Sequential Sequels or New Stories?

[Gameslayer_93]

I prefer sequential sequels, so long as they have the good grace to end on time.

I don't really see the point of new story sequels. If you're going to make a entirely new setting, story and characters then the only reason to make it a sequel is so you can stick a recognized name on it. That's not exactly a bad thing, but neither is it a good thing.

The point is that they don't need as thourough (spelling?) an introduction each time, take the Fallout games for example, the stories of those games aren't connected but are all in the same universe so theres no need to mention that there was a nuclear war between US and China 200 years ago in every title, also the familiarity is comforting for a lot of people. Or in the case of series like The Elder Scrolls or Dragon Age the lore is kept intact from game to game instead of having to create a whole new history with each title.

 

[AyreonMaiden]

I like sequential stories best. I love me a universe and a set of recurring characters I can spend a good amount of my time with. But I also like the kind of sequential games that have a backup plan in case there's no future installments, or in case you don't like what comes next so you can choose precisely where to stop with a story, much like the warning before the coda in Stephen King's final Dark Tower book (great ending btw.)

Max Payne 2's alternate endings come to mind. The canon ending has great closure even if it leads into 3, but there's also an alternate (and equally believable) ending when you beat the hardest mode if you want a more final closure for Max's character. It's nice to have that kind of safeguard with a series.

 

[aattss]

I like sequential stories if the previous one was a game with a really good plot, possibly with some philosophy in it. Otherwise, I don't really care as long as it has a similar but improved gameplay and whatnot.

 

[The_Waspman]

I always preferred stand alone stories in any series, not just video games. Ya don't have to of been through the first installments to understand what comes after. Less of an investment unless you're willing to get involved in a long over reaching plot arch... even if the series is worth getting involved...

In video games however it's getting to be a big freaking pain in the ass. Game writers leave plots left open for the sake of the inevitable sequel just to keep their drab, worn out series going longer than it has any business trudging along. It's tactless and sloppy.

Even worse they seem to be scared to death of any semblance of conclusion. So much so that they have routinely clustered up the endings to their series... even when there's supposed to be and ending... there's never a goddamn ending... all we ever get is crap.

I enjoy series like Indiana Jones that keep entries to a minimum but each one is a self contained story with the same characters throughout. Each one is fun in its own right without having to rely upon knowledge from previous entries.

This one speaks many a truth.

As much as I loathe the fact that there is no longer any originality (so, what do we have this summer? Remakes, reboots, comic book adaptations, sequels...) I get tired of the absolute sequelisation of fucking everything.

But stand alone stories in the same universe is probably the next best thing. It takes place within an established universe, so fas of the original will know what the deal is, but it has new characters, new goings on, and maybe a few cameos. Dragon Age 2 would be a fine (Your mileage may vary) example of this. Same universe, but different characters, a different conflict, familiar (especially in the case of the oft repeated dungeons) but different.

The major problem with sequelisation (and this is most evident in TV, I think) is that it is very harsh to newcomers. You cant dive into the middle of things. If for example you started watching Lost at the start of season 3, you wouldn't have any fucking clue what was going on (then again, even if you'd been watching from the very beginning, chances are you wouldn't have a fucking clue what was going on) and thats a major problem. It is very difficult to expand a fan base when the franchise is inpenetrable to all those who weren't there from the beginning.

But things aren't going to change, and that makes me sad.

 

[Megalodon]

I meant every individual game though, not every series. I never played Mass Effect, but does every game have a conclusion that leaves you satisfied? The fact it was a trilogy kept me away from it because that just means the first two game aren't going to have an ending.

The first one could have worked fine as a stand-alone game in my opinion, it ended well enough as a single game, but left the door open for potential sequels. The second one a lot less so, but the conclusion, although a cliffhanger, I still found satisfying, as it was clear that wasn't the ending. The less said about 3, the better.

Unlike something like Dragon Age 2, where I found the cliffhanger ending really bloody annoying.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I don't really have a preferrence between the two.

If a game sets up interesting characters and an intersting story, I absolutely want to see that through to a logical conclusion. But, at the same time, if a developer creates a mythos I care enough about beyond the characters and storyline in a given game, I also love being able to eplore that mythos from different angles.

Both are perfectly valid ways of creating sequels though I don't think the second option is used often enough. There seems to be this belief among developers that if you create character X you have to put them in every single game. Of course, there's also a similar issue amongst gamers who often call a game out as being unfocused or just an attempt to milk a series if it's not a direct sequel to the previous title.