Sequels...

[random_bars]

Alright, one thing I don't understand is this: why is it that when a game is good, everyone immediately clamours for a sequel, no matter whether one is necessary or would even work?

Because honestly, it's bad games that deserve sequels more than good games. If a game is extremely good, it's finished, it's done - the concept has been fully realized and perfectly executed. Nothing more needs to be added to it - the story is generally very self-contained and closed off, and the possibilities of the mechanics have all been explored.

However, the worse a game gets, the more it deserves a sequel - as long as the concept is solid. Surely this is obvious? The more mistakes a game has made, the more it needs to make up for them, which is where a sequel can come into play. These mistakes can be changed and the game can reach more of its potential.

I mean... You wouldn't think "hmm, I did this job really well. I should definitely redo it! On the other hand, this job I did terribly. I definitely shouldn't give it another shot" about anything else, would you? So why on earth is this everyone's immediate reaction when it comes to video games?

 

[Who Dares Wins]

I agree completely. The best/worst example/offender is BioShock. It was perfect in almost every way, BUT in an unsurprising turn of events, they decided to milk the franchise with sequels, multiplayer, DLC, spin-offs etc.

Series that had the minimal amount of bad games is probably Fallout, with Fallout, Fallout 2 and New Vegas being absolutely amazing and I actually want Obsidian to make another Fallout game.

 

[Toar]

Well, they want more of a good story. A sequel, more often than not, makes the story worse or condeluded. Remember L4D 2? It was not as good as the first. But Dead Rising 2 was better than the first. It's a gamble really.

And if you make a sequel to a bad game then it will generally be less favored because "Oh, remember that game? It sucked BAWLS. Do you want the second one? I hear it's better."

"No."

Think about Two Worlds. The game sucked. Two Worlds II came out and I hear it is better, but I'm not buying it because I played the first, was offended that they could sell the broken piece of technocrap, and refuse to give them a second chance.

 

[PureChaos]

that's why i don't really want an Eternal Darkness 2. the first one was awesome and it's very doubtful a sequel would have the same effect though there have been a fwe games where the squeal was better, like Breath of Fire

 

[BreakfastMan]

It is mainly just because people want more of the game. If you really like a game, you would obviously greatly appreciate being able to play more of it that you haven't seen before, amirite? That is basically what many want from a sequel is more of the same, with a few improvements here and there.

 

[skywolfblue]

If a game is extremely good, it's finished, it's done - the concept has been fully realized and perfectly executed. Nothing more needs to be added to it - the story is generally very self-contained and closed off, and the possibilities of the mechanics have all been explored.

How so? Games can be like novels. If you have a series planned, there is no need to close every loophole right away, as there is still more story to be told, more fights to be had, more progression (both character and abilitywise) to be done, more places to see, etc.

A lot of the game sequels I've played have done very well at coming up with new stuff without becoming redundant.

However, the worse a game gets, the more it deserves a sequel - as long as the concept is solid.

That's a good way to lose a whole lot of money very fast.

Who determines whether a concept is "solid"? There are a lot of opinionated people who would stand up and say that the worst of ideas is "solid". However, the opinions of the public at large are usually against that concept in the first place, hence the reason they didn't buy the first game.

 

[dickywebster]

The only time ive found myself calling for a sequel is when ive enjoyed a game so much that another game would be a good thing as it means more things to do/game to play.
But now considering how rarely a sequel is worth much these days it does depend, planned sequels like infamous 2 work well.
Sequels arent always a bad thing, some of my favourite games are sequels, but if sequels are made purely for money and to try selling the brand and therefore the series slides downhill from there.

So take from that what you will, but i think sequels should only be made if there are plans for one before, no matter how good tha game then does.

 

[Zay-el]

I don't agree with this. Some games do actually get better with sequels(Heroes of Might & Magic, up to the 4th maybe) and some game stories cannot be told without either making the game into a bloated mess, or separating it. You couldn't tell the whole Legacy of Kain series in just one game as even the individual ones are sometimes extremely difficult to understand and digest.

I don't mind sequels. If something worked for the first time, chances are it'll work again. I cannot fault developers for hoping in such, this is just how it works. If it's a bad sequel, just ignore it.

 

[Jordi]

I disagree completely.

Alright, one thing I don't understand is this: why is it that when a game is good, everyone immediately clamours for a sequel, no matter whether one is necessary or would even work?

I can't see any way in which a game could be made that would mean that a sequel couldn't work. Sure, some sequels might not work, but that just means that the sequel was badly made. You could say that sequels aren't necessary, but no game is necessary.

Because honestly, it's bad games that deserve sequels more than good games. If a game is extremely good, it's finished, it's done - the concept has been fully realized and perfectly executed. Nothing more needs to be added to it - the story is generally very self-contained and closed off, and the possibilities of the mechanics have all been explored.

I really don't buy this. I cannot believe at all that any game can fully explore the possibilities of its mechanics. The possibilities are endless. But even if you choose not to innovate much in this area, just having more of a good thing is nice too.

The same goes for story. Even if it is fully self-contained, just make another story. Apparently they have talented writers.

However, the worse a game gets, the more it deserves a sequel - as long as the concept is solid. Surely this is obvious? The more mistakes a game has made, the more it needs to make up for them, which is where a sequel can come into play. These mistakes can be changed and the game can reach more of its potential.

It feels a little odd to say that a bad game deserves a sequel, because it seems like you're rewarding bad behavior and work. I can get behind not completely abandoning a promising concept based on shoddy implementation, but it is not more deserving than an equally promising concept that was well executed. And perhaps if there were many lacking parts, the vehicle for the further exploration of that concept should not be a sequel but a completely different game (with just that one concept being the same).

I mean... You wouldn't think "hmm, I did this job really well. I should definitely redo it! On the other hand, this job I did terribly. I definitely shouldn't give it another shot" about anything else, would you? So why on earth is this everyone's immediate reaction when it comes to video games?

You also wouldn't think "man that sucks, I really want more of it". On the other hand, more of a good game will likely be great. I can see from an artist's point of view that you would want to correct mistakes you've made, but whether something gets a sequel should be because of the audience, not the developer.

But maybe we just have different views about what a sequel should be to begin with. In my opinion there should be many less sequels, but the sequels that do get made, should be made for the fans of the original(s). That means that flaws can be ironed out and some features can be added, but for the most part it should be the same. If you want to make something different, great, do that, but don't change a perfectly good franchise because you want to appeal to a different demographic (I'm looking at you BioWare).

 

[Pegghead]

I think it depends on alot more than the quality of the game. Oh sure, Bioshock (in the sense of Rapture ioshock, because Infinite looks fucking awesome) was a great game that wrapped everything up perfectly, it didn't need a sequel (admittedly I enjoyed Bioshock 2...multiplayer was fun). Bioshock was limited to the one city, and while it was an amazing setting it was a fairly self-contained universe. Often-times, the first work of a classic series likes to tease of an amazing, expansive universe while focusing on it's own self-contained story. Star Trek, Star Wars, Lord of The Rings all did exactly this on their first run. When it comes to games, same thing. Either the developers feel they should make a sequel because they didn't quite get it right the first time around (Dead Rising) or the audience wants to see more of the amaing universe they've been presented (Fallout).

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Because when people are given something they like they often want more of it. Quite simple really and not always a bad thing. While I don't like to see titles I love be diminished by unnecessary follow-up cash grabs, I will also say that just because a story didn't need a sequel, doesn't mean a good sequel couldn't be made. Also, if a bad sequel to a game you love gets made how hard is it to just ignore its existence? It's not like the first game that you enjoyed went anywhere, so who's been hurt?

 

[Robert Ewing]

If it makes money, they will do it. And sequals, trilogies, series's are very, very, very big business. You can't argue with the amount of cash it dredges in. It's inevitable.

If it's going to bring in more cash than the first, and they don't need to create a new universe, they can just recycle everything, but change the core experience. Then you're rich.

However, I do think SOME sequals are necessary. But I think it should be strictly from a story point of view. Bioshock, and Bioshock 2 is an example on how it SHOULDN'T be done. It was done purely to make money. But if the game wants to tell a story that cannot be contained in one game, then make a sequal for that reason.

 

[LoFr3Eq]

I think what the OP is getting at, is that if a game has promise, but wasn't executed well enough a sequel should be in order.

Just look at Borderlands, that game was awesome, but had heaps of issues, it sold well anyway and had heaps of popular DLC, so hopefully Borderlands 2, next year will be way better.

Then there's also the issue of a game being dated, a bad example of this happening in Metroid, Other M, which sucked. A good example is Starcraft 2, which was great because the overall formula wasn't changed much, but the graphics and interface were greatly improved (also, there are no longer Dragoons to get stuck in every corner or the map, those things are so retarded). Some people said that SC2 was bad because it was just better graphics SC1, but that's the reason it is good.

Personally, the thing I hate the most is what happened to the Crash Bandicoot series, Naughty Dog themselves have said that it's like knowing your daughter does porn.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

Why, i can't wait for Call of Duty 5: Modern Warfare 4: Tactical Operator 0