The Good, the Bad, and the Sequel

[internetzealot1]

"When was the last time someone looked at a garaunteed-seller sequel as the place to take a risk? Wind Waker? And even then the overhaul, however massive, was purely visual."

You've got to be kidding, Bob.

Anyway, I just realized I have no problem with sequels. Just bad franchises. Regarding Jim's idea about pricing, it seems...scary. I mean how could a CoD game, one with copypaste multiplayer and a 12 minute campaign, possibly be worth more than, I don't know, some new 40 hour open world RPG? Because its established? That would basically force any new IP's towards the indie side of the spectrum

I disagree with MovieBob that ongoing franchises breed more refined games by default. Galaxy would have been just as good, if not better, if it had been called Funky Larry and the Gravitron Malfunction and had been the same game but with a purple duck named Funky Larry who works as a scientist when his gravity machine goes haywire and turns the world into a bunch of themed planets with artificial gravity.

You see, the problem with that idea is that people would complain that its just a Mario ripoff. New mechanics should be important to establishing a new IP than a new aesthetic.

 

[Spygon]

Sorry but the more Jim talks about games around people that actually know about games.In my eyes just makes him seem not in touch with the gaming medium

 

[RandV80]

There's also a bit of a difference on what exactly is the selling point for a game. From the business side of the industry you need to be able to project sales so you can set a development budget. When Nintendo decides to make a new Mario game, with the Mickey Mouse/Disney like status Mario has Nintendo can probably project like 5 million sales or whatever for each game, get a huge budget and spend all the time they want polishing it to a shine. Were they to try a brand new IP, projected sales could be much lower and it would be harder to apply the same polish.

Other companies get stuck with a single name brand, like Bungie with Halo. The ones that are best off are companies like Blizzard who have a number of IP's and millions of devout Blizzard fans. All they gotta say is 'new Blizzard game/IP' and people will be lining up to give them their money.

For developers who don't have anything established though? It's doable but man that's tough.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Well I still maintain that the perpetual advancement of graphics technology has shot the games industry in the foot by making games steadily more and more expensive to produce. Which in turn resulted in developers/publishers resorting to things like sequelitis etc. etc.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

Hmm. Discussion of 'superstar' game developers brings to mind just how few of them there are.

That's pretty much because at least at the current state of development, they really don't belong. In a feature film, the three main people involved in the project are the writer who creates the story, the director who tells the story, and the producer who secures people and financing as well as keeping the vision of the project intact. You have many cases where there are multiple people who fill these roles, and there are ultimately hundreds that offer their input in on the project, but in the end, it's those three roles that dominate the entire process. One of them is going to be remembered for it and have their name stamped on it, and it will usually be a director or producer. Can you really claim the same thing for game development? A game like Mass Effect has as much dialogue and cinematic moments as 10 films. There are so many writers, layers of different project directors that head different departments, programmers and the like that offer such varying levels of input that it's very difficult to call a game the project director's game and stamp his or her name on the front. Too much input.

I really like Jim's idea about tiered pricing. I would definitely pick up more games on launch if they weren't so damned expensive. These days I'm only buying games that are more than a year old unless I really need to play them now like with any Bioware game. Yahtzee does have a point about the current stigma of cheaper being inferior. Budget titles usually aren't embraced unless there is a word of mouth surrounding them because they stink of being bad. If you see a new release of a film and it's half the price of the other new releases, wouldn't you automatically assume that it's bad? That's just how this industry works. I remember I once bought a 5 dollar bundle with two games packed in. I played a little of the first one... Soulbringer... awful game. I threw the other on the shelf and let it sit there for almost a decade. Out of some morbid curiousity due to a lot of talk about this other game, I finally popped it in and played it to the finish, realizing then that I had been putting off one of the greatest games ever made: Planescape: Torment. If I hadn't picked that game up in a 5 dollar bundle, I definitely wouldn't have waited so long to play it.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

You see, the problem with that idea is that people would complain that its just a Mario ripoff.

I disagree with that. Nintendo actually puts more creativity into their games than they're given credit for because they recycle their IPs. (well, they put creativity into Mario games at least...)

Take Galaxy for example. That game introduced its unique gravity mechanic, found a way to use the Wii controller in a non-irritating way, had a fairly creative 2nd player option, huge original orchestral soundtrack, numerous new power-ups and mechanics, and dozens of levels that must have been under the influence of whatever drugs they have in Japan (Toy Time Galaxy, anyone?).

That game had just as many if not more new ideas than, say, Little Big Planet, but it was considered unoriginal because it had the same plumber stomping on the same Goombas and collecting the same Stars.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Hmm. Discussion of 'superstar' game developers brings to mind just how few of them there are.

That's pretty much because at least at the current state of development, they really don't belong. In a feature film, the three main people involved in the project are the writer who creates the story, the director who tells the story, and the producer who secures people and financing as well as keeping the vision of the project intact. You have many cases where there are multiple people who fill these roles, and there are ultimately hundreds that offer their input in on the project, but in the end, it's those three roles that dominate the entire process. One of them is going to be remembered for it and have their name stamped on it, and it will usually be a director or producer. Can you really claim the same thing for game development? A game like Mass Effect has as much dialogue and cinematic moments as 10 films. There are so many writers, layers of different project directors that head different departments, programmers and the like that offer such varying levels of input that it's very difficult to call a game the project director's game and stamp his or her name on the front. Too much input.

That's true of modern games, yes. But notice how, and why the few 'superstars' we do have exist:

Almost all of them became famous in an era where it having just 3-4 people on a development team wasn't all that unusual.

Look through the credits of a game from 20 years ago, and compare it to one from now...
The difference is staggering.

Even something like quake had a development staff of no more than 10 people... While... GTA 4 had 400 or more...

So, yes. Your point is valid, but there's a reason these legends existed when they did...

 

[Stall]

It seems like Jim pretty well ended the argument before it really began. Sure, he might be a bit of a douche in real life, but he certainly can speak about video games quite eloquently.

Also: I thought the internet would have revoked Bob's right to talk about video games after he said the Other M was a good game.

 

[internetzealot1]

You see, the problem with that idea is that people would complain that its just a Mario ripoff.

I disagree with that. Nintendo actually puts more creativity into their games than they're given credit for because they recycle their IPs. (well, they put creativity into Mario games at least...)

Take Galaxy for example. That game introduced its unique gravity mechanic, found a way to use the Wii controller in a non-irritating way, had a fairly creative 2nd player option, huge original orchestral soundtrack, numerous new power-ups and mechanics, and dozens of levels that must have been under the influence of whatever drugs they have in Japan (Toy Time Galaxy, anyone?).

That game had just as many if not more new ideas than, say, Little Big Planet, but it was considered unoriginal because it had the same plumber stomping on the same Goombas and collecting the same Stars.

The people who are calling unoriginal are just people who, for whatever reason, want to hate it and are trying to find something to throw at it. There are no rational complaints being made against SMG for belonging to a well-established franchise.

 

[coolkirb]

can games honestly have great stories I mean sure games like mass effect can have good stories by video game standards but they dont compare to most real works of fiction. Game stories will allways be inferior to book and movie counterparts because of the elemengt of gameplay you can only pack so much in before you start to anoy the person who is playing so I'm not entirely sure games can have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Voulan]

I think what it ultimately boils down to is what people are willing to risk to try out with a new I.P. Yahtzee raises a good point about how people should look more to the developers rather than the formulas of the game series, but in the end, people are not necessarily willing to spend hard earned cash on something completely new and outside of the usual flavour. Some new titles have famously not lived up to expectations for being different (examples such as Mirror's Edge and Brink), and in the end gamers want to stick with a formula that they know works well and will not be a waste of time and money.

I consider sequels to be an opportunity to improve the original formula - seeing the success of its predecessor and what worked well (and didn't), and adapting the new game to better fit consumer demand - such as MovieBob discusses. Of course, it isn't easy to fine-tune a game that isn't going to appear like the same sort of game with a new higher number, than some truly ground-breaking change, and then you get the issue I stated earlier. But what Jim Sterling adds here that I think is important is that not all self-contained sequels are as bland and boring as they come, but that they do tend to go too 'campy' in this regard - adding a sequel for the sake of filling in plot holes or trying to add some new somewhat unexplainable plot twist to the original story is becoming a tiresome trend.

In the end, if the game "world" or "environment/atmosphere" is written well and is wonderfully unique, then it poses as a great source of the same general idea but with vastly different changes - a completely new character in a different role and area, for example, keeps the game fresh while still blending into the series and fulfilling consumer demand. Sequels can and have worked as long as they attempt to deviate somewhat from what has already been delivered. Add in some interesting atmosphere and back-story to the world in general (touched upon, in part, by the Fallout series).

In other words, write the game well.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

Hmm. Discussion of 'superstar' game developers brings to mind just how few of them there are.

That's pretty much because at least at the current state of development, they really don't belong. In a feature film, the three main people involved in the project are the writer who creates the story, the director who tells the story, and the producer who secures people and financing as well as keeping the vision of the project intact. You have many cases where there are multiple people who fill these roles, and there are ultimately hundreds that offer their input in on the project, but in the end, it's those three roles that dominate the entire process. One of them is going to be remembered for it and have their name stamped on it, and it will usually be a director or producer. Can you really claim the same thing for game development? A game like Mass Effect has as much dialogue and cinematic moments as 10 films. There are so many writers, layers of different project directors that head different departments, programmers and the like that offer such varying levels of input that it's very difficult to call a game the project director's game and stamp his or her name on the front. Too much input.

That's true of modern games, yes. But notice how, and why the few 'superstars' we do have exist:

Almost all of them became famous in an era where it having just 3-4 people on a development team wasn't all that unusual.

Look through the credits of a game from 20 years ago, and compare it to one from now...
The difference is staggering.

Even something like quake had a development staff of no more than 10 people... While... GTA 4 had 400 or more...

So, yes. Your point is valid, but there's a reason these legends existed when they did...

Of course, it's just not valid in the current market. Once costs and staff decrease however, I can certainly see a return to that type of game creation. A less collaborative market on the major decisions of the direction of a game will see a return of auteur game developers.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

As much as I hate to say it-and I DO hate to say it but- Jim Sterling basically just said everything I ever wanted to say to Yahtzee whenever he goes on one of his anti-sequel tirades.


I feel dirty....

 

[brinvixen]

I completely agree with Jim when it comes to tiered pricing.

Price the obvious sure-shot games at $60. These would include the sequels (Call of Duty 7, Halo 6, Gears of War 12 ... you get it, the games that people are going to buy no matter what. The brand games). This price point could also include some of those games that the developers are pushing as an exclusive title to a system. Price everything else between $20 and $40. I mean, EVERYTHING else. Companies might think they'd be taking a hit by pricing games lower, but so many more people would come out and buy a game on opening day if it only cost 40 bucks. I never buy games on the first day, even if I know I'd love them, because I can't hack the high price point. But I'd take a chance on anything if it was only costing me 30 dollars. I wouldn't even be mad if the game I got was a complete turd because I paid so little for it. And that way, even if your first game is a dud, but made all that money due to the lower price point, make a sequel, improve the problems, and soon you'll be selling that new franchise at the $60 price point. And then with that new sequel money, take more risks with new games to price at the lower mark. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

 

[mjc0961]

Another big problem I can instantly see with the new IPs not being $60 is this: Super Fun Game comes out for $40 and is a huge hit. So they make Super Fun Game 2 but now that it's an established brand, here comes the $60 price point, followed swiftly by ranting gamers promising boycotts and other nonsense. "The first one was $40 but now they're just in it for the money and not the games!" or other shit like that. Not that it will matter too much I guess, because those kinds of "boycotts" always fall flat, but it will still be annoying.

I like it when publishers notice that they would be better off not trying to sell for $60, though. 3D Dot Game Heroes is a great example. Game was looking fun, I probably would have gotten it for $60, but then bam, it's $40 right out of the gate. Awesome.

Also, I have to agree with what Jim said about gameplay. Yahtzee is right that when games bring gameplay and story together properly, it's awesome, but it'd also disagree that Super Mario Galaxy is just "good, not great." I mean, like Bob said, they've been perfecting the formula for years and the game is very tight and well designed. Super Mario 64 is good, Super Mario Galaxy is great. Of course, I'd much rather have a Mario Galaxy style story were it's just enough to keep the game moving rater than have Nintendo try to add a more complex story and end up with something nonsensical and terrible like SEGA did in Sonic Adventure 2, Shadow the Hedgehog, and Sonic 2006. Basically I only care about story when it's great and I can praise it, or when it stinks and it's making me facepalm.

 

[cricket chirps]

Good article/discussion i agreed with everyone for once on almost everyhting. Made me think, therefor it has done its job.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

I'll have to disagree with bob on bioshock = system shock 3. The game was only superficially similar to the SS games. While the creators might have intended it to be a spiritual sequel it nowhere near lived up to the originality or immersion of SS2 or even SS1.

Bioshock really is a classic example of consolization where any of the remotely complex elements were stripped out of the SS gameplay. There isn't even a damn inventory screen.

And the story is not so much great as it is present.

 

[ManupBatman]

I'm a bit iffy about Yahtzee's point that people regard cheaper games as being inherently inferior.

I mean... really?

I paid $15 AUD for Bastion, $20 for Amnesia: The Dark Descent, $45 for Deus Ex: Human Revolution and $90 for Brink (Yes, really. Shut up). Three of those were bloody excellent, one was a turd on a stick. Anyone want to guess which of those games was the bad apple? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't one of the first three.

Well assuming your on the escapist you probably knew about these games beforehand. Now if you go into store of choice not knowing about any of these games what seems to be more worth while? The $60 game or the $30 next to Spongebob?

Frankly if your the type to download little known games, if Amnesia was a $60 release you'd probably still want to give it a go, though less likely to actually do it.

OT Regarding Jim's Idea: Though I think it'd be an amazing if new IPs were released digitally at a low pricepoint, if it sells well re-release it on shelves with DLC or what have you, and then do a full release sequel. Now we've got Jim's idea actualized.

 

[cricket chirps]

As much as I hate to say it-and I DO hate to say it but- Jim Sterling basically just said everything I ever wanted to say to Yahtzee whenever he goes on one of his anti-sequel tirades.


I feel dirty....

Haha, i was agreeing with Jim a lot in this one too. Which is odd for me as he is not my favorite of the escapists. Although he did have the MOST SPACE BY FAR taken up so.....

 

[Aureliano]

Alright kids, I hereby copyright the name: Cap Smash Jig I. (Aka an anagram of SAGHSIJCIMPA)

Once again, Yahtzee has proven that being a smart video game reviewer is having no aesthetic goals for games except for them becoming better than they are. High marks for Bob and Jim too. They both had great points to add even though they can't really win the debate. Who would really rather see a sequel than an original IP of the same quality?

I love Graham and his crew, but sadly enough he only really served to echo Yahtzee's points on this feature which is not very helpful, no matter how sound they may be. And it's nice not to have the Extra Credits crew getting high and mighty up in everybody's business or caring about how well crap sells. All in all, this was probably my favorite cast for Extra Consideration.