Criticizing a sequel for being "more of the same"

[Saxm13]

Isn't that kinda the WHOLE POINT of a sequel? The original content was enjoyable therefore we made more of it?

Kinda noticing Yahtzee use this alot in his reviews, though granted this has been the Year of the Sequels.

When would "more of the same" be considered a flaw in a game?

 

[Lilani]

The point of a sequel is typically to continue the narrative or expand the world of the original (on paper, anyway. we all know it's usually money). The only time that's not it is when there was no narrative to begin with (IE a new Tetris game). And if that's the case and it's got no narrative to continue, then it had better have something new to offer, whether it be new levels, powers, or gameplay styles. And in both cases improvement on bugs and problems with the prequels should be made, as well.

The reason "more of the same" is a complaint is because yes, sequels should be similar BUT they should also offer the player a fresh experience. As is with any sequel, really. You wouldn't read Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets to experience the same thing as the Sorcerer's Stone. I mean hell, even when you're playing ONE game you expect new things to keep happening to keep things moving. You don't expect things to just level out and continue at the same pace. So why should a sequel do that?

Even if it's the same basic formula, SOMETHING has to change, otherwise there's no point for the sequel to exist. If it's got nothing new to add, why should it be there at all? The only time more of the same works is in the case of a remake or a parody.

 

[TephlonPrice]

It'd be a flaw if the game itself hasn't really improved on certain things that people have complained about. These would have to be issues that seriously affect a game's gameplay, or contribute to bugs & glitches out the ass.

A good example of 'more of the same' being a GOOD thing: Syphon Filter 2. Probably one of the best PS1 games I've ever played. It had moments that honestly belonged in a Arnie film, a political thriller, & even a Splinter Cell game. More importantly, they managed to improve on certain aspects of the game (analog stick control, improved graphics, even more fun weapons, 2-player mode) & made the game just much better.

An example of 'more of the same' being a BAD thing: Modern Warfare 3. This is more the action we love, yet something went wrong. Maybe it's the map design in MP that makes any form of sniping useless, combined with a God-awful spawn system that makes it hard to stay alive in combat. Or the campaign, which lacked certain COD4 moments, like a good bit of diversity (All Ghillied up type levels & gameplay), moments where enemy & friendly are easy to tell apart, and generally some poor writing (how will America & Russia have peace talks if both sides want to kill each other still?)

 

[Zhukov]

A sequel should, ideally, improve on what went before. I would have thought was obvious.

Although, granted, it depends what kind of sequel. If it's one that is part of a pre-planned arc connected by an ongoing story or the like (eg. Half Life 2 Episode 1) then I will be more forgiving than if it's a game made primarily because the first one went down well (eg. Portal 2).

Making a sequel that's just more of the same, especially if it's the latter kind, seems rather redundant. After all, we've already played it. Why play it again?

Basically, there's nothing wrong with wanted improvement rather than stagnation.