Portal can be considered exempt from the 'big franchises' remark, chiefly because it isn't big, they are short, fun, simple games without pressure. I have no problem with people enjoying games that are part of franchises, nor do I have a major problem with the production of sequels and a continuous storyline that runs for multiple games.SirBryghtside said:You said that Portal 2 didn't count as GotY, the rest of your post implying that this was because it was a big franchise, and then you went on to say that big franchises don't change anything from game to game. You can understand the confusion, hopefully.Spineyguy said:After reading through my comment several times, I have failed to find that line anywhere.SirBryghtside said:...did you seriously just say that Portal 2 was no different from Portal 1?Spineyguy said:Please can we stop glorifying the big franchises, they don't change anything from game-to-game, so they don't improve, let the stand-alone titles have the spotlight, just for a minute, it's what they deserve.
What I do recall stating is that Valve can be expected to produce good games and thus the fact that Portal 2 was excellent comes as no surprise.
I believe I also wrote that sequels and franchise games should not get Game of the year, this is because they already have a pedigree which stand-alone titles lack, as well as a fanbase and an inflated budget. Portal 2 was sufficiently different from Portal 1 to be considered a game in its own right, but it was not a stand-alone title.
And no, I don't agree with that. I judge a game based on the game, not its history.
What I do have a problem with is developers who simply produce the same game over and over again because they know that people will buy it because of what's in the title. At this point, Activision could publish Call of Duty: Adventures of Fluffles McPinkman in Implied Homosexuality Land and people would still pay £40 it and call it Game of the Century. The Gears of War team are guilty of this, if they had introduced major new mechanics into the concept I would say they weren't, but at best they've designed a new gun or two and done a graphical update.
Anyway, I can see that this could turn into a rant, suffice to say that I whole heartedly believe that Game of the year should not go sequels and franchises. That includes Portal 2 which, though it remains a sequel, was not simply a re-release of its predecessor, as I at no point said.
However, I would argue that producing a successful stand-alone game is harder than producing a sequel to an already successful one, especially if you're trying to do something original (But honestly, who does that any more?). Sequels in this day-and-age can just be re-skins of older games (Please note that I'm not saying they all are.) That doesn't mean they aren't fun, or that they shouldn't be bought on principle, it simply means that they aren't original.