Sequels : continuation of story or new story alltogether
- Thread starter krazykidd
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Depends on how the prequel ends.
For example, in the, say, Gears of War games, there pretty much has to be a continuation. Otherwise it'd be a massive dick move.
But, if it's like, for example, Persona 3, where the plot has ended, 4 does a good job of making a different story with some references to the previous game.
For example, in the, say, Gears of War games, there pretty much has to be a continuation. Otherwise it'd be a massive dick move.
But, if it's like, for example, Persona 3, where the plot has ended, 4 does a good job of making a different story with some references to the previous game.
ok im gonna tackle the bear you just let in the room before we get this long list of why sequels that are not a continuation of the story using it as an example, Dragon age 2.krazykidd said:
now this game was made not made to continue the story of origins but to flesh out the world and hopefully and new characters to the over arcing story. now yes the game was buggy as hell but that didnt keep it from doing its job story wise it gave you more info, so much that most people wont get how much it told them till they replay the first game.(i know i didnt) to be honest regardless of whether its a direct sequel or something new the game should be able to stand on its own as a good game, a good example of that would be mass effect 2 and final fantasy 6.
This thread seems really silly to me, since the answer to that question is heavily dependent on the game. For some games, it's best that the developers continue the story set forth in the sequels. While for other games, it is best that the sequel start up a new story. I really can't say which I prefer, nor could I anyone saying which they prefer, simply because it's conditioned on so many different factors in the previous game to the point where both schools are totally and absolutely acceptable.
Well, if it doesn't continue the story then I don't really count it as a "sequel". The game might have a "2" or whatever number in its title, but I see it as more of a spiritual successor than a sequel. It doesn't even have to have the same characters in it. For example, Valkyria Chronicles 2 continues the story without having any major characters from the first game play a huge part in the second. However, I would lean closer to calling VC2 a spin-off than a sequel.
Therefore, FF13 is not a sequel to FF12. InFamous 2 is the sequel to InFamous.
Therefore, FF13 is not a sequel to FF12. InFamous 2 is the sequel to InFamous.
I'd just Reboot the Transformers.
Rules
1: tell Michael bay to fuck off
2: Study the old anime, so I can find how the story structure works.
3: create designs that refers to the old character while Taking advantage of today's technology.
4: use the humor that made the Transformers so much fun.
6: keep any military out its too damn expensive to rent tanks and helicopters.
5: keep out any of the original actors I'm telling a fresh story.
Rules
1: tell Michael bay to fuck off
2: Study the old anime, so I can find how the story structure works.
3: create designs that refers to the old character while Taking advantage of today's technology.
4: use the humor that made the Transformers so much fun.
6: keep any military out its too damn expensive to rent tanks and helicopters.
5: keep out any of the original actors I'm telling a fresh story.
If the first game piqued enough interest and kept enough secret so a direct sequel could be interesting (Half-Life series), I would rather have a direct sequel. If the characters were likeable (Mass Effect series) I would rather it be direct. Basically, if the story and writing is good, fans are going to want a direct sequel, unless all loose ends were tied up (Bioshock) and the only possible sequel is spiritual (Bioshock: Infinite. What's that, there was another sequel? I can't recall any other sequel...).
If the gameplay was great but the story was lacking, throw out the characters and bring in new ones to revamp the story, forgetting most of the last game. If the game was more about a theme than the story itself (Silent Hill) then go for a new but similar story. If they've built a rich mythology and universe but didn't really establish a story that will last for more than 2 games (Fallout series), just let us loose in a different part of the universe so we can learn new things about it from regional NPC groups.
Depends on whether we liked the characters or didn't. Also depends on gameplay quality.
If the gameplay was great but the story was lacking, throw out the characters and bring in new ones to revamp the story, forgetting most of the last game. If the game was more about a theme than the story itself (Silent Hill) then go for a new but similar story. If they've built a rich mythology and universe but didn't really establish a story that will last for more than 2 games (Fallout series), just let us loose in a different part of the universe so we can learn new things about it from regional NPC groups.
Depends on whether we liked the characters or didn't. Also depends on gameplay quality.
I prefer my stories to have some finality to them (in other words, I prefer them to have an ending), so the idea of sequels continuing the story isn't what I'd like to see. I will make an exception for planned trilogies (such as Mass Effect), because there is an ending planned and the proposition of making all that into a single game is a bit unrealistic. Anyhow, the key point is that numerous sequels are unneeded and obvious cash-cows. When a story wraps itself up nicely, it should be left that way.
As for sequels following an unrelated story, but still taking place within the same mythos, that's more of a spin-off. These can be viewed as just as unnecessary as cash-cow sequels, but it (usually) respects the fact the previous storyline ended. In many cases, this is preferrable... but still not exactly the desired course of action. What's done is done, leave it. And no loopholes!
Then there's the act of fabricating an entirely new setting and story (effectively a stand-alone title), but having the game remain under the same name. These games are what make up most of the great franchises of gaming, most notably Final Fantasy (which has regrettably fallen from grace). When each title is a stand-alone, but still goes to great lengths to create massive world and storyline to follow... well, there can't be really any complaints about that practice. The name of the franchise does draw a lot of attention by itself, but those franchises are still held to a high standard (which is why the FF series gets a lot of flak despite the game being quite good in their own right; the fans want works comparable to their older masterpieces, not merely "good" games).
Meh, it's a tough call in many cases... but I prefer it when developpers don't make it obvious that they're making the sequel to cash-in on a previous title's success. If a story is done, leave it be.
As for sequels following an unrelated story, but still taking place within the same mythos, that's more of a spin-off. These can be viewed as just as unnecessary as cash-cow sequels, but it (usually) respects the fact the previous storyline ended. In many cases, this is preferrable... but still not exactly the desired course of action. What's done is done, leave it. And no loopholes!
Then there's the act of fabricating an entirely new setting and story (effectively a stand-alone title), but having the game remain under the same name. These games are what make up most of the great franchises of gaming, most notably Final Fantasy (which has regrettably fallen from grace). When each title is a stand-alone, but still goes to great lengths to create massive world and storyline to follow... well, there can't be really any complaints about that practice. The name of the franchise does draw a lot of attention by itself, but those franchises are still held to a high standard (which is why the FF series gets a lot of flak despite the game being quite good in their own right; the fans want works comparable to their older masterpieces, not merely "good" games).
Meh, it's a tough call in many cases... but I prefer it when developpers don't make it obvious that they're making the sequel to cash-in on a previous title's success. If a story is done, leave it be.
It depends. My usual answer to this is "direct sequels work best when it was already planned as a trilogy". Of course, this leads to the problem of people assuming there is going to be a trilogy and thus leaving the player with an incomplete and unsatisfying story in the first game full of unresolved plots, no real climax and no real ending.
Overall, I think my favourite kind of "sequels" are the in-betweeners - the kind of sequels where they're set in the same universe, but are largely unrelated to the plot of the previous games, such as The Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Silent Hill, or even Fable (even if the games themselves aren't that great, I can appreciate what Fable tried to do with its sequels). Hell, even some games that follow the same characters feel more like this than anything else. They do their own thing, have a complete, self-contained plot and aren't just rehashing the same story with the same villain that should have been over already, but they also adhere to the spirit of previous titles, have lore and continuity that makes them more interesting.
So, yeah, I like it when games are related to the previous story, but don't actually follow it, if that makes sense.
Overall, I think my favourite kind of "sequels" are the in-betweeners - the kind of sequels where they're set in the same universe, but are largely unrelated to the plot of the previous games, such as The Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Silent Hill, or even Fable (even if the games themselves aren't that great, I can appreciate what Fable tried to do with its sequels). Hell, even some games that follow the same characters feel more like this than anything else. They do their own thing, have a complete, self-contained plot and aren't just rehashing the same story with the same villain that should have been over already, but they also adhere to the spirit of previous titles, have lore and continuity that makes them more interesting.
So, yeah, I like it when games are related to the previous story, but don't actually follow it, if that makes sense.