Just want to know about exactly what you look for a sequel? As in; better graphics, continued story, new story, interface overhaul etc.
What do we want out of Sequels?
- Thread starter Robert_Gore
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'd honestly like some more polished graphics for S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2, and of course some more things to add to the lore. I'd also like the names of the weaponry to be that of those IRL, instead of the made up names they currently have.
EDIT: Oh, wait, I thought you meant a specific sequel. Oh well :3
EDIT: Oh, wait, I thought you meant a specific sequel. Oh well :3
A few new mechanics and improvements of old features, along with a new or continued story, and new environments.
For a great example of original-to-sequel improvements, see Ratchet and Clank to Ratchet and Clank 2.
For a great example of original-to-sequel improvements, see Ratchet and Clank to Ratchet and Clank 2.
I feel sequels should continue the themes and core ideas of the original, but otherwise develop itself in a new way. It's a sequel, you've got the original, now something different and evolved is feasibly marketable, so give it a shot! You've got the foundation and the interest, it's a chance to refine your ideas and make something special out of what you've already done, rather than churning out a copy with better production values.
Better graphics are a given, and a new story is often required, but I like to see something new done in sequels by expanding on the foundation of the original, not the original in full. It's the difference between a Silent Hill 2 and a Call of Duty MW2.
Better graphics are a given, and a new story is often required, but I like to see something new done in sequels by expanding on the foundation of the original, not the original in full. It's the difference between a Silent Hill 2 and a Call of Duty MW2.
It depends. If a sequel is less complex than it's predecessor it is most likely a failure. The exception is when the complexity was a very negative thing but I can't even think of an example where that was the case. Most sequels these days change a few things in the gameplay, have some new levels, a couple of new characters and a new plot. That isn't enough for a great sequel. The ratchet and clank series is a good example of a series that is complacent with their formula. Since the 3rd iteration, they've simply palette swapped things like weapons and the puzzle minigames, had negligible plot development, no new memorable or significant characters, half-assed innovations (the time puzzles were cool, but why only give us 2 interesting ones? It's like portal ending on level 5) and they really lack the sort of depth that the audience is looking for. On the ps2 they made online multiplayer. On 3 sequels on the ps3 where multiplayer has become far more prevalent, they have not attempted it once. A r&c multiplayer could be a great change from more realistic shooters.
Shallow games are fine for nintendo platforms, but playstation (and xbox too) gamers are into grand theft auto, final fantasy and metal gear solid so we expect at least an attempt to tell an engaging story as well as improve things. Final fantasy is in a new world with new characters every game. GTAIV added many things like the very complex internet parody, dating and real-time physics. MGS4 added a remote control robot, octocamo, the SOP system, the best 3rd person control scheme ever and the greatest multiplayer shooter ever in terms of depth and the balance of skill and teamwork.
New Vegas disappointed people for using the same engine with no improvements, but what's wrong with that when the engine is so good to begin with? Not in terms of polygons and textures, but radiant AI, emergent gameplay, 2300 persistent characters, 150 locations, real-time physics etc. It offers a different experience from anything else and is vastly superior to the Crystal Tools engine which everyone loved because of high polygon characters (though they were at the expense of environments which are pulled straight from the ps2 era) despite having even worse animations and no physics system at all.
FFXIII is the worst sequel of all time. The series has been losing complexity since VII, with only the transition to 3d maps and the addition of voice acting adding to it, while they lose everything that made the series unique like towns, minigames, puzzles, exploration and interesting objectives. Now it's just run to the end of path while battling then watch a cutscene. That's ok if the battle system or cutscenes are great, but they were horrendously bad.
Shallow games are fine for nintendo platforms, but playstation (and xbox too) gamers are into grand theft auto, final fantasy and metal gear solid so we expect at least an attempt to tell an engaging story as well as improve things. Final fantasy is in a new world with new characters every game. GTAIV added many things like the very complex internet parody, dating and real-time physics. MGS4 added a remote control robot, octocamo, the SOP system, the best 3rd person control scheme ever and the greatest multiplayer shooter ever in terms of depth and the balance of skill and teamwork.
New Vegas disappointed people for using the same engine with no improvements, but what's wrong with that when the engine is so good to begin with? Not in terms of polygons and textures, but radiant AI, emergent gameplay, 2300 persistent characters, 150 locations, real-time physics etc. It offers a different experience from anything else and is vastly superior to the Crystal Tools engine which everyone loved because of high polygon characters (though they were at the expense of environments which are pulled straight from the ps2 era) despite having even worse animations and no physics system at all.
FFXIII is the worst sequel of all time. The series has been losing complexity since VII, with only the transition to 3d maps and the addition of voice acting adding to it, while they lose everything that made the series unique like towns, minigames, puzzles, exploration and interesting objectives. Now it's just run to the end of path while battling then watch a cutscene. That's ok if the battle system or cutscenes are great, but they were horrendously bad.
Personally I want it to be largely the same experience that I got from the original but with a new story and improved graphics. What I don't want is for them to start doing major changes to the gameplay, if I'm buying a sequel it's because I liked the original and as such I'm happy with the gameplay, sure add in new features and do minor tweaks for game balance and to keep things fresh but overall the game should feel like the original.
More varied locale, more and better weapons if it's a shooter/action game, new gameplay mechanics, new challenges, bigger world, longer play time, and more characters if it's a fighting genre game.
Continued story from the 1st, old characters plus new characters added, enhanced and improved gameplay, longer gameplay, deeper story, etc.
Movie squeals generally suck. Game squeals are generally better than the original (well usually no the story.) In games I wanna see better graphics (usually), character development (but thats not that important) and more intense gameplay (unless the original was already as insane as humanly possible). thats about it. I don't care if the story sucks as long as the actual game is better.
- Old characters, new story.
- New setting, or at least a new take on an old setting.
- Change up the gameplay.
- Please, please, fix the problems that were in the original.
...
- Lastly, for the love of God, know when to end it. Sequels aren't inherently bad, but please have the dignity to not milk your once great IP to death. End on a high note, not with a strangled, drawn-out sigh in the dark.
- New setting, or at least a new take on an old setting.
- Change up the gameplay.
- Please, please, fix the problems that were in the original.
...
- Lastly, for the love of God, know when to end it. Sequels aren't inherently bad, but please have the dignity to not milk your once great IP to death. End on a high note, not with a strangled, drawn-out sigh in the dark.
Refinement. Take what worked in the first game and make it work even better. Don't radically alter the game mechanics (why even make a sequel if you're going to do that) unless an aspect of those mechanics was universally panned by critics and fans.
Basically, if it works, don't fix it. Fine tune it instead.
Basically, if it works, don't fix it. Fine tune it instead.