Sequential Sequels or New Stories?

[Soviet Heavy]

Which type of sequel do you prefer, the sequel that continues plotlines from it's preceding games to bring about a conclusion to an overall story arc, or the sequel that jumps off from the first game to tell an entirely new story within the context of the setting?

I'd say that both types have their place, though to be honest, I would like to see more of the latter. The big reason that I'm looking forward to Far Cry 3 is because while it is set in the Far Cry universe, it has little to do with Far Cry 1 or Far Cry 2 apart from the wilderness and survival aspects. It uses the formula to tell a new story each time while still sharing characteristics with its predecessors that allows it to keep the Far Cry name.

Sequential sequels are fine, but my concern is with the notion that everything must become a franchise, so sometimes titles get hacked up or stretched with cliffhangers and to be continued shlock to try and entice people to keep buying the games. That doesn't sit as well with me, because it can cheapen the overall experience, and rob some games of an actual conclusion in the hopes that they can sucker you into buying the next one.

So, which type do you prefer, overall? The trilogy setup that flows from one into another, or the new adventure, that uses the predecessors as a jumping off point?

In film terms, do you prefer The Lord of the Rings, or Indiana Jones?

 

[Iwata]

I prefer sequential stories. If I enjoyed the first game, I'll usually want to know more of its protagonist and the consequences of the actions in the first game. Of course, this can only go so far, so I don't mind a shift to a new protagonist or setting further down the series.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I prefer sequential stories. If I enjoyed the first game, I'll usually want to know more of its protagonist and the consequences of the actions in the first game. Of course, this can only go so far, so I don't mind a shift to a new protagonist or setting further down the series.

My big issue is when a first game in an expected series is so convinced of its success that it doesn't bother to make a proper ending, assuming that the player will buy the second game anyways.

When it comes to sequential sequels, I'd prefer it if the first game at least manages to cap everything off and give the game an ending. That way, if it doesn't manage to get made into a franchise, it isn't hampered with a non ending.

 

[skywolfblue]

Sequential I suppose.

Because
1) Developing studios tend to put a bigger budget behind trilogies then they do for new stories.
2) In Sequels you generally get to keep the protagonist and his friends. New stories give you entirely new cast, which is rather risky as to whether the players will like them or not.

New stories can be really really awesome too if done right. But it does tend to be a bit more hit-and-miss.

 

[Kotep]

I tend to prefer the idea of branching stories, particularly because I like the finality of a story well-completed. So when the protagonist is does, they're done, and we can focus on someone new with the next game. It also avoids the awkward handwaving of why you're not Level 50, why you don't still have your Atomic Bomb Destruct-O-Gun, why you can't use that ability the game gave you right before the end, et cetera.

Also, I like it for the purposes of making games more modular, where an experiment in style can be contained to one game or expanded, or where you can get into one without being spoiled for other games.

 

[TehCookie]

I like both as long as every game has a conclusion. I hate ones that are to be continued or ones that don't follow canon of the previous game.

 

[DoPo]

I like both as long as every game has a conclusion. I hate ones that are to be continued or ones that don't follow canon of the previous game.

Yes, this. I enjoy sequential sequels but I really want an eventual end in the plot. One big reason to even start Mass Effect is that it was planned as a trilogy, so it would have gotten an eventual end...or something. (Note: this was my reasoning before I bought the games.) Same-ish with Assassin's Creed, once I heard one title (Revelations) would wrap things up, I finally bought 1 and 2. I think plot arcs need endings, otherwise you may end up with loose ends and unresolved questions. And I don't want another LoK.

 

[TehCookie]

I like both as long as every game has a conclusion. I hate ones that are to be continued or ones that don't follow canon of the previous game.

Yes, this. I enjoy sequential sequels but I really want an eventual end in the plot. One big reason to even start Mass Effect is that it was planned as a trilogy, so it would have gotten an eventual end...or something. (Note: this was my reasoning before I bought the games.) Same-ish with Assassin's Creed, once I heard one title (Revelations) would wrap things up, I finally bought 1 and 2. I think plot arcs need endings, otherwise you may end up with loose ends and unresolved questions. And I don't want another LoK.

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.

 

[Rickolas Walrus]

I actually really like the Harry Potter idea of new stories that interconnect to the overall sequential story

 

[kingcom]

I would prefer sequels to not exist at all but if your going to do a sequel it atleast needs to actually extend the story from the previous game.

 

[Evilpigeon]

I tend to prefer games without connected storylines, it makes it less jarring when they toy with the mechanics (this is one of the reasons why I didn't get on with ME2) plus, you get more scope to explore different parts of the gameworld or multiple gameworlds a protagonist ties you to a specific point of view so more protagonists means more different perspectives. Then again connected storylines running across multiple games can provide incredible epic experiences if done right.

 

[Zhukov]

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.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I think I'll put a spoiler warning here just in case.

It's all about context. If there was a decent, self-contained story arc that began and ended in movie/game/whatever 1 then I want something different. If there was a big, dangling plot thread left unaddressed at by the end then I want more from that plot in movie/game/whatever 2. Like for the movie G.I. Joe, it ends in a way that makes me want to see more about what's going on with the Cobra disguise guy (I don't remember the name). Also for Star Wars; sure they shoot Vader's Tie Fighter but it doesn't explode proper and he could have survived! I wanna see what happens dammit, even if Obi Wan did die, I don't know that Vader did (for example).

Spoiler: I'll remind you now of the spoiler warning and continue just in case...also Text Wall

On the other hand; Star Wars the Force Unleashed's canonical ending has Starkiller killed by the Emperor so that Leia and the other members of the newly formed Rebel Alliance can escape from him and Vader and hopefully get a resistance mounted. That is a good ending to a story I don't think anybody was curious about but it was satisfying and good for what it was. It wasn't Knights of the Old Republic but, it wasn't Phantom Menace either. Then we get Force Unleashed 2 which continues Starkiller's story by cloning him and shoe-horning in the love interest who wasn't even all that strong in the original game. Talk about wasted fucking potential! I don't understand what it is with western story-telling and how it's almost mandatory to have a love-based sub plot. It was unnecessary in the first and barely even there to begin with dammit but it looked like the central focus of the second and killed what could have been a good anthology series. I've said this again but Force Unleashed 2 could have been about fucking ANYTHING! Ulic Quel-Droma, Naga Sadow, Exar Kun or, a new Jedi/Sith Lord with unreasonably advanced powers. Hell, the original concept would have had you play as a Wookiee and according to Star Wars lore it is possible for Wookiees to use The Force. How bad-ass would it have been to play as a Jedi or, Sith Wookiee!? Apparently they chose not to use a Wookiee as a character because they wanted to have a character who players could relate to and they said it was damn-near impossible to do that with a Wookiee because they can't speak. Star Wars Life-Day special proves that Wookiee garbling can get annoying but there was no reason a new character couldn't have been developed dammit. Knights of the Old Republic got me into Old Republic lore but it's a difficult game to get into in this day and age apparently: a Force Unleashed style game based off of Naga Sadow (who used the force to power and, pilot a capital ship) could have got a new generation into Old Republic lore! I should stop now...I rage at this game a lot...you could say it's my Bane.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I prefer the Indiana Jones approach to be honest, though I'd probably call it the Elder Scrolls approach instead. It gives you a chance to build a universe and offers great excuses to change mechanics wildly between games if necessary. Of course, if you aren't careful, this leads to odd problems of canon conflict with personal choices. The Elder Scrolls avoided this by being incredibly vague on lots of details and ensuring the big stuff (the main quests) only had the one ending.

Of course, I killed Vivec so finding out he did stuff after the whole incident in Morrowind was a bit annoying.

 

[Reaper195]

New stories. It's never gone wrong with the GTA series. I don't mind a continuing series, but I am kind of tired of the constant trilogies in everything. Sometimes you simply need one game, then a sequel just to tell a story. But over all, I prefer new characters, new universe, new everything in games. It's better this way since you tend to recognise a developers style easier. Ths is why I'm not sure about new game by Bungie, since they've only done Halo in the past decade, and of all their other games, ONI was the closest one to not being poo.

 

[malestrithe]

I prefer Indiana Jones over Lord of the Rings. It tends to be better storytelling if the games resolve what they can legitimately get to in that game.

This is different than having an over reaching threat you need to be aware of at all times. Infamous 1 and 2 are new stories with one over arching threat. We had the threat of the Beast looming over, but the bad guys for both stories are different.

 

[endtherapture]

I honestly thought that Dragon Age would be going for a "new story" approach since Origins was such a self contained and conclusive story.

But then Bioware Mass Effecitised it and now we have Dragon Effect and it just ruined all potential.

Plus I wouldnt say LoTR is a sequential story - Tolkien wrote it all intending to be one book. If you look at LoTR vs The Hobbit for instance they are "new stories" in Middle Earth.

 

[AndrewF022]

I always enjoyed the new stories, but set in the same universe, method of sequels. Have new characters and even new locations. But having things that are also familiar to people who played/watched/read the previous installments, something to ground themselves in, whether its an art style or maybe they have old characters make cameos, whatever.

Sequential stories are ok, but as long as you don't leave your fans hanging with a cliffhanger, especially if you don't know when if ever, the next sequel will see the light of day, *cough* Half Life.