Sequels Part 2

[GonzoGamer]

I really don?t get what the big deal is about sequels to tell you the truth. If people didn?t want them, they would stop buying them, and publishers would stop churning them out. I kind of wish the whole conversation was about pricing (not just of new games but used games and dlc as well) because some of those practices are the biggest factors stunting consumer growth in this industry.
If it?s innovation-stagnation we?re worrying about, then instead of having a problem with the solid franchises that sell (and are usually made) well, we should have a problem with copycat games that are shorter and not as well refined (and yet still sell for the same $60) because those are the devs that should be trying new things and innovating.
It isn?t anything new. Remember the NES? Most of the games on it were SMB clones because it was a big game on the system. Most of them were crap but the SMB sequels (the real ones at least) were great.
We didn?t complain last gen when R* was making a new GTA every year but there were a shiton of GTA clones we could?ve done without. And then again, sometimes you get a clone that outshines what it was copying: everyone I know thought Saints Row 2 was far more fun than GTA4.
So I guess we can?t say one practice or another is all bad, gamers just have to vote with their wallets and use their best judgmen...oh, I see the problem.

 

[Subatomic]

Video game sequels are neither inherently bad nor inherently good, though like movies they of course have tendencies to become worse with each following installment (as always, there are exceptions).

There's also a big difference between mostly story and mostly action driven games, as those are two completely different beasts in my opinion. A game that focuses on story, lore and a consistent fictional world can pull of a good sequel much easier than a game which greatest appeal is its gameplay and action. The latter are more akin to sports (or even *are* sports games) and if they even have a story mode, its secondary at best. Narrative driven games can continue their story provided the previous game ended with enough narrative room left, or tell another story set in the same world. Action oriented games on the other hand lack that justification, and instead must rely on improved technical aspects (graphics / physics / gameplay) alone to attract buyers.
In a very broad comparison, story driven games are like movies and novels, while action driven games are like a sport. You can (relatively speaking) easily relase a new installment that advances an engaging story every few years, but it's an entirely different endavour to release slightly updated football rules every year and still provide a meaningful sequel.

Another big thing to consider is player expectations. Someone else already mentioned Dragon Age 2, which was -understatement incoming- a pretty divisive game. A lot of fans of the original expected a bigger, better Dragon Age: Origins, and instead Bioware delivered a sequel that was "in name only" to some, with a very different narrative structure compared to it's predecessor (focus on one location and one character, instead of DA:O's more open world and event-driven story). To a lot of people, Bioware simply changed too much that didn't need changing, and didn't advance the story of the character played in the previous game.
On the other hand we have Mass Effect 2 (ironically by Bioware too), which also changed a lot of things from Mass Effect 1, like the complete removal of inventory management and greatly reducing the complexity of character advancement. Sure, there were a lot of critics of those changes too, yet still ME2 is regarded by the majority as a great game that is at least equal to or even surpasses ME1.
It is very difficult for a developer to know which changes are acceptable to the fans and which aren't. One man's innovation is another one's unneccessary change or 'jumping the shark'-moment, so there's a very delicate balance between changing just enough and not too much at the same time.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

dammit make the article longer, I have the attention span to read more than two pages and this stuff is actually interesting

 

[BrotherRool]

I have about 400 books and I have to admit I can't really think of one that ends in a cliffhanger. Oh except Colour of Magic. No Terry Pratchett apart from that really ends in a cliffhanger although there are a couple of sequel drops (which are different) in a couple of them.

No Agatha Christie ends in a cliffhanger, I can't think of an Asimov novel that ends in a cliffhanger. Even the foundation series doesn't end on cliffhangers. No Jane Austen, none of the Edge Chronicles, no Artemis Fowl, no Redwall, none of the leCarre that I own. None of my Jack Higgins, none of my Biggles (that takes you back )

I think one of the Mortal Engines has a bit of a cliffhanger. No Michael Crichton that I can think of, going back a bit no Hardy Boy or Nancy Drew that I could care to name.

Now Lord of the Rings, I think those end on cliffhangers ish. But they really should be read as one book to get the true experience

All the Harry Potters have pretty well defined self-contained stories, except maybe the sixth and certainly they all have proper endings where conclusions are drawn and events are finished, nicely delineated by term times.

I think maybe your authors are a little bit bad at doing self-contained stories properly I'd be pissed if I got to the end of the book and it didn't have an ending. There's no reward.


Also didn't Little Big Planet have a lower price than most games? And that turned out well in the end, they really should have learnt from that lesson

 

[satsugaikaze]

Oh man, would we Australians love to discuss videogame pricing.

 

[MB202]

A most interesting read... I tend to agree with Bob (like I usually do), but Yahtzee and Jim also raise good points as well.

 

[Sylocat]

Extra Consideration: Sequels Part 2

The much awaited sequel to the original with MovieBob, Jim and Yahtzee.

Read Full Article

Just a heads up, but the first link in "Again, I feel titles like Call of Duty is dominating while the games of Suda 51 and his eccentric ilk disappear without a trace." (in the last paragraph of the first section of the first page) is borked and eating all the text between it and the following link, so the entire section about Deadly Premonition and whatnot ends up missing/not displaying.

I noticed that too. There's a shorter one in MovieBob's last post on the second page, too.

 

[MisterM2402]

What happened to this column? :S Really enjoyed them :/

 

[zombie711]

Been just over a year now.
This column is officially dead

 

[hermes]

To anyone defending Cliffhangers as a concept for games, I point to Episode 2 and the awful way they ended with a cliffhanger that will never be resolved.

Cliffhangers are a cheap trick... they are only a marketing ploy to keep an audience captive. Books like Song of Ice and Fire are not good because of the cliffhanger, they are good despite them. Nothing would be lost if the books had a proper ending.