Poll: Sequels: What's to be expected?

[CrimsonBlaze]

So when approached with news of a sequel, what are your expectations?

This can easily differ from game, genre, and series, but in general, what types of sequels do you look forward to the most?

Do you prefer a sequel:
-to serve as a unique and stand-alone installment, while still falling within the confines of the series?
-to be a continuation of an ever expanding story/series?
-that is an improvement over its previous title, having a lot of similar elements, but making fixes/changes that hindered the previous installment?
-an installment that completely outshines the previous work, making it obsolete?
-having more of the same (if it ain't broke, don't fix it)?
-having more of the same while still including new content?

I prefer the first two options, as I like to get investing in story driven games and get to see what new things a proceeding title can introduce. I also like to have all the installments of the game series to have something memorable or worthwhile so that I can go back and play them again, rather than being forced into playing that latest installment because it is the most recent and, therefore, the best.

 

[shrekfan246]

As an average rule of thumb, I'd like for a sequel to be better in some way than its predecessor. Whether it be on a technical or narrative level doesn't particularly matter, but at least one of the components should be tighter, smoother, and/or more satisfying.

Whether it ties in to the predecessor's story directly or not depends on the game. I like a franchise that uses a brand to establish a style of gameplay and/or thematic elements and then uses that as a springboard to build up a unique universe, whether it be Mass Effect-styled or Metal Gear-styled or Final Fantasy-styled.

I don't believe a sequel should make the previous game obsolete, but that's more on the previous game's shoulders to be honest. Some games are flawed gems that are decent or good despite mechanical problems, and if the sequel is just so much better in every single way, it can feel really disheartening to try going back. The Witcher is a pretty good example of that.

 

[putowtin]

Continuation of a story.

I?m a big InFamous fan, as such the continuation of Cole?s story in the second made my year (in fact InFamous 2 was my game of the year 2011)

That?s why I?m dubious about InFamous: Second Son, sure it?s another game about a character, getting superpowers in a unexpected way, it?s even set in the same world as Cole MacGrath, but it?s not Cole?s story (which I feel was wrapped up well)
If you want to do another game, but without the characters of the original, call it something else!

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Well, all my favorite sequels are the ones that completely outshine the previous game and make it obsolete, because those are the sequels you never expect to be really incredible, like Witcher 2, or Uncharted 2, or Assassin's Creed 2. But then again, those sequels are the ones that stand out the most to me specifically because they were so unexpected, at least for me. What I would really expect from a sequel is that it should just be better than the previous game, in at least one element if not more. If it's not better than the previous game in at least some respect it's just not interesting as a sequel.

 

[Full]

Simply, know the core of the series.

I think I prefer sequels to have a combination of both nostalgia and wonder. Like, I want it to feel like the same game, but with a fixed coat of paint, and in the living room put one of those cool mini desert things with the monolith statues in the middle. Just make sure the sand isn't made of shit. If you're adding anything completely new, make it just nooks and crannies.

For example, you already have this story, lore, and world, you have this gameplay system that works, so keep both of those, while making small improvements or rehashes to make it feel not like a new thing, but more like an updated thing. I'd also like it to not fuck up lore but what can ya do, laws need to get bent here and there.

What I'm saying here is, simply don't try too hard to go for broke, or make it "revolutionize the franchise". I tend to prefer it when it just feels updated, with a few innovations here and there that don't get in the way of the core of the series and what made the other installment(s) feel the way it/they did.

 

[Oroboros]

More of the same mostly. There are usually one or two mechanics that can be expanded on or tweaked to work better. There can always be more content added in the form of locations and creatures, and sometimes a new weapon or piece of equipment can help spice things up, but all too often developers try to reinvent the wheel and by doing so risk removing what made the game appealing or special in the first place.

I bought Medievil 2 for the PS1 recently. I loved the first one extensively-it was the first game I ever got 100% completion on. I saw the sequel perhaps once or twice on sale since it was new, so when I saw it for sale used, I jumped on it.

While still a good game, I was shocked by how many poorly concieved or poorly executed changes were made. The ranged weapons are all increadibly weak compared to their medievil I equivalents, and sometimes it seems as if every other enemy can block ranged attacks. A single winged shadow demon took almost 20 shots from the blunderbuss to take down, while the magic longsword took it down in seconds. I never would have had that problem with spears or bows in the first game.

Likewise Life fountains do not restore when replaying a level, making backtracking for health a *serious* chore. Having to replay the tutorial mission half a dozen times for the meagre life vials that respawned was no fun.

Other problems? Unreliable fall damage implemented, knockback reduced from weapons across the board, range and hitboxes also seeming to be reduced. The game still had its moments, but to me it seems to be a clear example of changing too much without much thought into it.

A good sequel would be the difference between Rome Total War and Medeval 2 Total War (particulalry from a modders perspective)

 

[BrotherRool]

So I think 'spiritual successors' and the whole Final Fantasy/Bioshock thing is the best way of doing sequels because it leverages the brand identity without stifling creativity.

But it really does depend. If you look at a quick list of some of my favourite games of all time, Metal Gear Solid 4, Uncharted 2, Knights of the Old Republic 2, Age of Empires 2, Final Fantasy X, that's

*A game that continues the story of the last ones (the corollary to this is this isn't an excuse not too have an ending for the first game) (MGS4)
*An improvement on the previous title (Uncharted 2)
*An improvement on the previous title that makes the former obselete KOTOR2(okay I'm being a bit harsh =D), AoE2
*A unique stand-alone instalment (FFX)


So with almost my top 5 games splitting it evenly (and going down the list it doesn't stop doing that, Deus Ex:Human Revolution, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, Spiderman 2) I'd say I actually have basically no preference. I want the game to be good

 

[Vern5]

By definition, a Sequel is supposed to continue the story of its predecessor. That's what makes it a sequel and not a spin-off.

Classically, a game sequel is the developer's chance to look at all of the things the previous game had to offer, look at some of the more outstanding complaints from the critics, and try to polish the old product in an effort to satsify everyone without compromising the core gameplay values.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Continuation and an improvement where needed obviously, if I wanted a whole other game then I'm really not interested in the series at hand am I.

 

[sextus the crazy]

I don't have a personal preference as long as the execution is good.

But games with continued gameplay and ascetics, but different stories (e.g. Final Fantasy, Tales, Fire Emblem, SMT, etc.), are the most appealing.

 

[DoPo]

Well, it depends on the game - the Heroes franchise, for example, isn't too reliant on the story. It's strengths lie in just playing the game, thus a new instalment there would need to have improved gameplay and to be standalone (more or less) while keeping the strengths and the the similarity of past games. In fact, it'd even be OK if the new game outshines the old ones. On the other hand, Mass Effect isn't really about shooting dudes in the face - that certainly happens but it's not the main thing, it's about the story and characters, so that's what's expected the emphasis to be on with each new game. Other games need a mix of those, others might just as well benefit from just a contend pack - Worms did that - the difference between Armageddon and World Party is minimal at best and pretty much nonexistent otherwise (there are very small changes in the mechanics) but what it brought is just new stuff - new missions, new challenges, new modes of play that were in addition to what was there before. It was good.

 

[Mikejames]

Either/Or

I enjoyed Mass Effect being a long running progression of character development, as I've enjoyed Silent Hill games trying new ideas with new stories.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

These are all good things for a sequel to do, but the one most important to me regardless of franchise is an effort to improve what was good in the previous game and cutting away whatever didn't work so well.

 

[JagermanXcell]

Well if theres one thing sequels should remember is not to forget the core mechanic(s) of the previous installment(s), and at the same time try to create something new and fresh around that mechanic/ adding new features instead of dumbing down. Story can depend, it can either continue from where it left off, or make a brand new setting, plot, and characters. (Both must be executed well in order to avoid issues with the game)

Done right: Persona 4, Bioshock Infinite, Dark Souls, Megaman X, DMC3/4, Final Fantasy 7, Metal Gear Solid 3, Half Life 2, Assassins Creed 2, Super Mario Galaxy, ect.

Done wrong: Assassins Creed 3, Bioshock 2, DmC: Devil May Cry (I know I know its a reboot, but the devs behind it compare it to the old games. In that case it SUCKS compared to the old games), Uncharted 3, Resident Evil 5, Crysis 2, Metroid Other M, Final Fantasy 13-2, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Every COD after Modern Warfare.

Not saying all these games that are done wrong are bad. Not at all, it just seems as though paint drying has more original content then these "sequels".

 

[Zinzinbadio]

Mainly I feel that a sequel should have better gameplay like with Arkam City as they have had feedback and more time to add all they wanted to the original gameplay

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

An improvement over the previous installment. Even if it's going the spin-off route or pulling the classic Final Fantasy "new story and world every game" trick, it needs to in some way improve on the game(s) before it. A sequel should never feel like a step back on a gameplay level, like what so many people are saying about the current SimCity.

 

[TehCookie]

I expect a sequel to keep the core game mechanics while improving on them and adding new content. It's also a balance with change, too much and it doesn't feel like it's from the same series, too little and it feels stagnate. As for the story, every game should have a beginning, middle and end. I'm not picky if it's a completely different story, a story of a different group in the same world, another story about the same character or a direct continuation, but it must be a full story.

 

[introverted_surd]

On one of the rare accounts in which I totally agree with Yahtzee I think he summed it up perfectly in his bioshock 2 review.

"A good sequel--like Half-Life 2, Silent Hill 2, Tranmere Rovers 3--is one that uses the original as a jumping-off point for a whole new story with whole new technology, while a bad sequel merely wallows in the original, like a hippo in a vat of liquidized children. "