has Extra Punctuation not been getting enough hits?
I enjoyed reading this, but not as much as EP
I enjoyed reading this, but not as much as EP
The Good, the Bad, and the Sequel
- Thread starter Extra Consideration
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If you are no longer showing "Extra Credits" (even the past ones), Escapist, I *strongly* suggest you change the name of this segment, as the "Extra" part was no doubt used because of James Portnow's appearance. While you're at it, Escapist, I also suggest that you remove all "Extra Credits" badges from peoples' profiles. You had them for a year, you and them had a misunderstanding and now...they don't belong to you anymore...so let them go. I may get banned for this, but whatever.
What amazes me is none of these 3 so called experts mentioned the first thing about technical advancements in sequels. It's too bad the Escapist mishandled Extra Credits because James would have been perfect to point out that developers never really get to finish commerical games. Not in their own mind. There's always that feature that had to get cut, that idea that couldn't be implemented, or code that wasn't optimized. To a developer a sequel represents the opportunity to do what couldn't be done the first time. Forget about continuing the story or keeping the characters. Those artists and writers should go to hollywood if they want to tell a story. To a developer a sequel is a chance to get right what went wrong.
And by developer I mean software developer, not story or artistic developer. Like I said, those guys should go make movies.
And by developer I mean software developer, not story or artistic developer. Like I said, those guys should go make movies.
I'm with you on this one. I avoid everything I know this dufus is going to be in.Spygon said:
Did anyone else instantly realise Yahtzee would jizz his pants when Jim called Silent Hill 2: "my favorite game of all time." ?
Sequels are a dicey subject because there are many stories that do well when continued. However, there are plenty that follow the Bioshock 2 example and tack arbitrary and unnecessary length to a storyline that just doesn't need it. As has been said, the best ones are sequels with their own stories that are related to but not direct continuations of the very same plotline of its predecessors. They should be like a book series; they can have some of the same characters and maybe the same setting, but they need to have new events and new characters introduced. Bioshock 2 gave us new characters, but the setting was the same, the story was essentially the same (a faceless, voiceless protagonist being used by the people in rapture to try and further their own ends while he himself just wants to survive) and the gameplay was essentially the same.
Actually that is one point I think should be made. If it comes down to a choice, it's better to keep gameplay the same and let the story/setting/characters evolve and change. Why? Because gameplay is the area of a game that can stay the same and not have people judging it poorly as a result. It comes down to the "if it's not broken, don't fix it," philosophy. The Jak & Daxter series is a good example, same gameplay (for the most part) but the story and locations are varied and different each time.
But story/setting/characters doesn't operate by that same reasoning. Telling the exact same (or unavoidably familiar) story through the same medium with only a slightly different method doesn't do much to enhance the experience. It's like reading a book then reading the same story on a Kindle; you get the same experience, just in a flashier setup. And for some stories this can be a good thing, having replay value. But if you're playing a SEQUEL, you naturally expect something new to experience besides a different vehicle through which to see the same old sights.
Actually that is one point I think should be made. If it comes down to a choice, it's better to keep gameplay the same and let the story/setting/characters evolve and change. Why? Because gameplay is the area of a game that can stay the same and not have people judging it poorly as a result. It comes down to the "if it's not broken, don't fix it," philosophy. The Jak & Daxter series is a good example, same gameplay (for the most part) but the story and locations are varied and different each time.
But story/setting/characters doesn't operate by that same reasoning. Telling the exact same (or unavoidably familiar) story through the same medium with only a slightly different method doesn't do much to enhance the experience. It's like reading a book then reading the same story on a Kindle; you get the same experience, just in a flashier setup. And for some stories this can be a good thing, having replay value. But if you're playing a SEQUEL, you naturally expect something new to experience besides a different vehicle through which to see the same old sights.
I tend to agree with all that you said. Especially about Fallout 3.krellen said:
And off topic: do you post at Twentysided as well?
I almost never buy games when they're at full price. The only game I've bought at full price & new release was DoW2:Redemption. I am wrestling with myself about buying Space Marine as a new release too - it's tied to 40K fluff I think.
If you consider the last few games I've bought:
Mount & Blade: With Fire And Sword A$15 - taleworlds.com
Caesar IV A$10 - EB Games
Fallout 3 GOTY A$35 - Dick Smith
MS Combat Flight Simulator (Europe) A$20 - EB Games
Ryu ga Gotoku IV (Yakuza 4; Japanese version) - JPY3000+JPY1500 postage (approx A$60) - amazon.jp
DOW2:Redemption A$70 - EB Games
Machigai Museum II (JP game) JPY1500 (approx A$20) - Sofmap Nipponbashi
Only one of these are 'new releases'.
But the key thing is I never pirate PC games ... unless I have already bought it on a different system. In which case I consider it acceptable (not legally, but to my own conscience). C'mon ... I've paid for the property! With music, whether I listen to it as an mp3 on my iPod, a cassette in my car, a CD in my stereo, or have a vinyl pressed of it, I still paid for the IP - not the form it comes in, nor the device it plays on.
If you consider the last few games I've bought:
Mount & Blade: With Fire And Sword A$15 - taleworlds.com
Caesar IV A$10 - EB Games
Fallout 3 GOTY A$35 - Dick Smith
MS Combat Flight Simulator (Europe) A$20 - EB Games
Ryu ga Gotoku IV (Yakuza 4; Japanese version) - JPY3000+JPY1500 postage (approx A$60) - amazon.jp
DOW2:Redemption A$70 - EB Games
Machigai Museum II (JP game) JPY1500 (approx A$20) - Sofmap Nipponbashi
Only one of these are 'new releases'.
But the key thing is I never pirate PC games ... unless I have already bought it on a different system. In which case I consider it acceptable (not legally, but to my own conscience). C'mon ... I've paid for the property! With music, whether I listen to it as an mp3 on my iPod, a cassette in my car, a CD in my stereo, or have a vinyl pressed of it, I still paid for the IP - not the form it comes in, nor the device it plays on.
Two things...
1 - Fuck you, Jim. Silent Hill 1 was amazing.
2 - The reality of Extra Credits leaving The Escapist is all the more sad when I read this.
1 - Fuck you, Jim. Silent Hill 1 was amazing.
2 - The reality of Extra Credits leaving The Escapist is all the more sad when I read this.
Wow. This just proves how freakin out of the loop Yahtzee is. Sorry but I'm with Jim and Bob.
"Well, why don't I kick this one off by saying that sequels often represent a lot of what I hate about the games industry today."
Let's see if what you hate is at all reasonable.
"Too often the decision to make one is rooted entirely in business than any consideration of whether or not the story demands it."
How about if there's no story. Also, business shouldn't be used in a negative connotation because every a business decision means one that'll satisfy its customers which is a GOOD THING.
"There has never been a case of a sequel being better than the original if the original had an entirely self-contained story and no sequel hook, unless (in the case of games) there's a significant technology upgrade between titles that allows for stronger gameplay. And that's just gameplay, not story."
What if the game has no story. Story is not a requirement for a game. Do you even care at all about the gameplay because all this crap has to do with story which, regardless of quality, doesn't make a good game.
"Sequels are a symptom of a larger problem within the games industry, which is that the fans latch onto franchises rather than developers."
This is just stupid. Of course people will follow franchises they like. If anything we shouldn't latch onto developers as if they were rockstars.
"It's a result of an increasingly corporate culture that designs more and more games by committee and has less and less emphasis on exposing or crediting individual creators. Most people tend to go "Oh, another Gears of War, I will check it out because I liked previous Gears of War." Rather than "Oh, a game by Cliffy B. I will check it out because I enjoyed Cliffy B's previous works.""
Well, yeah. Most games CANNOT be credited to individual creators when they have 60 people helping them.
"It shackles creators to single properties rather than giving them opportunities to explore their other big ideas. And this doesn't seem to happen as much in the film industry. Everyone knew that Inception was by Christopher Nolan, and everyone went to see it because The Dark Knight was good"
WE DO NOT PLAY GAMES FOR DEVELOPER CREATIVITY, we play games for fun. Developers are not damn rockstars and they can't do whatever they want. They have to make games for people, not themselves. This is the real cancer killing the industry. So what you hate isn't at all reasonable.
"Well, why don't I kick this one off by saying that sequels often represent a lot of what I hate about the games industry today."
Let's see if what you hate is at all reasonable.
"Too often the decision to make one is rooted entirely in business than any consideration of whether or not the story demands it."
How about if there's no story. Also, business shouldn't be used in a negative connotation because every a business decision means one that'll satisfy its customers which is a GOOD THING.
"There has never been a case of a sequel being better than the original if the original had an entirely self-contained story and no sequel hook, unless (in the case of games) there's a significant technology upgrade between titles that allows for stronger gameplay. And that's just gameplay, not story."
What if the game has no story. Story is not a requirement for a game. Do you even care at all about the gameplay because all this crap has to do with story which, regardless of quality, doesn't make a good game.
"Sequels are a symptom of a larger problem within the games industry, which is that the fans latch onto franchises rather than developers."
This is just stupid. Of course people will follow franchises they like. If anything we shouldn't latch onto developers as if they were rockstars.
"It's a result of an increasingly corporate culture that designs more and more games by committee and has less and less emphasis on exposing or crediting individual creators. Most people tend to go "Oh, another Gears of War, I will check it out because I liked previous Gears of War." Rather than "Oh, a game by Cliffy B. I will check it out because I enjoyed Cliffy B's previous works.""
Well, yeah. Most games CANNOT be credited to individual creators when they have 60 people helping them.
"It shackles creators to single properties rather than giving them opportunities to explore their other big ideas. And this doesn't seem to happen as much in the film industry. Everyone knew that Inception was by Christopher Nolan, and everyone went to see it because The Dark Knight was good"
WE DO NOT PLAY GAMES FOR DEVELOPER CREATIVITY, we play games for fun. Developers are not damn rockstars and they can't do whatever they want. They have to make games for people, not themselves. This is the real cancer killing the industry. So what you hate isn't at all reasonable.
There are many kinds of sequels and not all of them need a better story.
A better story is only needed in franchise that is based on story actually. If the strong point of a series was never it's story,then an improvement on the story department isn't that urgent.
For example take Mario and most of Nintendo's game.
Each Mario games tells the exact same story and repeats the same events over and over again.
Mario doesn't need anything more than that actually.
But think of a Mass Effect game without a good story.
Mass Effect (1) tried to balance good story with good gameplay,but its very well written story and cinematics made the real difference.Bioware saw this,and they made Mass Effect 2's story stronger,while (IMO) gameplay became more stale and honestly I got bored after realizing the pattern the game had "Talk to X,X will ask you for a favor,you go there shoot many usual dudes to get to objective,fight a boss,repeat".
I think that what a sequel has to have to be considered good is to keep all the essential characteristics,its definitive points the same,while expanding,refreshing and perhaps altering less significant things.
What is Castlevania whithout Dracula,Mario without platforms,or an id Software game without darkness and disgusting moments ?
Developers should keep the main things that shape up a game's experience the same,while changing or improving anything else.
I expect from a sequel to make me feel the same kind of feelings I felt with an original,but while offering new content to make the experience feel fresh.
I believe that if a developer would like to make substantial changes regarding a game's,basic feel shouldn't name it a sequel.
And that's why I think Prey 2 should be named something else.
I played Prey and liked it but when I learned that Prey 2 is going to be nothing like the original I felt bad inside me 'cause I thought "The game I liked is dead and now I will never play something like that thing I liked again".
Something that made me prejudiced against Prey 2.
It might be a good name,but from a Prey game I'd expect an Indian mechanic using spiritual powers to fight aliens,playing around with portals and watching disturbing vistas every now and then,similar to DNF's "hive" level.
When I see that a sequel is so different and doesn't hold the things that made the original what it is,I feel like being tricked over to buy something that I think it's something else.
Sequels should be made if there are clear ideas in a creator's mind of how it should be done properly I think.For a sequel to be good,the main designer should have a clear vision of how the game will play,and how the series will evolve from before.
A better story is only needed in franchise that is based on story actually. If the strong point of a series was never it's story,then an improvement on the story department isn't that urgent.
For example take Mario and most of Nintendo's game.
Each Mario games tells the exact same story and repeats the same events over and over again.
Mario doesn't need anything more than that actually.
But think of a Mass Effect game without a good story.
Mass Effect (1) tried to balance good story with good gameplay,but its very well written story and cinematics made the real difference.Bioware saw this,and they made Mass Effect 2's story stronger,while (IMO) gameplay became more stale and honestly I got bored after realizing the pattern the game had "Talk to X,X will ask you for a favor,you go there shoot many usual dudes to get to objective,fight a boss,repeat".
I think that what a sequel has to have to be considered good is to keep all the essential characteristics,its definitive points the same,while expanding,refreshing and perhaps altering less significant things.
What is Castlevania whithout Dracula,Mario without platforms,or an id Software game without darkness and disgusting moments ?
Developers should keep the main things that shape up a game's experience the same,while changing or improving anything else.
I expect from a sequel to make me feel the same kind of feelings I felt with an original,but while offering new content to make the experience feel fresh.
I believe that if a developer would like to make substantial changes regarding a game's,basic feel shouldn't name it a sequel.
And that's why I think Prey 2 should be named something else.
I played Prey and liked it but when I learned that Prey 2 is going to be nothing like the original I felt bad inside me 'cause I thought "The game I liked is dead and now I will never play something like that thing I liked again".
Something that made me prejudiced against Prey 2.
It might be a good name,but from a Prey game I'd expect an Indian mechanic using spiritual powers to fight aliens,playing around with portals and watching disturbing vistas every now and then,similar to DNF's "hive" level.
When I see that a sequel is so different and doesn't hold the things that made the original what it is,I feel like being tricked over to buy something that I think it's something else.
Sequels should be made if there are clear ideas in a creator's mind of how it should be done properly I think.For a sequel to be good,the main designer should have a clear vision of how the game will play,and how the series will evolve from before.
I guess that rather depends on just how influential the designer really is.Andronicus said:
To what extent is a game a reflection of a single person's vision, and to what extent is it a collaboration?
Sid Meier and Chris Sawyer probably did do almost the entirety of the games they are known for by themselves. (Chris Sawyer outsourced things, but that's different to having people working with you to design something.)
Shigeru Miyamoto designed the original Mario & Zelda games. There were other people designing the levels, and doing programming (and probably music), but the game mechanics (and character design) are largely his responsibility.
By contrast, by the time of mario 3, Shigeru Miyamoto probably already had far less direct involvement with how those games were made... (These days he's usually listed as Executive producer most of the time.)
Doom and quake, meanwhile, seem to have been games built almost entirely around the question of 'what can we do with our cool new technology?'.
I guess it's possible for a game to reflect the vision of a single (or small number of) people, but at the same time that doesn't seem to be the working practice of most modern game studios.
I agree! Those are pretty good games that have a premise at best. But thats a completely different era of gaming. With the technology of that time and dominant genres, story was very often impossible. Not to mention that then game was about fun, and fun only! Today, games have vastly expanded. They still have to be fun, yet a story, characters, plot, gameplay, mechanics, esthetics, music and many more variables are required to have a valid game. Imagine Morgan Freeman without a story, fantastic supporting characters and setting. Imagine Final Fantasy having only a hack-n-slash element. Imagine Elder Scrolls being only about killing monsters! And the list goes on. I get your point about 80s, but its not relevant in 2011. Games have changed drastically. Im also NOT trying to say that everyone should only care about story. I do play games like Counter Strike or COD sometimes. However in todays gaming world, at least a decent game is obliged to have a story (among other essentials). Not to mention there really are not many good games out there!hermes200 said:
Granted not any kind of story is a good story. I do recognize the difference between "good" and "successful". COD is successful yet it lacks story. At the same time COD represents only a fraction of a game. Lets compare COD to Halo. They are both successful. Not to make fanboys mad, but I would say COD is more popular. Does it mean COD is a better game? No! Why? Because an additional element that Halo has - story - is present and is pretty decent. There are many important parts in games, however today story remains the most important. Story helps progress and build characters, it helps set the setting, it helps you immerse into a game etc. Of course there is a fun factor. But even a flash game can be fun. Im not trying to speak form a preferences point of view. When I play any kind of game, I also try and evaluate it professionally. So I can enjoy and like the game, but not think that its necessary good!Thrakkesh said:
Let's ignore old games for the time being, and just look at all the awesome games that have little story, if any at all. Audiosurf. Cogs. Greed Corp (it has a setting, nothing more). Marvel vs. Capcom 3 (sure, it has a story, but who gives a damn?). Almost any FPS. Wolverine: Origins.AJey said:
Hell, even Half-Life 2's story is mostly comprised of excuses to go to places. The original Portal didn't have a plot besides "then I walked to here, was insulted by a robot, and did something clever" until near the end of the game; World of Goo does something similar. Despite this, all three games definitely told you something. They evoked; they brought to life. HL2 had Alyx Vance and a world under control by a sinister influence. Portal presented you with the mystery of the puzzles themselves and the meta-mystery of what exactly was going on and who this enigmatic, crazy-sounding computer was. World of Goo nudged you every now and then to tell you that as you solved simplified engineering conundrums, something not-that-innocuous was happening somewhere in the background, distracted you with whimsy, and then pulled a climax out of nowhere and threw it straight at the part of your brain that controls wonder.
Am I the only one that read Yahtzee's second post and suddenly thought of a drive-in-roller-coaster?
Your original point was about weak story, not no story.AJey said:
I agree that most games today need to have a story, but in 90% of the cases the story is paper thin... Sure, one could argue that Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter or Guitar Hero has a story, but its mostly a justification to the gameplay. Truth is, most games hasn't evolve over the "kill the invaders" premise of Galaga. Almost every game (successful or not, good or not) can have its story summarized in a single sentence.
Burly Marines Part 96, coming this fall for PS3 and Xbox.
I guess I'm one of those few people that does embrace certain developers, or at least publishing houses, rather than purely the franchise. For instance, I am a total whore for NIS and Atlus. I will happily get nearly anything they put out. Sure, not everything is a masterpiece. Some of it flat out sucks. But I'm usually happy with their products, even their new titles.
I'm also someone who tends to fall into that "cheaper is worse" trap. I ignored the indie market for a long time, mostly because I couldn't imagine a <$10 game being any good. But, then I got the Breath of Death VII/Cthulhu Saves the World pack from Steam for $3. Best money I've ever spent and two of the best, most fulfilling gaming experiences I've had in YEARS. I will likely be a support of Zeboyd games for a long time.
Though I should state I only seemed to take the "Cheaper is lower quality" stance while looking at the indie market, something I should be flogged for I'm sure. Often I look at new games and say "There is no way that is worth $60," and often I'm right, even when referring to tried and true titles. Take DNF or even Portal 2 as examples. DNF, despite the 90 year dev time, is not worth $60. Just looking at it, it looks cheap, maybe $40 tops. Portal 2 is the same. It is undeniably great, but its not a $60 game.
I find that I've suddenly greatly embraced my PSP. I rarely take it anywhere, but with the component cable to hook it up to my HD Tv.. I'm getting high quality, big screen gaming experiences for $30-$40 with some easily being worth $60 but only costing about half of that. In a lot of cases, if these games were $60 PS3 titles, there's no way I'd have made the investment, but I can gamble $30 and not feel too bad if it doesn't pan out.
I guess I'm one of those few people that does embrace certain developers, or at least publishing houses, rather than purely the franchise. For instance, I am a total whore for NIS and Atlus. I will happily get nearly anything they put out. Sure, not everything is a masterpiece. Some of it flat out sucks. But I'm usually happy with their products, even their new titles.
I'm also someone who tends to fall into that "cheaper is worse" trap. I ignored the indie market for a long time, mostly because I couldn't imagine a <$10 game being any good. But, then I got the Breath of Death VII/Cthulhu Saves the World pack from Steam for $3. Best money I've ever spent and two of the best, most fulfilling gaming experiences I've had in YEARS. I will likely be a support of Zeboyd games for a long time.
Though I should state I only seemed to take the "Cheaper is lower quality" stance while looking at the indie market, something I should be flogged for I'm sure. Often I look at new games and say "There is no way that is worth $60," and often I'm right, even when referring to tried and true titles. Take DNF or even Portal 2 as examples. DNF, despite the 90 year dev time, is not worth $60. Just looking at it, it looks cheap, maybe $40 tops. Portal 2 is the same. It is undeniably great, but its not a $60 game.
I find that I've suddenly greatly embraced my PSP. I rarely take it anywhere, but with the component cable to hook it up to my HD Tv.. I'm getting high quality, big screen gaming experiences for $30-$40 with some easily being worth $60 but only costing about half of that. In a lot of cases, if these games were $60 PS3 titles, there's no way I'd have made the investment, but I can gamble $30 and not feel too bad if it doesn't pan out.