Now dont go berzerk, i only wanted to point out that the last installment of the Metal Gear series didnt do its job as a sequel.
a sequel is supposed to not only cater to hardcore fans, but draw in and engage new players as well. for me it didnt do so well. it brought so much stuff that was unexplained and assumed i knew what happened to make plot point A matter when plot point Q comes into play. for example. the girl who was in the plane with the otacon guy. who was she? i must have missed the memo. my next example is when snake goes into the base in the fourth act, the game kept trying to make it seem like this was important, but it just seemed like an abandoned base. maby another (yes, another) cut scene could have filled in the blank, or, it could have been avoided altogether with snake and otacon reminiscing about it since it seemed that they were all together in whatever went on there.
my point is that instead of making a game that would draw in new blood and keep the old hands, they made MGS4 a game that is so inaccessible to new players that i cannot honestly recommend it to people who have not played the previous games.
im getting a bit off topic. i used MGS as an example of how a sequel shouldnt be. but good examples of sequels are Fallout 3, Oblivion, and in the movie world, The Empire Strikes back.
please refrain from making this a big "oh, lets defend MGS" thread, i simply used it as an example. feel free to post your own thoughts on what makes a bad sequel, be sure to use examples to explain it.
edit: i noticed that some people are making fun of my good sequel examples. while i would like to defend them i am not because this is not a discussion on what is a good game and what is not. i wanted this to be a discussion on what makes a bad sequel.
edit again: look, i dont care whether MGS1 was a good game or not, it probably was, but lets leave it at that. i like to give any games that i have not played the benifit of the doubt to a certain extent. while i should probably get around to playing the first 3 MGS game, but i probably wont. because from what i played in MGS4, i wasnt impressed. it wasnt all the overly long cut scenes that frustrated me, it was the pointless stelth sections. in the beginning of the game they gave you a dart gun that you found ammo for everywhere, so i would shoot everyone i found with that and then just walk to the next room. also, you were loaded down with a bunch of useless crap and way too many guns. i got the impression going in that this was a stealth game, so why do i need a machine gun? on top of that, the controls handled awfully, if im in the open when a firefight starts, i want to sprint for cover, but it seems like snake is afraid of breaking his hip.
a sequel is supposed to not only cater to hardcore fans, but draw in and engage new players as well. for me it didnt do so well. it brought so much stuff that was unexplained and assumed i knew what happened to make plot point A matter when plot point Q comes into play. for example. the girl who was in the plane with the otacon guy. who was she? i must have missed the memo. my next example is when snake goes into the base in the fourth act, the game kept trying to make it seem like this was important, but it just seemed like an abandoned base. maby another (yes, another) cut scene could have filled in the blank, or, it could have been avoided altogether with snake and otacon reminiscing about it since it seemed that they were all together in whatever went on there.
my point is that instead of making a game that would draw in new blood and keep the old hands, they made MGS4 a game that is so inaccessible to new players that i cannot honestly recommend it to people who have not played the previous games.
im getting a bit off topic. i used MGS as an example of how a sequel shouldnt be. but good examples of sequels are Fallout 3, Oblivion, and in the movie world, The Empire Strikes back.
please refrain from making this a big "oh, lets defend MGS" thread, i simply used it as an example. feel free to post your own thoughts on what makes a bad sequel, be sure to use examples to explain it.
edit: i noticed that some people are making fun of my good sequel examples. while i would like to defend them i am not because this is not a discussion on what is a good game and what is not. i wanted this to be a discussion on what makes a bad sequel.
edit again: look, i dont care whether MGS1 was a good game or not, it probably was, but lets leave it at that. i like to give any games that i have not played the benifit of the doubt to a certain extent. while i should probably get around to playing the first 3 MGS game, but i probably wont. because from what i played in MGS4, i wasnt impressed. it wasnt all the overly long cut scenes that frustrated me, it was the pointless stelth sections. in the beginning of the game they gave you a dart gun that you found ammo for everywhere, so i would shoot everyone i found with that and then just walk to the next room. also, you were loaded down with a bunch of useless crap and way too many guns. i got the impression going in that this was a stealth game, so why do i need a machine gun? on top of that, the controls handled awfully, if im in the open when a firefight starts, i want to sprint for cover, but it seems like snake is afraid of breaking his hip.
