Regardless, I'm thinking it's stupid unthinking writers. You'd think most writers would hate writing prequels, but I'm guessing from my example than many just don't care and do whatever they want anyway.kailus13 said:
Poll: Prequels; Can they be good?
- Thread starter Hugh Wright
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Obviously. Movie tie-in games can be good to, but I guess the key word is CAN. Why they generally seem to be poor may be a more interesting discussion =p.
Fire Emblem: Blazing Sword (GBA 2003) is technically the prequel to Fire emblem: sword of seals (GBA 2002 JP-only). It's better because it polishes a lot of the shit of off SoS, which was a pretty mediocre game.
Of course prequels can be good, several examples of which have already been mentioned.
They're stories like any other.
They're stories like any other.
The Hobbit was written several years before the Lord of the Rings which actually makes it The Hobbit's sequel. Prequels are generally written afterwards aren't they?acillies45 said:
I'm shocked that nobody mentioned Fire Emblem: rekka no ken which is a prequel that introduced Fire Emblem to the west.
EDIT: somebody Has mentioned it yay! I dare say that the videogame industry has a vast number of good prequels as apposed to other forms of media.
EDIT: somebody Has mentioned it yay! I dare say that the videogame industry has a vast number of good prequels as apposed to other forms of media.
Yeah, that's sort of the definition. You don't call A New Hope a prequel because The Empire Strikes Back exists.King Billi said:
Uh Metal Gear Soli...
But yeah, I'd say that's a pretty darn good example of a prequel being good.
Darn.shrekfan246 said:
But yeah, I'd say that's a pretty darn good example of a prequel being good.
Is this a question? Of course prequels can be good. We've already got proof of that (Metal Gear Solid 3, Portable Ops, Peace Walker, Deus Ex: HR, Halo Reach, etc.). The only reason "Prequel" has a big negative connotation is because of a major turn-of-the-century failure in science-fiction film-making.
Yes, defiantly. MGS Big Boss series, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, First Class are all examples of such. Prequels can fill in holes, expand the universe, or flesh out things we know of.
It all depends.
Were the original writer/s working on it?
Was it made by the same team?
If either is no then was the new team genuinely attempting to capture the feeling of the originals and/or working with the original team/creator to ensure that it felt authentic?
If the answer is no to all of these, it's likely to be shit, if even one is yes then it has the same odds of sucking as any sequel (in fact this simple questionnaire can be applied to sequels as well).
Were the original writer/s working on it?
Was it made by the same team?
If either is no then was the new team genuinely attempting to capture the feeling of the originals and/or working with the original team/creator to ensure that it felt authentic?
If the answer is no to all of these, it's likely to be shit, if even one is yes then it has the same odds of sucking as any sequel (in fact this simple questionnaire can be applied to sequels as well).
Technically speaking, yes. The Hobbit was written I think a decade before LoTR. BUT, it's more or less a completely different story. There's minimal mention of things that occur in LoTR, and when they are, they're not pointed at as foreshadowing for LoTR, but just as elements in The Hobbit. I use this as an example as what a prequel should look like, because it doesn't matter that nothing in the LoTR is mentioned, the story stands on its own. Is it a prequel in the sense that Star Wars I-III are prequels, not exactly. But The Hobbit was done right.King Billi said:
Is it harder to make a prequel for a series that already exists? Yes. But that shouldn't mean it is done poorly. I personally don't like most prequels because they focus too much on what is to come, instead of what is currently happening in the story.
Of course just look at MGS3, Devil May Cry 3 and Deus ex Human Revolution all of which are considered good. Though if a prequel is done wrong it can be catastrophic.
Well.Hugh Wright said:
Metal Gear Solid 3
Resident Evil 0
Metroid Prime (is set between Metroid and Metroid 2, so interquel?)
Halo: Reach
Halo ODST
For films, Indiana Jones and the Temple of doom.
There are always far more factors at play than whether the next one is set before or after it's predecessor, although prequels often suffer from a lack of tension when you know before hand that certain characters are doomed, whilst others are invulnerable on account of their presence or lack of in the preceding title.
Fire Emblem is (to me) superior to it's Japan-only source game.
(Blazing Sword > Sword of Seals)
(Blazing Sword > Sword of Seals)
Of course they can be good. Metal Gear Solid 3 was a particular favorite of mine. Done right, a good prequel can really touch on a lot of character development and give fans a lot of what they want. Done wrong, they're unnecessary drivel trying to cash in on brand recognition.
Are you sure you didn't get this idea from Sesslar's Something? Because he just did a video asking this exact same question, and he summed up my feelings on prequels pretty well. The sense of mystery tends to be lacking from prequels. Now, there are certainly exceptions, and many of them, but a lot of the time the ultimate question of "does this person live or die?" is missing from a prequel. The reason being, of course, because of the fact that if the person is still around in the original, then they can't die. You could put the character in the most hopeless, dangerous, no-way-he's-getting-out-of-this-one situation, but it won't matter because that character can't die.
This is the main reason I stay far away from ANY Star Wars book that is written during the "Prequel" Era. I don't care how good it is, I simply can't find the strength to make myself care. Knowing that the vast majority of these characters will all be dead in a few years just kills any interest I have in their stories. On the flip side, I have read nearly every book that takes place AFTER Return of the Jedi (and several that take place in between the original movies) because those characters' fates have not been decided yet.
That's the only real reason I watch The Clone Wars. Ahsoka's fate is an unknown. She's never mentioned (that's another thing that drives me nuts about prequels--new, important characters who are never mentioned in the originals) and we have no idea what happens to her. So the mystery is still around her. Now if only the writers would actually write about her and stop making her a secondary character next to Anakin and Obi.
This is the main reason I stay far away from ANY Star Wars book that is written during the "Prequel" Era. I don't care how good it is, I simply can't find the strength to make myself care. Knowing that the vast majority of these characters will all be dead in a few years just kills any interest I have in their stories. On the flip side, I have read nearly every book that takes place AFTER Return of the Jedi (and several that take place in between the original movies) because those characters' fates have not been decided yet.
That's the only real reason I watch The Clone Wars. Ahsoka's fate is an unknown. She's never mentioned (that's another thing that drives me nuts about prequels--new, important characters who are never mentioned in the originals) and we have no idea what happens to her. So the mystery is still around her. Now if only the writers would actually write about her and stop making her a secondary character next to Anakin and Obi.
Hey, it had a much better story and better gameplay. I'm sorry Xion, but we both knew where which I'd choose.Capitano Segnaposto said:klaynexas3 said:
Look at what you have done! You made her cry! Go back to your corner.
Yeah, said I got the ideas form a video, thought it was Casual Friday, but that was the one.Sniper Team 4 said:
Haven't played any of the games, but always though that Temple of Doom was the weakest of the trilogy (THERE ARE ONLY THREE... don't make me remember the non existent 4th movie).fix-the-spade said:
Given the comments I concede that prequels can be good, so why do they suck as badly and as often as they do?
