I hate sequels with different developers

[FieryTrainwreck]

Does anyone else think this practice is incredibly obnoxious, especially when past titles in a series are used as a selling point for the new offering despite the fact that completely different people are making the game?

I've heard a lot of MW:SO ads on the radio lately, and they always talk about how it's the sequel to the best selling shooter of all time, MW2. Maybe it's more pronounced because of the falling out between IW and Activision, but it feels so fucking slimy.

Anyways, I'd really appreciate some sort of industry-mandated standard for subtitles attached to any and all sequels done by new developers. Something like "From the makers of the previous title comma not" or "shameless attempt to cash in on a previous success" or "give us your money, dummy".

 

[Miumaru]

MW:SO?

It depends. For example, FEAR Files annoys me more than Kotor 2 would if I played the first. Kotor 2 was canon to the firts, while FEAR Files wasnt compaired to FEAR.

 

[Uber Waddles]

The whole CoD series is on-and-off like that, multiple companies make the games, just years apart. Usually, depending on the developer, you can tell if it will warrant a purchase or not. Im not a fan of Modern Warfare 2, but it was leaps and bounds over ANOTHER WW2 shooter, WaW.

The practice is also inherintly bad; you LOSE part of what makes the series unique if it trades developers. I enjoyed Fallout 3 however, hopefully New Vegas will be just as good.

In practice, this has ruined more series then its saved. Spyro, anyone?

 

[Glamorgan]

Most of time I hate a switch in devs, but I do give the game a chance before I form an opinion about it.

That's what I thought. Then I played BK: Nuts and Bolts. Now, I just think it's safer to assume it will end badly.

 

[E-Hybrid]

Does anyone else think this practice is incredibly obnoxious, especially when past titles in a series are used as a selling point for the new offering despite the fact that completely different people are making the game?

Anyways, I'd really appreciate some sort of industry-mandated standard for subtitles attached to any and all sequels done by new developers. Something like "From the makers of the previous title comma not" or "shameless attempt to cash in on a previous success" or "give us your money, dummy".

I normally find that if a different developer makes a sequel it can more interesting by offering a different take on the game, but normally both developers (original and sequel) get bad press by changing things either for changing things or changes that were implemented that were superior in the sequel.

I guess you could say it isn't a fair game.

 

[Lizardon]

I think if the original developers didn't plan/want to make a sequel, then other companies should respect that and come up with original ideas.

 

[Glamorgan]

Most of time I hate a switch in devs, but I do give the game a chance before I form an opinion about it.

That's what I thought. Then I played BK: Nuts and Bolts. Now, I just think it's safer to assume it will end badly.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I do assume it will more likely than not end terribly, but I wouldn't mind being pleasantly surprised.

Wouldn't we all?

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I think if the original developers didn't plan/want to make a sequel, then other companies should respect that and come up with original ideas.

This is definitely part of it. I feel like the original devs, having punched their tickets with the success of the first game, obviously wanted to do something else with their newfound creative freedom. This comes off, to me, as a pretty good indicator that there wasn't a lot left to mine from their first creation. When the parent company decides to bring in another set of devs, they're basically going to be creative mercenaries. They really can't have the same care and deference for the material as the actual creators, and it seems to show, reliably, in the final product.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

It's worked well before. System Shock 2 and Mechwarrior 4 come to mind at the moment. Of course, it took a very long time before Mechwarrior 4 overcame my disgust that they had abandoned the Battletech rules of mech design when I eventually realized the changes actually made for a better video game.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Good points. I suppose if the first game was only a moderate success, there's a chance the followup might improve given more capable hands. That seems an extreme rarity, though.

 

[RatRace123]

In practice, this has ruined more series then its saved. Spyro, anyone?

Personally I'd say Crash. Spyro actually had a moderately successful reboot series, while Crash got completely shafted.

That's when I first began to hate this practice. If the original team involved with a game or series wants nothing to do with continuing it, then maybe you shouldn't frakkin' continue it!

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

It can be kinda anoying I agree, but there is the flipside of this where another developer does a BETTER job than the original. Take the FEAR series as someone already mentioned. In my opinion the expansions where much better than the sequel. Why? Because the sequel didn't feel like the previous games, they changed their formula so much to distinguish it from the expansion that the other developer had made that it just wasn't right.

 

[IronGuy410]

well, some of them have been good. KOTOR2 was pretty good and so was Neverwinter nights 2. CoD 3 and W@W by treyarch werent bad they just werent up to snuff with IW games

 

[Thaius]

It's what killed my beloved Crash Bandicoot. Yeah, I hate it when that happens. :'(

 

[squid5580]

Lets look at it from the other side. How many sequels from the original devs have been much better? Bioshock 2 is nothing compared to the first. Fear 2 wasn't nearly as good as the first. The originals are just as likely to screw it up as the new guys.