How should we judge sequels/later instalments to a series?

Recommended Videos

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,257
0
0
The question is in the thread title. I sometimes think I judge some games harshly because compared to the other games in the series they're a part of. I often complain that Saints Row: The Third is inconsistent in tone and compared to Saints Row 2 and Saints Row 1 it's a big step down. However, when I compare it to some games of the late 2011 season (Skyrim, MW3, BF3, Resistance 3, Gears 3), Saints Row: The Third was an absolute blast and a lot of fun.

Ditto Silent Hill Downpour which wasn't as good as Silent Hill 2 or 3, but compared to the other horror games of around its time like Resident Evil 6, F3AR and Slender it was pretty damn good. Or how Black Ops II looks great compared to the other Call of Dutys around it (Ghosts and MW3 especially) when the game itself is not something special.

Is it fair to crap on or praise a game because compared to the series around it, it is so much better or worse?
 

duwenbasden

King of the Celery people
Jan 18, 2012
391
0
0
If I am invested in a series, maybe I'll compare it to the previous games (Starcraft, SimCity); otherwise, no. I started on SRTT so see the latter.
 

CrimsonBlaze

New member
Aug 29, 2011
2,252
0
0
It depends on the type of sequel, really.

If it is an installment in a continuing story (i.e. Ratchet & Clank), we tend to see how this sequel fits in with the series, as well as what differences and new features, mechanics, story elements, etc. are introduced. This way, we have a game that feels similar to its predecessors while still having its own identity and validity in the series (avoiding the 'same, but more' stereotype).

If it is an installment that simply shares a title with a series, but is meant to be a stand-alone installment (i.e. Final Fantasy series), than it should be judged on the merits of a stand alone IP. This type of sequel doesn't need to share anything with the previous installments aside from certain elements that would classify it as being part of a series (i.e. characters, game mechanics, art style, etc.). As much as we would like to criticize how these types of sequels are not like others in the series, they should be seen as their own thing, and how what they do to validate their existence in the series.
 

kailus13

Soon
Mar 3, 2013
4,568
0
0
Both? It's still possible to say that while you feel it lacks something compared to it's predecessors, it's still better than it's current competitors.

If you're judging it yourself then judge how you will. If you're judging it for other people then you should take into account why they want your opinion. Have they played the previous games or are they just looking to see what new games are good.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,990
118
If the only reason you are crapping on it is because it BETRAAAAYS! *Spoony voice* the previous games, but is otherwise a good game, self contained and holds up, then yeah I would think it's not terribly fair.

I don't really hold much stock in franchise loyalty, though as I'm typing this, I'm reminded of my opinions about Homeworld 2, and how I didn't like it compared to Homeworld and Homeworld: Cataclysm.

It was a good game for the most part, but the things they changed really annoyed me. Karen S'Jet went from a character with emotion in her voice, despite being linked into the neural hub of a starship, into this emotionless robot sounding thing in HW:2. In fact, all the voice acting was drab and lifeless. It didn't grab me and suck me in like HW and HW:C did. I just sort of felt like I was going through the motions.

Though, to be fair, I would probably have made this critique of it even if it was a stand alone game. The story was lifeless, but compared to the previous games it was more glaring.

So yeah, having typed that out, I still think my initial statement stands, given my example was an issue with the game itself, and not just because it changed the core material. Because it really didn't, the game still played and looked like a Homeworld game, it just felt like the script was done by a 1st year acting student/director with his buddies, instead of the diverse emotional canvas the previous games had.
 

snomangaming

New member
Aug 14, 2014
20
0
0
Sequels are really important to me. A good sequel to me expands the original game into new features, and most importantly, more fun. Some notable ones that come to mind are Donkey Kong Country 2, Banjo Tooie, and Paper Mario TTYD. They just gave more awesome stuff, while building off the original idea.
 

Super Cyborg

New member
Jul 25, 2014
474
0
0
It's a slippery slope, and it's can really be chalked up to opinions a lot of the times, but there are other things as well. Let's look at Resident Evil. 4 got high praise because it changed the gameplay enough that it played better, but still had an atmosphere of horror. 5&6 became less horror based, and became more of a Zombie shoot em up, which took away any horror and a lot of times you could use ammo liberally without worrying of running out, because you would get plenty before the next part (This was especially true in 6). Now the games play fine, and the story is debatable, but it doesn't feel like a resident evil game, and feels more like L4D or COD. When it feels like other games and not what it should be, that's a problem.

Let's take a look at Final Fantasy. People dislike the newer games less because it doesn't feel like a Final Fantasy game, but because the games overall are just bad to mediocre. Each game for the most part is a different world, so there isn't a lot of room to say another game betrayed the Final Fantasy theme. Sometimes people will crap on the games because it's not as good as other ones, but usually there are valid reasons.

The main argument that can be made is for Metroid Other M. I crap on it a lot by comparing it to the rest of the series, but the question is why. If it's just not as good as the others, and I was giving it crap because of that reason, than that's a bad idea. I, and many others, argued that the story was terrible, even if it wasn't a Metroid game, and that it didn't feel like a Metroid game (Super Linear, the lack of atmosphere, etc.). In this case, it's fair because it doesn't seem like a game that belongs to that franchise, and we have good reasons for not liking it. However, it comes down to each person for what they get from a franchise. Lots of people liked the new SR games because they liked how over the top things could get, but others disliked the new ones because they liked the aspect of just fighting other gangs and heading for the top, which 3&4 lacked.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
It's totally fair to judge a game based on other installments, especially if it's a direct continuation.

That being said, it's completely fair to still like something even if it fails on those grounds.
 
Apr 5, 2008
3,736
0
0
Evonisia said:
The question is in the thread title. I sometimes think I judge some games harshly because compared to the other games in the series they're a part of. I often complain that Saints Row: The Third is inconsistent in tone and compared to Saints Row 2 and Saints Row 1 it's a big step down. However, when I compare it to some games of the late 2011 season (Skyrim, MW3, BF3, Resistance 3, Gears 3), Saints Row: The Third was an absolute blast and a lot of fun.

Ditto Silent Hill Downpour which wasn't as good as Silent Hill 2 or 3, but compared to the other horror games of around its time like Resident Evil 6, F3AR and Slender it was pretty damn good. Or how Black Ops II looks great compared to the other Call of Dutys around it (Ghosts and MW3 especially) when the game itself is not something special.

Is it fair to crap on or praise a game because compared to the series around it, it is so much better or worse?
Yes it is fair. Games, like any form of media, do not exist in a vacuum. To disregard everything that came before is to wilfully stick one's head in the sand and ignore an entire industry and even the efforts of the same people in previous entries to a series.

If someone makes a good game or film or book or whatever, investors will see an opportunity to make more money by cashing in on the reputation of the good media product, whatever it may be. That's all well and good....they get more money, fans get more of the thing they enjoyed. However letting the fans down with an obvious, poorly made cash in is money grubbing at its worst...taking the money based on the first entry's reputation, but failing to deliver on quality for the subsequent one.

As a series progresses, one would expect to see the team behind it learning, improving, making it better. When an earlier entry is better than a latter one, it is a failure. If playing the first game again is a more enjoyable and satisfying experience than playing the sequel, what was the point of making the sequel in the first place (from a gamer's perspective, not that of the shareholders whose motivations are obvious)?

Consider also the amount of competition out there. We as humans only live for so long and one third of our lives is spent sleeping. If we allocate an approximate other third for work/study/responsibility, that leaves the remaining third for deriving enjoyment, living life and doing all the things we do in our downtime. We have so much choice from millions of books, games, films, bars, sports, hobbies, friends, holidays around the world, eating out, etc. When any game asks for £30-40 in exchange for some hours of entertainment, for us the customer there is an opportunity cost in all the other games, films and books we *aren't* enjoying while we are invested in this one.

That isn't to say that some games cannot be good on their own merits, despite not measuring up to standards previously set. I also exclude games where the "brand" is just an umbrella for otherwise disconnected games, such as Final Fantasy or films like Fast & Furious 3: Tokyo Drift or almost any sequel to a martial arts film for example. These may have some elements in common with their predecessors but are fundamentally different and otherwise unrelated. They may still be judged against other titles in the series/around it (particularly if it's the same people behind it), but a little leeway can be given here.

So yes, a sequel can be judged not only by its predecessors but also by other games around it. The fact is that if playing another game altogether is a better experience than playing the one in question then we should be playing that instead. If a developer wants to depart intentionally from the established norms or direction of the series to that point, give the game a new f*****g name. If it's good, you'll have a new franchise to milk. If it's not then the original series hasn't been tarnished by association and the dev wouldn't be seen to be milking a brand for all its worth.

Games do not exist in a vacuum and trying to judge them as such is folly. It is IMO not only reasonable, but expected to judge a game on what came before it. After all, if what came before is better then we can just save our money and replay the earlier title again.
 

sanquin

New member
Jun 8, 2011
1,837
0
0
From a consumer standpoint, you should judge sequels in whatever way you want. Some people might want an improved version of the previous game with a new story. Others might want an entirely new game with it's own design. Neither are wrong. Games are entertainment after all. So if you don't like a sequel based on whatever criteria you set for yourself, you aren't wrong either way.

As for from a critic standpoint. I'd say reviewing a game as standalone is more important. But there should at least be a small section of the video or text reviewing it, that discusses how it compares to the prequel.
 

Smooth Operator

New member
Oct 5, 2010
8,162
0
0
Well if the reviewer is any good he will put the product up against it's competition and that would include previous titles, so it shouldn't really make a difference.
But usually it will because reviewers blunder in without information and sort of wing it by random things they can remember.
 

laggyteabag

Scrolling through forums, instead of playing games
Legacy
Oct 25, 2009
3,385
1,090
118
UK
Gender
He/Him
1)Is it as good as the previous games in the franchise? Is it as good as the best game in the series?
2)Is it's existence within the franchise justified? Does it tell a purposeful story, or is it just a cash grab?
3)Have they improved on anything, or is it just a different skin on the same game?

Im going to Use Halo 4 as an example:
1)Halo 4 is about on par Halo Reach, but is nowhere near the quality of the original trilogy
2)Halo 4 tells the story of what happens to the Master Chief and Cortana after the conclusion of Halo 3, to that end, the story is justified, however, the continuation of their story was never a story that required telling, nor did it ever really conclude or set anything up. As a result, Halo 4 and the Reclaimer Saga seems to be more of a cash grab than anything else.
3)The mechanics in Halo 4 seems to iterate on those set by Reach. The controversial Armour Abilities return for both campaign and multiplayer, and multiplayer modes have been attacked by various mechanics that seem to have been ripped straight from other franchises. As a result, Halo 4 seems to be mechanically more of a sequel to Halo Reach, than a sequel to the mainline series of games. A prospect that is very disappointing.
 

Teriver

New member
Nov 22, 2013
18
0
0
That depends on how you are viewing it. Are you viewing it as Thing 2 or Thing Related to Thing 1?
If you view it as the next version then you have to view it in comparison to the original. However, if it is related to the original (like set in the same universe) but it is its own story then you should judge it by itself.
Well at least that's how I judge sequels.
 
Jun 11, 2008
5,331
0
0
How the game is on its own and in relation to the rest of the series. For example, I'd consider Fear 3 and Dead Space 3 to both be shit games in respect to the rest of the series but decent action games. Same as Final Fantasy XIII. FF XIII fails as a Final Fantasy as while all Final Fantasies are pretty much equally as linear the others had feelings of a vast world and openness along with nice side quests. FF XIII lacked a lot of that and didn't make up for it in other ways.
 

Shoggoth2588

New member
Aug 31, 2009
10,250
0
0
I try to look at sequels as their own thing but if it's a sequel to a high-profile series I just can't help but compare. I played through to the end of Silent Hill Downpour and thought it was pretty fun but I've never played through any of the other Silent Hills completely. Final Fantasy XIII however, is a game I judged very harshly considering how much I enjoyed playing Final Fantasy's 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Crisis Core and, even Mystic Quest.