What's Your Opinion On Sequels? - CHAT WITH THE STAFF!

[tendo82]

Welcome to The Escapist Roundtable!

Want your opinion heard? Have questions for the staff? Now's your chance! We've put up a general topic for you to engage with but this is really about a chance for us to interact with each other. Every week, from Wednesday through Friday, staff will be dropping in and out of the thread to post their own responses and reply to yours. From there, feel free to keep the discussion going until next Wednesday when a new topic goes up. We may even respond over the weekend while we're downloading Noby Noby Boy for the PS3.

Consider this your chance to join us in some lively debating and hopefully good times. We can't wait to discuss.

This week's question is: Sequels are often held up as examples of how narrow minded and conservative the videogame industry is. But is that really the case? What's your opinion on sequels, and what game is most representative of that opinion?

 

[DigitalSushi]

Sequels are only good providing they add to the originals ideals and further them*, if they dont and we buy it anyway surely its our fault, but our marketing studies show that the sequels sell more, and by "our", i mean the western worlds marketing.

In Japan its a different story, they beleive a sequel only sells 3/4 as much as the original, which is why we didn't get Tobal 2. But who is correct, Japan or America?, I know that until the Wii each of Nintendo's systems with Mario had a slow decline, only one example I know, but its a biggy!

I don't mind sequels, without them I wouldn't have Half Life 2 to cuddle at night.

*(do I get todays Gill Grisom award for outstanding detective work for that comment?)

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I've never seen a good sequel that didn't depart from it's roots.

One of the few I can even think of is Alien/Aliens, where the two films are Survival Horror/Gunbunny.

 

[tendo82]

I think a good sequel will always stay true to the core concept of the game, but manage to change the previous iteration in noticeable ways.

I think Metal Gear Solid 4 is an excellent sequel. It still feels distinctly like Metal Gear, even in the way it plays, but it's a radically different game from its predecessors. Also if you've played the previous games you'll feel that Metal Gear Solid 4 really does feel like an amalgamation of everything that's come before it.

I think sequels can be done a lot of ways, but MGS4 is one example that I believe gets it right.

 

[Sennz0r]

I think good sequels are in any case never follow-ups from the previous game, providing the previous game had an open ending. Games with open endings are terrible. They leave you with a sickening feeling of having finished the game, without really finishing it. The sequel to this game in turn has to be almost exactly like the previous game, to keep the story flowing. This results in monotony, which is bad.

Sequels should bring something new to the table, without losing the basic elements of its predecessor. I also think sequels should in fact be playable by people who haven't played the previous games. That is to say, there shouldn't be huge gaps in the story because that part was discussed in the previous game. A good example of a game that does this well is Gears of War 2. You can play it without having played Gears 1 and still enjoy the story. Of course some references will be lost to you but it doesn't ruin the entire experience.
Another good example would be the Thief series. They had the same protagonist every time, but they all played as individual games within the same world.

 

[xitel]

I think that if a sequel improves on the STORY, and is a sequel to a great game, I love it. But then, I love book series, where they just do the same thing and continue the story, so I may be biased. But really, one of the main reasons I play games is for the story, not just the gameplay. If a game has a great story, I can forgive average gameplay, just like if a game has a horrible or nonexistent story, I won't like it as much, even if it has great gameplay. It's one of the reasons I don't play L4D as much.

 

[Goldeneye103X2]

Sequels are made to either satisfy the fans or make a quick buck because the first one was so succesful. But honestly rockstar, why include a social boring life in a game all about action? If i wanted a social life, i'd actually go outside with real friends.

Actually, yahtzee made a couple of comments on sequels in this weeks FEAR 2 video.

 

[Incredible Bullshitting Man]

Correct me if I´m wrong, but doesn´t sequels pop up time and again because there is a demand for them. As long as there are those who get sucked into a franchise and become fans there will be sequels. This is actually quite obvious, but the sad part is that developers tend to become lazy when they realize, they can make money easily by making the same game over and over. I´m not sure which one to blame; critiqueless fans or lazy developers.

I like sequels that aren´t exactly sequels, more like one game divided into two or three parts (e.g. Golden Sun). I certainly didn´t mind reading/watching LotR in three parts.

EDIT: So, Goldeneye103X2 was one step ahead of me.

 

[TwistedEllipses]

Sequels are usually an excuse to be lazy. Far better is the side-sequel, a game that is is not directly a sequel but has elements of characters, storyline or gameplay but arranged in a totally different way. If Mario wasn't abused as a franchise I would use that an an example. I have enormous respect for Bungie trying something different with the halo games and I would like to see more experimentation along those lines...

Oh and if games want sequels, they're probably better off writing a wide story arc for future use just in case...

 

[Archon]

To me, there's a clear distinction between sequel in the sense of "commercial exploitation of the brand" and sequel in the sense of "continue the narrative". In both cases a sequel will require commercial success in the first installment, to justify the creation of a sequel, but in "exploitation of the brand" that's *all* that's involved, whereas there is a creative value in continuing a story or exploring a setting.

Movies are notorious for sequels that are mere exploitations of the brand, perhaps because by the time IP reaches the stage of being a movie, it's so far removed from its original author's creative vision that it is just a "franchise" or "brand" at that point. You can tell when particular IP has reached "franchise" state where additional sequels are merely commercial exploitation, because it will involve "re-launching" or "re-casting". James Bond and Star Trek come to mind. Faced with that, I tend to wish effort went into exploring new IP.

But, for instance, in books, I love sequels. In fact all of my favorite works are series of sequels: George R.R. Martin's Game of Thrones and its sequels, R. Scott Bakker's Prince of Nothing, and so on. However, you virtually never see a literary series "re-launched" or "re-imagined", with the exception of comic books. Instead, authors will spin new tales, new worlds, new characters. Imagine if instead of writing Game of Thrones, George R.R. Martin had "re-imagined" Wild Cards.

I think the most successful game sequels are those that remain true to the core gameplay of the original game, while expanding the narrative or the setting. I think sequels that are simply applications of new graphics or systems are less successful, as they seem the most like crass exploitation to me (we have shiny tech, let's put it in a [brand name] wrapper).

 

[Rusty Bucket]

I think sequels should only be created with a narrative purpose in mind, and obviously to improve the gameplay if necassary (but don't change the core elements). If you look at films, they release sequels purely from a narrative standpoint, not because the CGI in the first film was a bit off. If films do this, then games should do the same. I personally view games as a film, but one where the audience has a level of control over the narrative.

 

[Lancer723]

Developers like money. They spend thousands of hours creating an original game and yet have no idea how that game will do. If the game flops, as is often the case, then they have just put a tremendous amount of time and effort into something without getting a sizable return. If the game does well then the make money and everyone is happy.

However one game does not make a studio successful, they need to keep producing games that will sell and make money. From this point they can either make a new game and gamble that it does as well as their first success, or take the more sure route and make a sequel to the first game that already has a significant fanbase.

In the end it's simple economics, sequels are building on prior successes and thus resemble their predecessors. This is not a lack of imagination on the part of the developer, it is a calculated move meant to attract their previous fanbase and possibly attract new fans. Hence why sequels are almost always hyped and advertised more than the originals.

 

[ultimatechance]

i find that if you put too much in one game, it becomes mundane, and you hope for it to end. MGS4 is a good example (pretend that it was the first game in the series). The first couple cutscenes had me wanting more, but when you jampack so much into it, it could use a sequel. And of course, the sequel will have more gameplay elements, better graphics, and so on to further my reason why i enjoy sequels. I think companies that milk sequels out for money will ruin the franchise, but a world without sequels would be bad. (yes ive seen the yahtzee episode). Sequels offer a good reason for developers to improve on something that people already liked, and if done properly, will deserve my hard earned money.

 

[SimuLord]

I think a direct sequel presents the opportunity for a developer to revisit what made the first game great, then make tweaks and refinements putting out a game that's similar enough that fans of the original know what to expect and yet new enough that it's not just same old, same old.

When you look at games like Civilization 2, Capitalism 2, Age of Empires 2, Railroad Tycoon 2, Fallout 2, Caesar "Plebs are needed" 2, The Sims 2...the common thread that runs through those games is a solid focus on keeping the feel of the original while trying to improve on what came before.

Where many series fall into traps is with the transition from 2 to 3. A third installment too much like the first risks franchise stagnation, plus enough time has usually elapsed that the face of the technology has changed. Often if not developed by a whole new and different studio, the third installment is developed in large part by people who didn't have a big hand in the original. Look at Fallout 3, Railroad Tycoon 3, Master of Orion 3, Civilization 3, Caesar 3. All of them fell into the pitfall of losing the "it" that made their previous installments what they were, and some of them puzzlingly reverted all the way back to the first game's flaws (Civ 3's combat, I'm looking at you.) I'm reserving judgment on The Sims 3 but I'm not optimistic considering the preview footage I've seen. The third installment can also be the tipping point for "OK, this is shovelware, it's always been shovelware, just give it up already" as in Airport Tycoon 3 and Mall Tycoon 3.

Mind you, sometimes the leap to 3 goes better than anyone could have hoped (Age of Empires 3, The Elder Scrolls 3), but in my experience the third time is rarely the charm.

The funny thing is that if 3 can be used as the new jumping-off point for a franchise, as often as not the developers can right the ship and make the comparison between 4 and 3 as favorable as the one between 2 and 1 (see Civilization 4 and Caesar 4, just for starters.)

 

[Say Anything]

Personally, I believe that sequels can be good, if done right - though there are two main problems, in my opinion, that often kill what could be a good sequel.

I'd first like to point my finger and blame the greedy game developers. If the game developer does not have a passion for his series, I don't see much hope for the game succeeding. Money is great, but the conversation for creating a new video game should not begin with, "Hey, we made so much money with that last one..." but rather, "Since our last game was such an enjoying, definitive title...". You can't do it for money. It won't work.

Second problem I see with sequels would be either too much change or not enough change - admittedly, it's not easy to find a good place inbetween, and it's understandable that even with the goal of creating a masterpiece, you might not get the final product you were hoping for. It's not easy to find middle-ground, and if the developer doesn't, the game will suffer.

Am I okay with sequels? Yes, they're very good, if done right. We shouldn't have C.J. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_Bone_Mendez#Carl_.22CJ.22_Johnson] climbing inside the Master Chief's armor. Likewise, C.J. doesn't need to be going to the future to kill an alien race. Branch out from the idea without falling out of the tree and it'll be done right.

 

[mattttherman3]

Most sequels are garbage, I will give examples of those while trying to think of good ones, Halo 3, Sonic, Fable 2, Street Fighter, all fighting games except Super Smash Brothers, KOTOR 2, Prince of Persia Warrior Within, GTA, and many many more


Good sequels: Gears of War 2(because nothing has really changed from the first, only good additions), Oblivion(quick travel), Splinter Cell Chaos Theory(Knife), Halo 2(multiplayer), Fallout 3(first person is fun), Guild Wars(stories were awsome), more too come later.

 

[Ramthundar]

Well, i think like with a lot of things, a Sequel's success depends on how they went into it and what it's goal was.

A good sequel should, usually do one of the following:
1) Continue the previous game's story, adding a couple of new features and enemies but ultimately adding another 16 hours or so to a previously (and hopefully good) game.
2) Redesign the idea to make it better, either by putting it in a new Genre or by changing the system that drives the game.

Many games have shown these traits with their sequels. The Madden franchise is a perfect example of #1, because each year they come out with a game that, although the same concept, rules, and controlls, adds new features and ideas to better the game (though by now a simple Update could replace that practice). Half-Life 2 is also a good example.
A game that follows #2's guidlines would be Fallout 3. Even though it changed it's view from traditional role-playing styles, it still stuck to the original ideas while still showing off it's own new ideas.

Now, most games that fail these guidlines will usually either be because of the designers either want to milk as much money out of a series as they can (Sonic) or they try to be "new" but only end up either making the game worse or alientating the series' fans.

When it comes to If i want sequels, then i just look at it the same way if i'm buing a new game: if it's good, i'll buy. If it's not, so what, i don't need to buy it.

 

[brainless906]

Sequels, are they really lazy? The opinions of sequels are varied but really i think there can be no one answer. Is a sequel good or not? is it worth it? Really i think it all depends on weather or not this sequel is good. Really an opinion will change (of the idea of a sequel) just based on what that sequel is. What would we do without a Halo 2 or a Halo 3? The fans all crowd and wait for sequels and sequels are what form tight knit groups of gamers. Sure there are plenty of groups of gamers that decided to play many games, but there are also many groups of gamers based solely on a series such as Halo or Gears of War. As much as we shove down the idea of sequels, we thrive off them as a gaming community (as a whole). I truly believe that gaming conventions would not be so widely popular without sequels. People would still come to see what the next game that Microsoft or Blizzard is coming out with, but really i think most of the buzz comes from people wanting to see where there favorite company is going to take their favorite gaming series. We all complain, about all the repeating. and the so called "laziness" of the people who make them but we all would be truly pissed if they stopped.


Merely this person humble opinion