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

[Ghostreaper]

Sequels are knwon to generally be worst than the originals however spinoffs of games and television series often are very sucessful, so i say lets have more spin offs. However I believe sequels should only ever be made when there is an actualy story to tell from the start and not a story that has just been pencilled in to make more money because the original made lots of money.

 

[thiosk]

much like the environments in this-gen console games, its a huge gray area.

Civilization is a great game... but the sequel is one of the greatest ever. Star control was interesting, but star control 2 is epic. There can be great strength in sequels, just as there can be great weakness.

I generally prefer sequels that will delve into uncharted territory... but at the same time I like the warm and cuddly feeling of playing more of something I enjoyed as well.

gamers can smell shovelware of both sequel an original variety

 

[Mr. Fister]

Sequels, as we've already seen, can be both good and bad. It really depends on the people who make them. Two good examples of both cases are Koei and Nintendo (perhaps I should stop using Nintendo in all of my examples...nah.)

Nintendo has demonstrated time and time again that they are perfectly capable of putting out high-quality sequels that take their intellectual properties to new heights. This is why both fans and newcomers alike still flock to the Mario and Zelda games to this day, despite having several installments each. And of course, there's the Super Smash Bros. series, which manages to not only outdo itself with each new installment, but renders the previous installment nearly unplayable. I loved both the original and Melee, but after Brawl, I doubt I could ever play them again.

Of course, Nintendo's not the only company that's good at making sequels. Valve, Blizzard, Harmonix, and Konami have all made sequels (or at least spinoffs) that have built on their previous games quite well.

On the the other side of the spectrum, we have Koei, a company infamous for cranking out sequels with little to no real difference to the last game. God knows how many Dynasty/Samurai/Gundam Warriors games they've made by now. It's a real wonder how they still make any money off these games, especially with Western audiences. I guess there's something that fans really appreciate in the Dynasty/Samurai Warriors games for them to warrant another game.

And once again, Koei's not alone on this. Capcom and Sega have gotten quite lazy with the Megaman and Sonic games, and I have a bad feeling that Activision is heading that way with the Guitar Hero games.

So yeah, sequels can be good or bad. It just depends on who's making them.

 

[Sethran]

Really a sequel's quality depends entirely upon the source material and how willing the original creators are to experiment.

The greatest example of all, I feel, is Street Fighter.

I don't think anyone here will hold Street Fighter One as a shining example of the series, and we can all agree SF2 was a more than satisfactory second try. It was, indeed, the finest example of a sequel usurping the original and becoming a much better game in the process.

The big deal with most sequels is, in my mind, they aren't true sequels at all. Rather, an attempt for the suits [Producers] to cash in by forcing the developers into hastily throwing together a game with similar characters, marginally improved graphics, roughly the same game engine, and a weak extension of the story I.E. Max Payne 2. Now, MP2 was a fun game but did it really go anywhere? The original story had wrapped itself up fairly nicely with a very noir ending and was entirely satisfactory. We didn't really need a sequel and said sequel didn't really help anything. No new innovations to the series whatsoever.

What I like to think of as a good sequel is one that takes the original concept and expands upon it. Now while this may not be agreed upon by most of those reading this, even those who like JRPGs, I hold Final Fantasy 10-2 as an excellent example of what a sequel could be. Yes, they replaced the drama with JPop but that's not what I'm talking about. They took the original story, which had room for more development, and extended it appropriately - filling in more unexplained gaps in the backstory of the original game and even offering some closure.

Not only this, but the good folks at Square completely renovated the game's core system of leveling and combat by taking the Jobs system from older FF games and the Sphere system from 10 and meshing them together in a beautifully designed and surprisingly complex system of transformation and strategic leveling. They didn't just remake the original game with a different story as many people do, which is something to be admired.

The problem I personally have is this: Does a sequel have to be a good sequel to be a good game?

 

[NT]

Sequels are just the product of trying to milk a series. Even if there is one sequel to a game, it is most likely that there will be another and that's how a game becomes a franchise and then the gamer never gets the closure that they wanted in the first place.

If sequels have one good quality to them, it is that they can improve upon a series in all areas, gameplay, story, and anything else, but we all know that developers will just leave the story in a cliffhanger. Thus the milking begins, a la Halo

 

[SmartIdiot]

There's different factors to take into account. Story and style being the predominant ones. If the creators had a vision for a story they'd know the ending before they finished it, hence making sequels worthwhile and less of a they'll-buy-it-because-it-has-our-name-on-it scheme.

However if it's because a game/movie/book/album(yeah, Led Zeppelin released albums titled I,II,III and IV remember? ) was so popular they've been asked to do a sequel then, if they had any sense, they'd look at it and think 'what can we do to improve upon the gameplay/direction/narrative/delivery to make something that people know and like, but is also refreshing?'. No one likes to play the same game, watch the same movie or read the same book with a different coating.

But how can you spot when it's a cash-in attempt and when it's a genuine effort to improve upon your previous success? For example, there was no need at all for Final Fantasy X-2. It was the double whammy of a blatant cash-in and cynical marketing towards teenage boys and that is not to accuse everyone who's played it of being a teenage boy, but come on... Do the three female characters really need to be so scantily clad? Where did that come from? Where was the storyline? Where did the substance go?

Then again everyone makes mistakes, Square(well now Square Enix) has gone on to make good Final Fantasy games again. It's just a curious thing about X-2.

Perhaps sometimes sequels are experimental too.

 

[Strafe Mcgee]

I find that one of the most interesting things about sequels to games is that it's one of the few areas where feedback from the players can actually have an impact upon the finished game. Take Street Fighter 4 for example; Capcom held a survey for which character from previous Street Fighter games the fans would most like to see in the game. The fans voted, and voila; Sakura was added to the character roster.

However the backlash from this is when you get fanboys that crave for a game to be a certain way and throw hissy fits about the fact that the game wasn't exactly what they expected. This can be seen from the Diablo 3 'WoW Gayness' petition, though that's probably an example which shows just how crazy some of Blizzard's fans are, asking the developer not to change the game in any way at all.

On the whole, I think that sequels are, on the whole, a good thing in gaming. Since the majority of games have garbage plots anyway (with a few notable exceptions such as Bioshock or Beyond Good And Evil,) a sequel lets developers focus upon expanding what made the original good in the first place a la Half-Life, Gears Of War 2, GTA 4 (the best in the series for me, anyway,) or Thief 2.

It's a balance between revisiting the old and re-creating the new which can often be hard to follow though, particularly if the game actually does have a good story. I'm personally dreading Bioshock 2 because the first game's narrative was so good. What more can there possibly be to tell in that story?

Anyway, on the whole if you look through anyones list of favourite games you are absolutely guaranteed to find a sequel in there somewhere: you only have to look at the backlash on the Guinness World Records top 50 games to see that people believe sequels to be the best part of nearly any major game series.

EDIT: Oh yeah, Blade 1's better than Blade 2, same with spiderman 1&2 and Die Hard 3's immeasurably better than Die Hard 2

 

[Silent Biohazard Solid]

Sequels are a touchy thing. I love sequels if they're done right. But they can make or break the franchise.
Look at Resident Evil, for example. 1, 2 and 3 were good, but then the sequels started going down a slippery slope. The storyline, as of now, is completely butchered, and RE went from my absolute favorite series, to RE5, which I'm not gonna rent, and am isolating myself from as much as possible, because I don't want to be exposed to its storyline.

Bottom line is, I like sequels, but they need to know when to end. Like, look at Onimusha, although Onimusha 3 wasn't the best in the series, it was still good, and it was said to be the last. And then they release Dawn of Dreams, and it sucked. So O3 really did need to be the last.

Many Metal Gear fans gave up on it after Metal Gear Solid. Personally, I loved the series right down til the end. But as far as I'm concerned, Metal Gear Solid 4 IS the end. And whatever comes afterwards.... If it sucks, I don't care, I just won't play it. Because the storyline has concluded nicely with MGS4.

But in general, I'm in favor of sequels. If they never stop making Ratchet and Clank games, I'll be a happy man.

 

[Nivag the Owl]

I think sequals are often incredible but I still agree with the statement. I prefer a series of games that involve completely different stories each game, rather than follow on.

Also, What's the deal with disliking Terminator 3!? That's the one where a crain hits a brick wall and it explodes. It's amazing

But anyway, back to gaming. I don't think I could live without sequals. Sometimes a game just doesn't give enough of its potential greatness and sequals can fill the void.

 

[Incredible Bullshitting Man]

The big deal with most sequels is, in my mind, they aren't true sequels at all. Rather, an attempt for the suits [Producers] to cash in by forcing the developers into hastily throwing together a game with similar characters, marginally improved graphics, roughly the same game engine, and a weak extension of the story I.E. Max Payne 2.

This actually brings to my mind another point: Is it even worse, when a developer makes a game that tries to be like another developer´s hit, only in disguise? Further more, take the case of Silent Hill Homecoming as an example, is it really necessary for a developer to make a sequel to another developer´s franchise? I understand that Silent Hill Homecoming had a fairly decent reception, but I think that Double Helix might as well have done their own horror game (like developing Harker). As much as I love the first two Silent Hills, fifth wasn´t really needed. What do you think about developers swarming around the same franchise? It may not be the plague slowly decaying gaming industry, but I still find it quite sad.

Civilization is a great game... but the sequel is one of the greatest ever. Star control was interesting, but star control 2 is epic. There can be great strength in sequels, just as there can be great weakness.

And I wholeheartedly agree with this. Both Civilization 2 and Star Control 2 are excellent sequels.

 

[Sparrow]

It works both ways. Usually if you make a sequel of a bad game, it ends up being half decent (Take Need for Speed for example, or the large ammount of Spiderman games spawned in the franchise), whereas good games end up cocking it up and releasing crap sequels (Sonic the Hedgehog, Fable II, Drakengard II...)

 

[Strafe Mcgee]

It works both ways. Usually if you make a sequel of a bad game, it ends up being half decent (Take Need for Speed for example, or the large ammount of Spiderman games spawned in the franchise), whereas good games end up cocking it up and releasing crap sequels (Sonic the Hedgehog, Fable II, Drakengard II...)

Hey, Sonic had 3 great sequels before they started to cock things up.

 

[goater24]

Sequals are fine as long as they are done for the right reasons. A sequal is warrented if a publisher can add value to the characters and supply new enviroments for them to interact in. Or if new technology becomes avail e.g a new gaming platform allowing the designers to achieve things that were not able to do before a sequal should be made and a brand formed.

I don't believe you should release a sequal if the new 'abilities' a character is being given are nothing short of cosmetic. Tomb Raider would be a classic example of this because the abilties Lara Croft had subsiquent games only served to showcase of her new polygons rather than revolutionise the series.

Thw GTA series in my opinion are a good showcase for why sequals should and shouldn't be made, If one looks at the GTA series up untill Vice City then you can see a good arguement for making sequals. To clarify GTA a top down free roaming mission based game in 2d. GTA 2 is a warrented sequal as it attempted to evolve the GTA format by adding the gang respect system and the three rival factions. GTA 2 should have been a better sequal as I found the new feature was grosley overpowered but being a fan of 'Fist Full Of Dollars' film I enjoed the concept and more importantly the mechanic. I also feel GTA2 offered enough new things for the owner of the original to purchase it.

I suppose thats another thing to consider when discussing whether a sequal should be made. Will it offer the original owner an experiance thats not just 'more of the same'. Having heard opinion on F.E.A.R 2 then it needs to be considered. Sequals should never be a carbon copy of its predcesssor, regardless of how successful it was.

Going back to my examples of why a sequals are worth while then GTA 3 was best example the series has in favour of this. The reason I say this is because Rockstar had better technology to use when making 3. PS2 was a powerful bit of kit and Rockstar could fianlly render GTA in 3D. This was a massive evolution in the series and offered realism and absurdity in equal shots. The game became more plot focussed and CGI cut scenes became more prevellant to drive the plot forward. This allowed the gamer to identify more with the characters and care about what was going to happen next. All this said the handling of the vehicles was still more go cart like and fun and the game stuck to the GTA formula of keeping it open world and sandbox like. This was a fine addition to the series and was so far removed from its predessors.

Now the next installements to the series Vice City, San Andreas and to a certain extent GTA IV are good reasons to argue why sequals should not be made. Now don't get me wrong Vice City is my favourite installment of the series. But that is a biased view based on my love of all things 80's and superfly. It had the soundtrack plot and setting that I was craving. But did it really add anything new to the series? Certainly the plot became more cinematic but is that enough? I want a sequal to be more in depth than the previous installments. I feel the GTA series since 3 has offered nothing new, a sequal should mean innovation!

Apologies forthe ramble, I hope it make sense!

 

[seamusotorain]

You can have good sequels which expand on the original concept (Gears Of War 2)

And you can have lazy excretions that are such blatant cash-ins as to make you vomit all over your local games emporium (Fifa #whothefeckcaresanymore)

But as long as people deem it necessary to have Christiano Ronaldo's hairstyle updated every year, we're going to have a lot more of the latter.

 

[kawligia]

Sequels have to be planned out in order to be great.

A good story will almost always follow a particular path: 1) Introduce characters and create problem; 2) overcome problem (or in some cases be defeated by problem); 3) aftermath of the struggle and outcome (which, in SOME cases, can be left to the audience's imagination).

If stories are written to have sequels, each part of that sequence will not only contain all 3 parts within its own self-contained story, but will also play one of those three parts in a grander scheme that combines the entire work as a whole. This is why those sets usually come in trilogies.

Most sequels come from works that were intended to be stand-alone works. They don't structure their stories in a way that will allow it's entire self-contained story to simultaneously play the first act of a grander scheme.

Sometimes, a person is skilled enough to recognize what made the first story likeable AND what people want in a similar story involving those characters. Sometimes, those people are able to effectively combine innovation and creativity in a new story with the tradition set in the old story. This is a fine line to walk and only a handful of people have gotten it right.

Sadly, most people who make sequels don't even attempt to get it right. They just sloppily throw some crap together with the same characters as the original. The purpose is to ride the coattails of the previous work and leech off of people's misbelief that the creator actually tried and did succeed in making a good sequel. But in the end, the audience is let down AGAIN when the entire work contains a maximum of 10 seconds worth of enjoyment which was spoiled in the advertisments.

Luckily, games have more freedom than movies. Most games that aren't RPGs can change the entire story and leave only upgraded gameplay elements. (Actually, even RPGs can do this like Final Fantasy and The Elder Scrolls) In this situation, sequels can be great since you get a fresh environment, consolidation and improvement of the good gameplay aspects, and a removal of the tedious ones.

Sadly, most game developers fret SO MUCH over improved graphics and early release dates that the gameplay improvements fall by the wayside. There is still improvement but its very frustrating that obviously needed gameplay changes were cut from release. I am hoping the rampant success of the Wii and its limited graphical power finally proves that gamers care far more about gameplay than about graphics.

 

[SomeBritishDude]

Sequels are good. Trilogys are fine. Once you go beyond that you must tread with [b/]extreme[/b] caution. From this point on games can get very iffy (see MGS4, Prince of Persia, Sonic for the last decade or so ect). This is usually because all the love and care for the product that went into the original is nearly gone. It's usually about the money.

 

[open trap]

the thing about sequels are its usualy split in half. take halo 3. that was agreat and. and cod4 was awsome too. but people are saying the new socom is bad. and look at the sonic games they get worse and worse. so depends on how long its been running i think and if it was ment to be a series of games