Poll: Why u no like sequels?

[Dutchy115]

I've never quite quite understood this, why do people hate sequels with such a passion? I've heard all the usual half-assed arguments, that they're all just "level-packs", and "copy-pastes of the originals", but these statements are simply not true, and I think people are all to ready to ignore how much time and effort game developers put into making these games, regardless of what stupid prejudices you might have. Please try and look at them with a bit of perspective, say you make a game, a brilliant game, that gets universal acclaim, such as...CoD: Modern Warfare, or BioShock, or Portal, or Half-Life, or Halo, or Mass Effect, or Super Mario Galaxy, the list goes on and on, but I'll leave it at that, what do you do next? You can do one of two things, you can create a completely new game, take for example, The Behemoth, developers of Alien Hominid and Castlecrashers, never made a sequel, they constantly move on to new concepts and ideas, and garner a lot of respect from it. Or, you can make a sequel, a game that carries the core gameplay concept and twists and refines it but very much keeps it comfortably similar to what fans know and love, and to top it off include a new story, new settings and sometimes new characters, and that in itself is good. The entire point of a sequel is to deliver more of the same, new challenges and new adventure that handle the same as the original game you loved, how many sales would MW2 have achieved if instead of the description of a sequel I listed above, it was Assassin's Creed? Sequels aren't meant to be completely new concepts and games people, so stop expecting them to be, and for the love of god, stop calling the developers lazy, you want to make the argument that MW2 and MW3 are identical? Play the first missions of each respective title, then shut up and keep you're ridiculous opinions to yourself. Of course this is a forum, so this statement was issued with the intention of starting a discussion, so by all means, discuss away...
And for the record, I chose option 5

 

[madwarper]

As far as your poll is concerned, I haven't played the any games from the series you've listed and I have no desire to play any of them. So, it's option 5 by default.

And, I'd agree with you on most games, short of EA's yearly sports franchises. Those really should just be regulated to a bug fix and stats update patch.

 

[Scrustle]

Sounds like you're just pissed at people hating on CoD, rather than the idea of sequels.

But for the sake of discussion I'll elaborate. Sequels can be good or bad depending on how they are handled. In some cases it is a great opportunity to develop ideas to increase the breadth of the medium and refine a concept to perfection. If something is good enough to make more of, then there's no problem with making more of it. It's a far better option than to let a good idea go un-explored. But on the other hand they can just be lazy. Plenty of game sequels don't take the opportunity to refine a concept, but to just get more money out of people without having to come up with something new and "risky". These are games which don't significantly improve on their predecessors and just re-hash the same ideas over and over until people get sick of it, like Guitar Hero. Or alternatively they are just made to make money out of a well known name without having to put effort in actually making a game that deserves to exist on it's own credit, like Bioshock 2.

Ultimately it all comes down to money vs. innovation. People don't like sequels because it's too often just done because publishers care about money more than innovation in the medium. So they go with the easy option, which is releasing sequel after sequel until a franchise won't sell any more. This isn't always the case, but it's the main reason behind what makes some sequels bad.

 

[Dutchy115]

Yeah, I hate Call of Duty and just about every shooter, I was just using it as an example simply because it seems to get much more shit than any other title

 

[Dutchy115]

I hear what you're saying (Scrustle), especially with games like Guitar Hero and just about every sports game in existence (which quite literally are copy-paste games), but developers put a lot more effort into games like Halo 3, MW3 and GoW3 than most people give them credit for, I just don't think its fair on them to say otherwise simply to backup you're hatred of their game (not you, just, people in general)

 

[Zhukov]

Why u no like comprehensibility?

Paragraphs man, they're a gift from God.

 

[badgersprite]

I like sequels. I just don't particularly like shooters for the most part. They're just not my style of game, but for the rare moment when I'm in the mood to enjoy one.

I don't really understand how someone could be unambiguously against the idea of a continuation of a story or a predetermined number of installments like a trilogy. It's like being against the concept of an epic, or a ballad, or linear narrative.

It's just a thing. A literary term and device. Sequels as a concept have no inherent merit or demerit.

And, for anyone who says "sequels lack originality" I have breaking news! Nothing you have ever liked has ever been truly original, if at all. Everything is derivative. Everything is based on pre-existing concepts, stories, ideas, etc., even if only subconsciously. Things just seemed original to you before because it was your first exposure to that particular type of thing or because it was executed in such an innovative or interesting way that you didn't notice.

If you want something original, go invent your own language and your own concepts and all your own words to describe them and write something without a narrative, without any recognisable character types, settings, locations, creatures, time periods or morals. Now that would be original, but it wouldn't be interesting or comprehensible to anybody, would it?

 

[Weaver]

It depends on what the sequel entails.

Let's look at Red Alert -> Red Alert 2.
RA2 was better in nearly every way. It improved graphics (new engine), gave us more fun units, gave us more great (cheesy) movies. The UI was better, it played better, it sounded better and it continued the story. It was an improvement in every way.

Let's look at COD 4 -> WaW.
Same engine, same multiplayer; it plays the same, feels the same, looks the same, sounds the same. It didn't continue any story in any way. Oh but you have WW2 weapons so it's okay? Back in the day Unreal Tournament had free total conversion mods that were about the quality of WaW (relative to the time). But now you got to pay $60 for it?

 

[Aris Khandr]

I hear what you're saying (Scrustle), especially with games like Guitar Hero and just about every sports game in existence (which quite literally are copy-paste games), but developers put a lot more effort into games like Halo 3, MW3 and GoW3 than most people give them credit for, I just don't think its fair on them to say otherwise simply to backup you're hatred of their game (not you, just, people in general)

I can't speak for most of EA's games, as I'm not a huge sports fan, but the FIFA series is far from a copy-paste job. The advances made to the series in just two years (from 2010 World Cup to FIFA 12) absolutely blew me away. Yeah, it's still football, but far from a copy-paste as so many people like to claim.

 

[Bostur]

What is the deal with all the shooters in the poll?

Anyway a lot of the games that are released as sequels would have been sold as expansions for half the price a few years ago. I can't really blame people for being disappointed with that development.

There are also some sequels that are significantly worse than the original, less content, less development time, same technology. In those cases it seems the publishers simply try to squeeze extra cash out of an established franchise.

And then there are of course the sequels that change so much, that fans of the original will be turned off completely. ME2 is a good example of this.

But there are still worthy sequels. Portal 2 is an example of a sequel that preserves the original gameplay but mix it up a bit. Some people will prefer the style of the original and some will prefer the sequel.

Arkham City is another sequel with enough new developments and enough of new content that it's a worthy sequel. Again some prefer the original, but the sequel can hardly be considered a ripoff.

I'm very cautious with sequels at the moment, because of a lot of bad examples that simply wasn't worth the money.

 

[Captain Booyah]

Paragraphs. You can has.

But in answer to the topic: sequels can be tricky things to get right. What a good one generally should do, at the very least, is fix its predecessor's flaws, keep/improve upon what made said predecessor good in the first place, and add a few new surprises to keep it interesting. Success stories like Half-Life 2 and Portal 2 are examples of "doing it right", as well as Silent Hill 2, which worked around any plot issues by creating an entirely new story with different characters, but keeping the central theme (i.e. the town of Silent Hill) the same. Then there's stuff like BioShock Infinite, which obviously hasn't been released yet, but takes the series in an entirely different direction.

But even when sequels fail at the most basic level (did you enjoy taking away everything that made Sands of Time good, Warrior Within? Did you? DID YOU?!), there's still so many things that can go wrong. Sometimes the plot, characters etc. suffer because there's nothing new to add and isn't much more than a cash-in (BioShock 2), sometimes new mechanics don't work out as well as hoped, or sometimes new sequels are just the same games but repackaged in shinier material (*place Call of Duty potshot here*).

Basically, even when sequels aren't obvious, lazy cash-grabs, there's still so many traps to fall into. That's generally why people aren't exactly crazy about them, unless they're the kind of rabid "fans" that I believe Yahtzee wrote about once, who'll consume anything to do with a series regardless of the quality. As for the games themselves, some sequels are genuinely innovative and succeed; some are genuinely innovative and fail; and others are just sloppy.

 

[BathorysGraveland]

Well... I enjoyed and prefer The Witcher 2 to the original by a colossal amount. So the idea that I hate or despise sequels is kind of ruined right there. My all-time favourite video game is Gothic II, a sequel, so there again.

 

[Gralian]

The problem i have with sequels is that it can fall into what i have dubbed Assassin's Creed Syndrome. Chiefly meaning that the plot can be so convoluted, be stretched so wafer thin that the developers themselves don't seem to have a grasp on what's going on, what's going to happen and where it can go next. The sequel becomes nothing more than an excuse to pad out an IP because they know it is a lucrative venue from fans. I don't like that and i hate milking franchises, even if they are franchises i love.

I'm not going to do a spiel on how sequels can look and play the same. But as long as they add just enough innovation to distinguish the two, i'm happy. For example, using the Assassin's Creed example again, they have tried to add a little something with each iteration. Not much, granted, but they still slowly added things like buying business, the mentor system, and now the tower defence system. Bioshock 2 felt markedly different from Bioshock 1 purely on the basis that you were now a big lumbering man of steel. Even with the Uncharted games, from 1 to 2 it felt like there were tighter mechanics and controls in play. It wasn't a great deal, but it was enough to feel like a fresh experience while retaining everything that made the first good. Where i draw ire is when sequels really are a direct copy-paste right down to the shoddy game length - biggest case in point being the tremendously disappointing The Force Unleashed games.

 

[Dutchy115]

What is the deal with all the shooters in the poll?

Yeah, the poll has very little relation to the forum, I was just having a laugh, I also wanted the satisfaction of knowing that 30/37 people (at this point) prefer non-shooters, or, as I wrote, "Games that don't suck balls"

I'm not saying that shooters are a waste of space, I enjoy the odd game of Halo Reach or MW3, but i'm talking a max of twice a week, and only when I have a large party of mates, but for playing alone I like a bit of variety, I go from Assassin's Creed to Elder Scrolls (haven't played Skyrim yet but I plan to get around to it) to any game by Valve and most recently Mass Effect (a shooter in many ways, but I like to think the RPG elements differentiate it a little)

Also, i'm open to new series to play, any suggestions people?

 

[Dutchy115]

Paragraphs man, they're a gift from God.

Paragraphs. You can has.

Yeah, sorry, i'm used to Metacritic, where any paragraphs you make just got automatically meshed with each other into one incomprehensible blob, so on the internet I've pretty much given up

 

[Vault101]

oh I like sequels just fine

if they have a reason to exist..that is (Im looking at YOU assasins creed)

 

[dvd_72]

The way I see it (and I know it's a heavily simplified view) there are two types of sequels. The yearly rehash that should be expansions/patches (See: yearly sports releases or COD), and sequels for which the developer has put in the proper time and effort to make it a game of its own.

My hate is reserved for the yearly sequels, especially ones with a focus on multiplayer. I realise this may sometimes be an unfair generalisation but that's just how I feel through experience.

Now, the "proper" sequels can vary from a well thought out and executed sequel to a unimaginative rehashing of the prequel that could easily pass for a yearly sequel. In this case, I'd have to judge each individually.

 

[Phlakes]

Sequels are logical and a good thing to have. Without them there would be no Skyrim, Dark Souls, FF6, 8, or whichever is your favorite, Earthbound or Mother 3, Half Life 2, etc.

Then people bring up the "rehash/cash in/level pack" sequels, like the CoDs or Mario Galaxy 2. This may be hard to comprehend, but when people like something, chances are they want more of it. If you don't, good for you, the most it affects you is that you have to read about it.

Although I agree that the CoD model is flawed. For one reason- the price. The way they work it is more like a TV show with other franchises being like movies, so if they drop the price, it would be perfect.

 

[Dutchy115]

For example, using the Assassin's Creed example again, they have tried to add a little something with each iteration.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in a passionate love affair with the Assassin's Creed series, and I'm just about up to my elbows in my obsession with every tiny detail of its story, but I'm adult enough (at 16) to acknowledge that the series lost a lot with Revelations, the two new things they added (the hookblade and the tower defence) were not implemented well, the city was designed poorly, with nowhere near as much flow and connectivity as Florence, Venice or Rome, and it felt like right up until Ezio...finds that thing at the end and contacts that guy and we find out those things...that Ubisoft had just wasted a golden opportunity with revelations and treated it as Filler material, the only part in Revelations where I felt genuinely in touch with the characters was when we found that guy dead, it came out of nowhere and hit me as hard as puberty hit Justin Bieber, and I was expecting at least some gameplay as Desmond once you're out of the Animus, but no, just a "I know what we need to do" and a dramatic "days of our lives" glance out of the van and into the real world.

Revelations was a serious step down from Brotherhood and I hate Ubisoft for that

 

[MPerce]

I like good sequels. Half Life 2 is a strong contender for best game of the last decade, because it took what made the original good, then added its own innovations and charm. That's a good sequel.
A bad sequel is the same game repackaged with basically no changes made, such as CoD and everything after Assassin's Creed 2 to name a few (I'll give Halo a pass because they at least provided a fairly interesting over-arcing plot, new weapons/ power-ups that actually had a major effect on the game play, and big improvements to the visuals).
But whatever. Some people like familiarity. Nothing wrong with that.