With the release of Battlefield 4 I have heard some complaint that it is too similar to Battlefield 3. While I did enjoy Battlefield 3, I felt that the game was not what it should be due to the focus on infantry and lack of destruction. From what I played in the beta and seen of the full game (have no bought it yet), it has improved in those areas. On the other hand there are games like the Resident Evil series which has be shifting its way into a different genre. What are you're thoughts about this?
How much change is too much/little for sequels?
- Thread starter thedragon232
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's about the games primary focus. If the primary focus of battlerfield is being in a squad , and they suddenly change it to be less team focused, that's too much . As another example , RE went from survival horror to action horror. While there is nothing wrong with action horror ( dead space), it wasnt the prinary focus of RE, which is bad .
A game should allways stay on course with the primary focus of the series.
A game should allways stay on course with the primary focus of the series.
Basicly this, the devs need to understand what made the game unique and work over that.krazykidd said:
See Assassins Creed 2 for example, it picked up the good of the first one and added a lot of what was missing on top of it. The other Enzio games didnt change much adding only small additions (not that great for a sequel) and the third one basicly forgot what made the other games so enjoyable by changing the most interesting aspect of the game (the worst for a sequel). Assassins Creed 4 seems to pickup everything that was good from every Assassins Creed game ending up feeling a lot like AC2 but with the additional content of 3 that was worth a damn (sea combat and jungle platforming) while adding some new content of its own (a good sequel).