Sequel game, same content... Yay!

[Geo Da Sponge]

Now I know I'm going to sound like every other lunatic driven mad by the nostalgia filter of time when I say this but some game series have a lot of repetition between each sequel. I'm not going to give any names, because I'm sure you all have your own selection and I don't want to create verbal fisticuffs. Whether there is too much unoriginality in the industry is not my question.

However, what has come as a suprise to me is that some people genuinely desire this similarity. Yes, really. They defend it in forums. They say they want the game to 'stay true to it's design'. Even when someone comes along and gives alternative ideas for the next game, ideas which might actually do something, they shun them. I read someone specifically saying that they "want a sequel, not a new game".

My question is, are they wrong? They have seen other ideas and don't want them. Does this mean a series of games doing pretty much the same thing over and over is okay as long as someone wants them, or are these people breeding stagnation?

 

[JRCB]

It's not okay. There needs to be at least some innovation from one game to another.

 

[Meado]

It's a fine line to tread. If you change too much, it's not the same game anymore. If you change too little or refuse any new ideas, the franchise stagnates.

 

[Dyp100]

There is nothing wrong with it, I mean...If a sequel makes massive gameplay changes it might lose a lot of it's core audience and that is bad for sales and generally community!

Of course, it's more then likely a sequel will have a fun innovations from game to game, I mean, take Halo for example, it's kept the solid gameplay and added new features through each.

 

[hopeneverdies]

It was like this when Pikmin came out. Despite Nintendo creating a new IP, the fanboys cried foul because they wanted a new Zelda and Mario game. Ironically enough, neither of the two things they wanted were what they hoped for. Zelda Wind Waker was called too kiddy and Mario Sunshine was apparently too much of a jump.

My point, they are wrong. A sequel that has the same content may as well be an expansion pack.

 

[squid5580]

It is all about a balance. We need new innovative games along with the same old same old. If a game does everything right why change it. Look at the hype around Bioshock 2 or Mass Effect 2. I doubt many are expecting a brand new engine but most consider at least one of those to be the cream of the crop. And those wouldn't be very happy if there wasn't a little improvement or if they revamped the entire game.

 

[MrPink67]

Just think of FEAR 2, the only thing seperating it from the original was the mech and new graphics, other than that it was basically "F.E.A.R Pretty Edition"

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

There is nothing wrong with it, I mean...If a sequel makes massive gameplay changes it might lose a lot of it's core audience and that is bad for sales and generally community!

Of course, it's more then likely a sequel will have a fun innovations from game to game, I mean, take Halo for example, it's kept the solid gameplay and added new features through each.

I'd point to Halo as an example. I visited the forums for discussing Halo: Reach, and good God they are insane! This is slightly biased because anyone who wants to go onto the forums just to talk about a game coming out in a years time with no information currently avaiable is clearly mad. But my point is that when one guy said that most suggested changes on there made no real difference, he was shouted down for wanting to change the formulae, despite the fact that Halo: Reach is a really good chance to do a big crazy fun multiplayer FPS, as compared to catering to the MLG tight arses who mainly inhabit the Halo forums now.

 

[timmytom1]

It's not okay. There needs to be at least some innovation from one game to another.

It`s a line some games thread very thinly left 4 dead 2 for instance ,i don`t doubt it`ll be a good game and i`ll probably buy it when it comes out but i do wonder as to whever or not so,e of the additions couldn`t simply be patched in (or indeed added as DLC that you have to pay for)

 

[Fenring]

If we look at a series that did stay true to it original gameplay for a while (lets take the Ghost Recon Series), you'll see that for the first group of games (those until the GRAW series) were well received¸ and while keeping to it's core gameplay, were still fun to play. Then the series made a HUGE leap to the GRAW series (I'm talking on the console version, I've heard the PC games are more similar to the original than the newer ones.). With this leap, the gameplay was drastically changed, and I would argue for the better, the GRAW series was less tactical and could be played more like a Third-Person Shooter. Then they made a sequel.

The original Ghost Recon series was able to keep the original gameplay feeling fresh, although not interesting many new people in the series. They kept expanding it. But when GRAW 2 came along, it didn't expand enough for me to feel it was really a '2', it felt more like GRAW 1.5. As long as the developers can keep something fresh and expand upon it, I feel they should continue to make sequels, then switch styles if they can't. They shouldn't make a game that is only really an expansion pack and call it a sequel.

The same could be said of the Rainbow 6 games. I hope people understood wha I was trying to say.

 

[Xanadu84]

Yes and no. New content for an old game, building off of the already established mechanics to create the same, good, core game play can be a fine thing. Half Life 2 has the same basic premise as Half Life 1, and the Episodes are even more similar, and it would be hard to say that HL2 is a bad game because of it. Often times people get a sequel because they want a specific kind of gameplay. And that is perfectly fine. If I get Pad Thai for the second time this week because I love it, that's fine. And if later I think to myself, "I want some Pad Thai" and they give me Curry, I have reason to be annoyed. You can't really say that I'm not trying new things if I want my Pad Thai to be Pad Thai, because I also get Chinese, Pizza, Etc. Enjoying something and wanting to explore it more is not stagnation, its appreciation. If a sequel is an update of old mechanics, seen through a new lens but still a similar experience, well that's fine as long as you are discovering and learning new things. Generally with a little bit of research, you can find out the ratio of tried-and-true to innovative.

I think the bigger problem would be similarities between franchises. Theirs a whole league of FPS games that are remarkably similar to one another, and don't show people much that's new. And while consistency within a franchise is acceptable, consistency across the whole genre leads to stagnation. It starts to be the standard for all FPS, and there's no where to turn for something different.

 

[Kiutu]

Sequals primary goal is to continue the fun from the first, which often involves the story as well as general gameplay. Ofcourse, you can change one to keep the other good, but a good portion of fans may not like that. Final Fantasy changes story but not gameplay (or used to) which has worked. Few, but some games change the gameplay but keep teh story though. Halo Wars added more to the overall history of Halo but went from FPS to RTS. Kingdom Under Fire also did a sorta reverse, where it was first a RTS, then a action RTS, then Circle of Doom comes and changes it to a Dungeon Crawling type Hack and Slash, but continues the same story through all of them. Most origional KUF fans hate CoD, but I find in terms of telling more story, was a great way to do so, and it sets up the plot for KUF2 which goes back to the action RTS style that made it big.

Really, I think as long as it is fun, it did its job. Dynasty Warriors is a fun game, but is criticized for being the same game everytime. Ofcourse most people overlook the other modes which rarely are the same, as well as the improvements and other factors.
Really, games are better off staying the same, but better as opposed to offering something different.

Often its just little things peopel want anyways, little features that end up doing alot as opposed to massive rehaulings. "This game is great...cept I wish you could just ____" Those are what need to be improved on. (Past such things would include swimming and jumping)

 

[Zombie_Fish]

I don't think it's okay personally. I think if a sequel is to be made, there should be some originality, as that would make making a sequel worthwhile. If it isn't innovative, then why make the sequel?

 

[Merteg]

If the game changes too much, people complain, if it changes too little, people complain.

The hard thing is to find that balance. Few developers do.

 

[TaborMallory]

Sequels that are directly moving a story forward are fine.
Pointless sequels that don't do that require damn good innovation for my full respect.

 

[rockingnic]

I don't care if they change anything or not. As long as the game is still fun to play and doesn't destroy itself with horrible changes. Oh and the sequel must be worth at least the retail price, *cough* guitar hero (should have made the songs as content downloads.

 

[Travdelosmuertos]

It's not okay. There needs to be at least some innovation from one game to another.

It`s a line some games thread very thinly left 4 dead 2 for instance ,i don`t doubt it`ll be a good game and i`ll probably buy it when it comes out but i do wonder as to whever or not so,e of the additions couldn`t simply be patched in (or indeed added as DLC that you have to pay for)

The Source engine does not currently support gibbing. There's a few other things I read about, like increasing the number of zombies/entities on the screen. These things require a major engine overhaul, which is something that can't just be patched in.

I think the main reason why it's L4D2 and not an expansion is that the majority of the Steam user base can barely handle L4D as is, without the increased workload. So they're splitting it into two communities it seems.

 

[tomtom94]

I'm guessing that at least a portion of this is directed at Pokemon. Although not nearly as much as is directed at EA...

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. More of the same is a good thing, as long as it is reasonably priced.

 

[Twitchycat]

I really, really, really find repetitive gameplay to be an unforgivable cyst that kills whatever fun the game had. The problem is if the sequel changes too much then people whine about it not being a sequel, but rather a different game. If the game is to innovative people whine about that. Oh wait, that is pretty much merteg's stance.

Well what can you and I do to fix this? It is simple don't buy sequels that stick with the same methods. Why? Ultimately developers are just companies like walgreens and blockbuster. You have to hit them where it hurts and if their sales fall they will take notice. I would rather see a developer fail trying to be inovative than not try at all.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

The only games I can really think of that are too similar to their predecessors are the Madden series, the Tiger Woods series, and CoD:WaW.