Sequels: When are they best?

[The_Healer]

No this it not another thread about the best sequels.
I was thinking, what is the right amount of time between games? Is it better to give a quick follow up to a game (1-3 years) or a longer period (>3 years)?

Personally I think that a longer period gives rise to the best sequels but there are many instances where this is not consistent.

What's your opinion? (Give examples if you have them)

 

[DrunkWithPower]

Halo is the perfect example in my opinion. H:CE great, H2 Best, H3 killing the name, H3:ODST just dumb.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I would say >2 but <5, AND NO MORE THE 2 SEQUELS!!!

 

[The_Healer]

Halo is the perfect example in my opinion. H:CE great, H2 Best, H3 killing the name, H3:ODST just dumb.

Err and your opinion is what? That short or long periods are better between games?

 

[Mcface]

You want sequels to be far enough apart so your not overwhelmed, but close enough together you dont forget about, or lose interest in the game.

They also HAVE to be (in many cases) created by the people who worked on the first.

 

[DrunkWithPower]

Halo is the perfect example in my opinion. H:CE great, H2 Best, H3 killing the name, H3:ODST just dumb.

Err and your opinion is what? That short or long periods are better between games?

Oops, sorry, got off track, short period sequels. Halo is an example of how not to do it in my eyes. Should of killed everything off after Halo two.

 

[AvsJoe]

I say that they're more likely to produce a good sequel when they take some time and put in a lot of effort. But this backfires often. See Yahtzee's new video for the Monkey Island sequel for a good example or the forever-incomplete Duke Nukem game.

 

[ThePirateMan]

Half-Life series is great, can't wait for Half-Life 2 Episode 3.
And those who think they're milking it S.T.F.U, it's not like they're releasing a sequal evry year like WoW and stuff(Stuff=I don't know any more examples at the time being).

So there should be a long period between the games. Atleast 2 years prefereably.

 

[sms_117b]

Time isn't really a factor, however, I don't think that parts 2 and 3 should be written after the success of part 1. All three parts should be done as a single (albeit very long) story with a suitable place to stop after the first one if it doesn't fly. Just adds to the consistency.

 

[The_Healer]

Time isn't really a factor, however, I don't think that parts 2 and 3 should be written after the success of part 1. All three parts should be done as a single (albeit very long) story with a suitable place to stop after the first one if it doesn't fly. Just adds to the consistency.

Thats actually a good idea...
Probably would save costs in the end as well.

 

[sms_117b]

Time isn't really a factor, however, I don't think that parts 2 and 3 should be written after the success of part 1. All three parts should be done as a single (albeit very long) story with a suitable place to stop after the first one if it doesn't fly. Just adds to the consistency.

Thats actually a good idea...
Probably would save costs in the end as well.

Probably would, plus if the story is done, then there is no fanboy pleasing in the sequels because everyone thought something in particular was "úber amazing!" in the original. Also, hopefully it won't get extended because the series did well, damn it writers have some pride in your work!

 

[akmarksman]

I would say >2 but <5, AND NO MORE THE 2 SEQUELS!!!

and yet theres probably another FF game in the works..

Im one of the few that doesn't mind that they are making L4D2 and kicking it out a year later than L4D..

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I would say >2 but <5, AND NO MORE THE 2 SEQUELS!!!

and yet theres probably another FF game in the works..

Im one of the few that doesn't mind that they are making L4D2 and kicking it out a year later than L4D..

Well Final Fantasy's different, or rather they USED to be different. Their sequels were less sequels and more like volumes. ...that is until Final Fantasy X and X-2 when they started making direct sequels and spin-offs and generally destroying the formula that made many fans love the series up to that point. Point is every game had a different story, characters, plot, setting, etc. There were only a few small elements, besides the title with a sequentially larger number attached, that tied each game to the previous one. When that's the case the normal rules of sequeling don't really apply.

 

[high_castle]

I think you need the time to develop the game fully, but don't spend too much time that you lose track of what made the first one so good in the first place. I know, I'm very fickle. 2-3 years is a good length of time, IMO of course.

Let's look at my favorite series of all time, the Baldur's Gate games. There were roughly 2 years between the release of the first and second. Both games were innovative, clever, and engaging. Fans still had the first one fresh in their minds, the same dev team worked on both, and the sequel stands up to the original.

Now consider a recent revitalization of an older series: Fallout 3 debuted about 10 years after the second game. It passed to new developers, who--again, in my opinion--didn't have the same grasp of the first games as the original team. The humorous bits were missing, and any attempts at levity really fell flat for me. Some spark of the original games would have been nice, but it just felt like something was missing.

 

[XJ-0461]

Time isn't really a factor, however, I don't think that parts 2 and 3 should be written after the success of part 1. All three parts should be done as a single (albeit very long) story with a suitable place to stop after the first one if it doesn't fly. Just adds to the consistency.

This makes a lot of sense. Though it might be difficult to put an effective ending/cliffhanger in every film or book or whatever.

Other than that, I have nothing to add here.

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

I would say >2 but <5, AND NO MORE THE 2 SEQUELS!!!

and yet theres probably another FF game in the works..

Im one of the few that doesn't mind that they are making L4D2 and kicking it out a year later than L4D..

Well Final Fantasy's different, or rather they USED to be different. Their sequels were less sequels and more like volumes. ...that is until Final Fantasy X and X-2 when they started making direct sequels and spin-offs and generally destroying the formula that made many fans love the series up to that point. Point is every game had a different story, characters, plot, setting, etc. There were only a few small elements, besides the title with a sequentially larger number attached, that tied each game to the previous one. When that's the case the normal rules of sequeling don't really apply.

I think the reasons for the sequels is they are more for the fans of those individual games rather than fans of the Final Fantasy series as a whole.

 

[IamQ]

About 1/5 to 2 years between the original and the sequal works good for me.

Some companies dissagree with me though *Cough* Blizzard *Cough* Starcraft 2, Diablo 3*Coughcoughcoughcoughcoughcough* *chocke*

 

[The Eupho Guy_v1legacy]

About 1/5 to 2 years between the original and the sequal works good for me.

Some companies dissagree with me though *Cough* Blizzard *Cough* Starcraft 2, Diablo 3*Coughcoughcoughcoughcoughcough* *chocke*

You can add Funcom to the list as well. WHERE IS MY DREAMFALL CHAPTERS!?

 

[jonnopon3000]

I like it when a game is released around 1.5 years after original game. As long as work is put into it and the project is looked after, they turn out great.

I mean...look at left 4 dead (Yes I am of the opinion that a sequel would be good for it now).

And if I recall, HL2 episode 1 was released quite a short time after HL2, and episode 2 short time after episode 1. And they're the best sequels ever. Period.

Oh. And this applies to the POP sands of time series.

 

[Woodsey]

As long as it takes - something like Mass Effect/AC/Crysis which have been announced as trilogies, it's better to keep them every 2 years say (which they are).

Mafia came out in 2002, and the Mafia 2 is out next year (that's 8 years for the arithmatically illiterate), which is an age in gaming considering the industry is only 40-45 years old (aprox. I'm not sure exactly), but Mafia 2 looks like an exceptional game, and they've still got another 8-10 months development time (again an estimate).

Depends really. If Valve and the Half-Life series weren't so highly rated however they'd be in a lot of trouble - they seem to have too long gaps and it can be hard to remember all elements of the story over 3 years without playing HL2 + the episodes again. Luckily the games are always well worth the wait.

KotOR 1 was a far superior game to KotOR 2 (purely because of the lack of polish to be honest - the game didn't feel as tight, so an other wise very good story was left too lose, odds and ends of different quests didn't close/fit together like they should, etc.) KotOR 2 was released just over a year later, and suffered terribly because Lucas Arts pushed Obsidian to release the game for a Christmas release when it wasn't finished.