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

[NewGeekPhilosopher]

Cooking Mama 2 is by far superior to the original game, even though it doesn't depart from its roots. The Sims 2 remains one of my favorite PC games of all time. Disgaea 3 looks awesome and I can't wait to play it.

Then again you have non sequel games like Valkyria Chronicles which I really liked, as well as Etrian Odyssey and The World Ends With You. All J-RPGs from different companies, and all non-sequels. In my opinion they are all good games, the three of them, since they are not remakes of previous games and add something new to the old formulaic genre.

At the same time as this you have the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, that is, games with Four in the title which re-jig a lot of the original game's structure, but still stick to a standard formula. Street Fighter IV is an example of this, but a more extreme example is Grand Theft Auto IV. These games are a mixed bag because some are good (Street Fighter IV) while some bad (Grand Theft Auto IV, I have played it and I didn't think it nearly as fun as San Andreas. Not to say the new story mode is bad).

Then you get into territory like Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney where the first title is so innovative and new that you love it, but all the sequels feel like rehashes of a newly exploitable formula.

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

Like any industry, the game industry is constantly evolving and becoming better (opinions withstanding). I think a sequel needs to take advantage of these improvements to be truly appreciated. The purpose of sequels is to either continue a storyline where a continuation would be valuable to the overall story, or give an old favorite of most or a particular group improvements that vastly enhance the experience. I'm not talking exploitation, to use Archon's words, I mean nostalgia: the good kind.

A truly amazing sequel is made for both of these purposes. Of course a good sequel must balance familiar elements with new additions and problem fixes, but I'm simply talking about what justifies a sequel.

Throughout the Star Ocean series, players are treated to just hints of how everything began, so a proper prequel has a place in the series. I enjoy how Star Ocean 4 seems to explain even the smallest details of the series, like why most characters use melee weapons instead of laser guns and whatnot.

As for the second reason, it's fair to say that until recently localization has always been, well... lacking. Over the past few years writing in games and localization translations have improved vastly for most developers. So now I can enjoy one of my favorite series without the cringe-worthy dialogue. Obviously seeing the worlds in all their colorful HD glory is a pretty nice perk as well.

Lots of people argue that nostalgia is often used to sucker gamers into buying crappy sequels. But I wonder if a game can spark that kind of nostalgia, and still be considered a ploy. Why can't a game exist for the sake of nostalgia?

 

[Arcadia2000]

Maybe I'm the odd duck out. I like it when the designers/creators of series I like come out with more of what I liked in the first place. Dissent first: I don't think Sims 2 was that fantastic of a jump. I absolutely dispise the "paragon" system of playing wherein anything needed to be done is overdone. I'm not entirely sure where I wanted it to go, but I can tell you that was not it. I'd rather play orginal Sims than Sims 2, simply because I don't want to play a whore or a baby-factory or a work-obsessed maniac.

Mario 2 was so far removed from Mario 1 that it was mind-boggling. (Yes, I know why this came about.) But it was still fun. Then Mario 3 came back and did what we liked all over again and still made it new. While I don't agree with everything that Mario's reached into over the years, his people can still come out when it matters with something new. Am I the only person on earth that still likes my mushrooms, stars, and goofy, generally green Japanese dinosaur?

I also think games re-released onto more current platforms aren't a complete waste of my hard-earned cash. I bought some Kirby for my Wii, and Marios, and Zeldas. I bought Final Fantasies for my GBA/DS, oooh and Chrono Trigger. I'm still into Pokemon, although not nearly as rabidly (Leave me alone; I grew up some, okay? ^_^), and goodness knows they really aren't doing much in the way of "new." with their stuff. I like it. I love it. I want some more of it. (And once my NES and SNES finally shoot craps, where will I play my Disney shovelware?) Does Wolfenstein 3D cease to be a good game because it's old? How shallow!

Diablo 2 was a wonderful thing, and Dungeon Keeper 2 was great fun; great replayable fun even. You know, even if you are doing it for the money, it's not like every other marketing franchise isn't right there with you. For pete's sake, Mario has candies. You have to stay the course and listen to your fanbase. I think the worst thing isn't to come out with a sequel, but to completely ignore everything the people that loved and bought your game from you had to say. At that point you can't even really call it "for the money" anymore, it's for something more like hubris.

 

[JMeganSnow]

Whenever I think of sequels, I think of Baldur's Gate II. The first Baldur's Gate was a revolutionary game that broke new ground and completely reinvented CRPG's, but it did *not* finish the story, heck, it barely *started* the story. Baldur's Gate II wasn't conservative or self-indulgent, it was necessary!

Or, what about Diablo II? You can't just keep playing Diablo forever, there's *more* that could be done there. Why reinvent the wheel when you've already got a solid concept that can get better with refinement?

Sure, there *are* ugly, unnecessary sequels out there that are an attempt to cash in on an existing concept. Look at Neverwinter Nights 2. The original was better in every respect (even the graphics were classier, if not as high-end). But I don't think that the industry as a whole is overly conservative or stuck in a rut. It just takes so much investment to build up a game from scratch that often refining is going to produce better outcomes than attempts to strike out in a new direction. Being different just for the sake of being different is no virtue.

I think that proper developers focus on *making good games* and doing whatever it takes to do that. If that means refining an existing concept, so be it. If that means throwing everything out and starting from scratch, so be it. They make money because they make good games . . . they don't make games in order to get money.

 

[SovietSecrets]

Sequels aren't always the best of games, but they are a good way to expand a story if the developer has a good tale to tell and cannot fit all of it into one game. Imagine of Halo or Half-Life were all just one game with nothing ever continued with them, then all of the ideas that the developer had are rushed into one game and can't be expanded upon to make something even more enjoyable than the last game.

 

[reaper_2k9]

I'm kind of half and half on the issue, I think most companies make sequels because lets face it, if the first game was a success then everyone will buy the sequel.

But on the other hand, if it is a true sequel and expands the story line I feel that sequel's can be good, take Mass Effect 2 for example its going to let you carry over your stats from the first game and its going to expand the story. That's the kind of sequel I like.

 

[BonsaiK]

If a sequel is absolutely neccessary to expand or enrich the story, it means that the makers of a game obviously did a pretty pathetic effort the first time around. Why didn't they just expand and enrich the story in the original, the pricks...

I say no to sequels. Yes, I do understand the market forces that make sequels appealing for games companies, and I also understand that a lot of consumers are jabbering neanderthal mongoloids who will buy and enjoy anything (just look at all the fans Halo has), but that doesn't mean that I have to like it.

Having said that, game sequels are still preferable to movie sequels. With game sequels, occasionally a forgivable one is made, whereas movie sequels are always garbage without exception. In my dictatorship, people who create movie sequels would be rounded up and sent to 're-education' camps, where they are strapped to chairs and their eyes are prised open "Clockwork Orange"-style and they are forced to watch their own crappy sequels until they pee their pants and promise never to do it again. It will be a better world for all concerned.

 

[Lord Krunk]

Some sequels are great, but there are many franchises that would do well if they just died, instead of regurgitated over and over again in a neverending cycle.

While I am not saying that they are bad, the devs are using it as a cheap cash-in and a substitute for their lack of originality, which I find unacceptable. Take, for example, Nintendo, Square Enix and Bungie. Nintendo found a solid hit with Mario, and have never stopped making Mario games since. It's high time that he was put to rest, even if Super Mario Galaxy was awesome. Square Enix, if you didn't know, made a game known as Final Fantasy. You heard me, over 13 Final Fantasies and counting, and no chance in hell that we will ever see the actual 'final' fantasy in our lifetimes. Bungie is a newcomer to the Sequalitis epidemic, and as a result, isn't so bad... yet. However, with Halo Wars out now and books about it are floating around, it is quite evident that after the success of Halo, they are going to milk its success dry like every other franchise. I enjoyed the game, but i don't want the devs to ruin the experience for me.

I also find that the biggest games of the year just happen to be sequels, which annoys me greatly. Should a game's popularity be solely defined on how well it did before? I think not.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot about Brutal Legend there.

To sum up, I don't mind sequels, but I want less of them. MOAR ORIGINALITY!

 

[Lord Krunk]

I also find that the biggest games of the year just happen to be sequels, which annoys me greatly. Should a game's popularity be solely defined on how well it did before? I think not.

What list are you looking at?
MAG, Heavy Rain, Brutal Legend, inFAMOUS, Stormrise, Madworld, The Conduit....

I remembered Brutal Legend, and I am eying Madworld, but I haven't heard of the rest.

 

[Woe Is You]

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

Fallout/Fallout 2, Baldur's Gate/Baldur's Gate 2, Heroes of Might and Magic 2 (and 3) and hell, even more recent games like Gears of War 2 and God of War 2 are basically just bigger, more badass and better versions of their original games.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

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

Fallout/Fallout 2, Baldur's Gate/Baldur's Gate 2, Heroes of Might and Magic 2 (and 3) and hell, even more recent games like Gears of War 2 and God of War 2 are basically just bigger, more badass and better versions of their original games.

RPG's are a bit of a different beast though. Even Halflife 2 departed from it's roots. Of the 5 mentioned, I've only played the first 3, the former two were better in their original incarnation and HOMM bores me rigid.

 

[Incredible Bullshitting Man]

So, most of us (including myself, despite how I phrased myself earlier) agree that sequels are good, if they evolve the original concept (not just graphical update). I was wondering, should there come a time to give up the original concept and start testing new ideas under new titles? What I mean is, look at the FF series; new games just keep on coming, but the only thing connecting them is the name Final Fantasy. Would it be so bad to drop the overused, albeit selling, name and start publishing new innovative games under new titles? I admit, I´m a fan of the FF series and I understand it would cause some discontent, but I also think that the series has been going on long enough. It´s time to let it go. It´s the team making the games that matters, not the title.

 

[Deacon Cole]

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?

Sequels, in all forms of media are a tricky dick. I'm of two minds on the matter.

On the one hand, a good movie, game, whatever-have-you will leave you wanting more and even the most closed ending can continue its story. It may not be very good, but it can, theoretically, continue. This is what makes writing a sequel difficult since it must be similar enough to the original to relate to it. (I don't think anyone wants an Aliens movie that is just a love story in space with no killer xenomorphs) Yet it must also be different enough to be fresh and original in its own right so the franchise doesn't fall to the law of diminishing returns (The first instance has an effect. The first repeating, that effect is halved. The second repeating, the original effect is reversed).

Unfortunately, in most cases sequels are made as just a quick cash-in on the original. The makers do not understand how to make a sequel and mistakenly think making a sequel is easy when it is more difficult than making an original concept. Put simply, most sequels are simply trading on the name recognition, and unfortunately this works commercially, so there is no reason for them to stop anytime soon.

But even the sequels that try to be good tend to fall short. Not because they are bad games so much as the makers did not take context into account and just made something that was more-of-the-same, which is tragic.

 

[Corpse XxX]

I often appreciate sequels..
If the first game was a big success and a very good game, why not make more of it?
When everything works, why change a winning team?

Of course, when sequel number two and or three has been made, they might wanna start something new..

 

[Inverse Skies]

I've always been of the opinion that sequels which form part of a greater story arc are the ones which stand out, rather than those made simply because a game is popular and developers feel they can wring more money from the public.
Take a series like Metal Gear Solid. Each game has it's own individual storyline, but overall they come together to form a greater story arc which is only culminated at the end of the 4th game. That is an example of a story which, whilst the ending would not have been known around the time of MGS1, obviously lent itself towards a greater plot than just those contained within the individual game. You can enjoy each story individually, but the true scope of the tale is only revealed over the course of the four games.

The Lord of the Rings, The Dark Tower or Dune (whilst not video games... well they have been but they're predominantly paperbacks) do a similar thing. Each book is a self contained story, but the greater story is told over the course of all of the books. That is an example of when sequels work well.

Sequels don't necessarily mean a total lack of creativity, after all coming up with new original concepts is hard. Most creativity is based around previous ideas anyway, people take concepts of ideas they've liked and build on them, creating their own flavour. Good sequels primarily extend the storyline laid down by previous games whilst refining the gameplay mechanics of their predecesors. It's the artistic vision of the designers and creators of the game which shine through in good sequels (Half Life 2, MGS, Halo, Bioshock (maybe, yet to be confirmed as we haven't played the second game) as you can tell they want to tell a story beyond the scope of a single game, combine that with a thoroughly enjoyable game and sequels aren't necessarily a bad thing for the video games industry, as long as they're treated with respect and not exploited simply because the originals were popular.

Unfortuanetly as that happens so much in the video game industry it's easy to see why video games would have been given a label of uncreative and repetitive. Games like Devil May Cry, numerous fighting games, Resident Evil and games such as Mario Party (up to 8 or 9 now?), which have large numbers of sequels simply because the originals were popular are examples of poor design. Even games like Silent Hill, which originally had the makings of a grand story arc which encompassed the events of the first few games, has fallen by the wayside because their developers aren't treating them as anything else but a way to make easy money. There's no vision of the future of a grand culminating finish which encompasses everything which has previously happened, there's no ideas of the story as a whole outside of each game, there's only the desire to make a game because it sells well, and THAT'S what ruins sequels for everyone which enjoys games.

 

[Jordan Deam]

Tricky question. For the "games as art" crowd, the fact that the industry relies so much on sequels sort of undermines their argument. You'd never expect to see Citizen Kane 2, but even our most innovative games are likely to get sequels (Portal already has a map pack add-on, and BioShock 2 is probably coming out later this year).

Chris Dahlen, a fellow game journo for the A.V. Club (and now Edge), wrote about this subject in his blog late last year. His point was that games were fundamentally software, and as such, sequels actually offer developers a lot of freedom. When you can re-use assets and tech from a previous game, it could theoretically free you up to focus that attention on either improving those aspects of the game or taking them in a new direction. Unfortunately, I think developers often see this as more of a cost-saving measure than a way to improve their games.

 

[Goldbling]

My thought is, when people see sequels, they see money... maybe not from a broad audience, but from fans. Then there are the good sequels like COD 4 witch many people loved

 

[DirkGently]

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.

What about Back to the Future?
Or Bill & Ted?`


I don't really mind sequels so long as they've got a reason to be made and feature some sort of improvement or continuation of the past games. But I prefer if they if actually feature some sort of closure over the past game. I'd suggest the Ratchet and Clank series for this. Each game stands on it's own, and each game takes the concepts and humor of the past game and improves on it, adding new weapons and characters gameplay mechanics to make it interesting, but without changing everything so much as to lose fans of the previous games.