RPG mix worked pretty well though in my opinion. Who knows, maybe if they went all out hack and slash for DA2, it might have turned out differently. DA2 didn't know what kind of game it wanted to be. They tried to mix action RPG and tactical RPG, it didn't really turn out so well. Those repetitive waves wouldn't have been so many of a problem if combat felt more satisfying.

As for Metro, I'm a bit disappointed that's it's going towards an action shooter route. I haven't seen much of the footage, but I loved Metro 2033 for what it was. They could have improved the shooter mechanics and added a bit of depth to the gameplay, and that would have been fine.

It really depends on the game.

 

[AJax_21]

In the case of Metro, 4A should've just tighten the shooting elements, improve the stealth and A.I. And looking at the recent trailers, they did exactly that and I'm happy about that. Also the developers promised they wouldn't stray away from the survival-horror element that made the first game amazing. I don't get why a lot of people are blasting Last Light for making actual improvements.

Don't know about Dragon Age but I actually liked the feel of the combat in Mass Effect 2. My problem with game was the combat itself was so bloody repetitive and level design was just a series of linear corridors with chest high walls unconvincingly sprinkled across the level.

 

[baddude1337]

An obvious one I can think of is Rainbow Six. They were slow, methodical tactical games that unless you meticulously planned your teams route you were basically screwed, and had lethal terrorists that could kill you and your whole team in seconds. Then came Vegas, which, although still a decent game, was more action focused and very light on tactical planning. I think it does depend on the game but in this case I didn't like it as there are hardly any tactical shooters like R6 and Swat these days.

 

[AlternatePFG]

Metro went from a shooter to... a shooter? I don't quite understand your point.

It went from a more suvival-horror like shooter to a more actiony shooter, at least from the trailers and footage.

 

[FPSMadPaul]

It worked for Mass Effect, because face it, it wasn't a good RPG anyways. Good game, with a good story but it was bad as an RPG. Making it more of a shooter made it more fun to play, and other than the terrible main plot (Which is a really small part of the game and doesn't matter because it's Act 2 of 3 act story. Act 2 is always about characterization than anything else, and ME2 more than delivered on that front.) it didn't sacrifice much. Didn't work well at all in Dragon Age 2.

This really shows both sides of the coin, although I do think it dramatically improves gameplay (in most cases).

 

[prince_xedar]

it depends on the game.
Mass effect got better with the actionizing, but Dragon Age didnt

 

[MurderousToaster]

If it would make sense to "dumb it down" a bit, then they should. The Mass Effect transition was a good example for me. They kept all the things that the first game did right (the dialogue system, lengthy "social" parts of the game) and improved upon and (god, I hate this term, but I'm gonna use it anyway) streamlined the clunky parts of the first game - the combat, the inventory interface and the RPG elements. Combat felt more fun in the second game as opposed to the fiddly obtuseness of the first. The regenerating health thing depends on your point of view, of course.

Since I don't own Dragon Age 2, I can't make the call on that one. Admittedly, it would probably be a bad idea for me to even try that, given that I really, really didn't like the first at all.

Even though people will argue that it's contributing to the stupidity of the gaming industry, if it makes sense they should go for it and "actionise" a little. Naturally they shouldn't go about turning a complex strategy series into a dumb shooter or something like that, but if the situation calls for it, it should be done.

 

[Sixcess]

I'm undecided. Mass Effect 2's combat was much much better than that of ME1, but there was so much of it I got rather bored in places. Very much "oh god, here we go again... another sequence of ten rooms or so filled with a variety of chest high objects. Oh well, better get on with it..."

To go with a rather older example, the sequels to Tomb Raider (particularly 2 and 3) ramped up the amount of combat - especially with human enemies 0 and in doing so lost, I think, some of the atmosphere and feel of the original.

 

[krazykidd]

How does making somthing more action-oriented open it up to a wider audience? Wouldn't putting more action in increase the age rating, thus making it sell less? An example is Mass Effect. Some of my younger friends were 12 when the first Mass Effect (ME) came out. 3 years later ME 2 came out. However, ME 2 was 18s and my 15 year-old friends wouldn't have been able to buy or play it. Thus, it was only available to a smaller audience.

In short, I do not understand how more action increases the audience size.

Wait what , children ( yes children ) under 18 makes up for a small ( not to say igsignificant ) part of actual gamers. Makng it more action oriented widens the number of people that will enjoy the game ( rpgs are not as popular as they once were ). Because more people want action ( pew pew ) to anything else .

OT: i dont think that sequels should change the original concept of a game , if you want to change a game that much dont make a sequel make an entirely new game.