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

[Howlingwolf214]

Sequels are good when they leave a decent bit of time in between each of them. Sequels that come out shortly after the original game just seem rushed to me, as though the devs just wanted some extra cash.

When devs spend time on the sequels and strive for quality rather than quick release, sequels really pay off. Look at the Half-life series. My all favourite games. Look at Blizzard releasing Starcraft 2 after, how many years? They wanted to make it quality, because the original was so popular and they didn't want to dissapoint.

So many sequels are just basic copy and pastes of the original, with no real differences. A sequel is good in my eyes when it continues on the story and develops characters. A sequel that just offers more of the same gameplay and little storyline is not a good sequel.

Basically, a sequel is good in my eyes if they decide to make it progress. Either mix up the whole formula like Dawn of War 2 did or continue on the story, making the storyline and characters more interesting and going deeper into their backgrounds. Like the Half-life episodes are doing as we speak.

 

[Kirosilence]

The idea of Sequels kinda back and forth with me. On the one hand, a sequel to a good game that knows it cannot ride on the merits of the original, is good. It means they will but a lot of work into it, and the sequel will be just as good, if not better than the original. A recent example would be Killzone 2.

But more often than not, developers or publishers will scimp on a sequel, adding a few weak innovations but often believing that the game will run on the merits of it's predecessors, and thus will sell. See Halo 3.

So I am often torn about sequels, thus I don't often look at sequels as sequels when I check them out. I look at them as games in their own right. A new experience, not tied to a predecessor. If the game can hold it's own without the merits of that which came before, it is a good sequel.

 

[Son of Makuta]

Before their acquisition by Microsoft, Bungie Studios were a developer of games for the Apple Macintosh, and they had experience with the development of strategy games for that platform. They originally intended Halo to be a strategy game instead of the first-person shooter that it became.

Really? Ye gods, I didn't know that. Letter seems fine to me, although I've never written to the Times before so I've not much experience in the matter...

I think sequels are fine, and always will be, because of one thing if nothing else. It's a phenomenon I get more from books than games, but I've still had it plenty of times while gaming. I'm talking about the "Aw, I finished. What, there's no more? Bugger" sensation that jumps into your brain when you turn the final page/finish the final level on a solidly good book or game. I say more common with books because games often tend to nosedive in quality or enjoyment towards the end - Serious Sam: the First Encounter, Prey (such a shame), Bioshock (although that gets boring fast anyway), and so on. But I hate it when I finish a Valve game, although I hated the end of HL2:e2 a little less (bloody Hunters and bloody last level with the strider-busters, I spent a good hour or two mostly hammering the quickload button there). A sequel not only gives the developers a chance to improve on the game's playstyle, balance, graphics/physics et cetera, but also to further the storyline for those of us who wish they were still playing the first one.

This is the biggest reason why movie sequels tend to suck: it's not as innovative as the first, doesn't match your expectations, whatever. It's the biggest reason game sequels are so easy to screw up, because any steps in the wrong direction will tip it towards the dreaded "not as good as the first" status. Books get it slightly easier because they can have more complex plots and character development than other media, generally speaking.

But there are plenty of sequels that are far more commonly played and spoken of than their predecessors, and for good reason; there are also a lot of blatant, usually poor-quality cash-ins. You can't win. I've a particular liking for sequels that try to expand on the basic idea behind the original. Dawn of War 2 is perhaps the best example of this. The original Dawn of War was intended to reinvent the RTS, and as far as I'm aware, it worked. I'm not an RTS fan but found DoW a lot more approachable than other games - the irritating resource mechanic was minimised and manoeuvring squads around the battlefield was easier. DoW2 takes this reinvention and turns it up to 11, adding in a flavour of RPG and squad-shooter, throwing on some ridiculous graphics, destructible scenery, micromanaged tactics in favour of unit building management, no resources, and so on. Okay, the multiplayer is just DoW plus - better graphics, terrain getting blown up, improved cover system and whatnot. But the single player is something never before seen.

Another example of a good way to do a sequel is Serious Sam 2 (the *real* SS2, not SS:Second Encounter). It keeps the enemy spam theme of the original, and indeed, many of the enemies. It maintains the sense of silly, slightly dark humour. It has all the original's weapons, redesigned with funky new looks (seriously, an 8-barrelled shotgun?) but throws in more wacky goodness on top of that, as well as hand grenades. The new graphics engine makes the visuals a lot more polished, and the new-look baddies are superb; as with the weapons, they kept most or all of the first game's enemies, just with a totally different look. You're also fighting for the indigenous races of several planets, or at least the three I've visited so far. Each planet has a completely different visual theme and level design style (sometimes multiple themes), and you often find friendly NPCs standing nearby firing more or less insignificant weapons at your foes - not in the same way as Halo's marines, but simply because the enemy is invading their homes and oppressing them and so on. On top of all this, the game also now incorporates vehicles. Essentially, SS2 is a solidly enjoyable sequel that builds on the original without detracting from it in any way.

 

[jamesworkshop]

I think the best sequels don't follow the original to make two sides of a story I think its better when elements remain like the characters but the new story is stand alone, a new adventure a bit like the Zelda series keeping link, ganon and princess zelda but taking place in different locations etc.
I dont like the former because the green light for a sequel is based on the popularity and sales of the original and thus the story didn't have a planed second part leading to ambigious endings like in dawn of war or almost reconing the original plot in order to extend it so your often left without any clear resolution like only reading half a book.
Another problem is when games have alternate endings depending on how the player played ala bioshock with jack either growing old or becoming a tyrant who leads an army of mutants to wage war with the rest of the world

 

[quack35]

Who cares if its a sequel? If it's a good game it's a good game.

 

[lilred]

Sequels are fine in moderation, like maybe one or two more games to finish a story off. But when you have several its just dragging it on and can affect how good the game is in my opinion. Well come to think of it now that i said that i know a couple that werent half bad. I guess it just depends on the games story line and the player.

 

[Valiance]

It depends on what a sequel is considered.

Is Tribes a sequel to Earthsiege? They take place in the same universe, despite being completely different games.

Is Half-Life 2: Episode Two a sequel to Half-Life 2: Episode One? Or is it just an extension, or an expansion?

Are expansion packs considered sequels?

Personally, I think the best true sequels are remakes. Stay true to the original. You want a perfect sequel? F-Zero GX. It was F-Zero X with new maps, new vehicles, updated graphics, and a few new racing abilities, but other than that, it was the same as the old game.

If gameplay is going to be radically changed, and the only reason that the sequel is being made is to appease a fan-base, then I disagree with it.

A sequel should be exactly that. "Another." Usually taking place after the previous story.

Metroid Prime, Metroid Prime 2, Metroid Prime 3, are all pretty much the exact same damn game. I support sequels like that.

Super Mario Bros 1, 2, and 3 is fine, Mario Kart could have been called something else, Mario Tennis could have been something else, Mario Golf...etc, etc.

You understand where I'm going with this.

There are some sequels that are understandable, but some shouldn't even count, and when a franchise is beaten to death for no good reason (mario, sonic), or the gameplay has changed several times (zelda), it should be redone (ie: Ocarina of Time could have had different characters, not been a zelda game, etc, etc).

Half-Life 2: Good sequel.
Sonic 3D: Bad sequel.
Guitar Hero 2: Good Sequel.
Mechwarrior 4: Bad Sequel.

Quickly, all I mean is that in order for a game to be a good sequel, you should be able to change everything in it to something else, and still be able to say "I'm playing that game!"

If you took Warcraft and then Warcraft II, and instead of playing Warcraft II, it was the alpha version of Starcraft (the Orcs in Space travesty)...You would be able to say "Hey, I'm still playing Warcraft, even though everything is themed differently."

Spoiler: Example

<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/Warcraft2Screenshot.jpg" /img>
<img src="http://home.planet.nl/%7Eaggel005/alphabeta/earlyalpha/alpha3.jpg" /img>

If you took Warcraft II and then looked at World of Warcraft, it wouldn't be remotely apparent that it's the same franchise/game world unless you played it with the story and lore, and I find that to be wrong and simply trying to appeal to a fanbase who will buy anything.

 

[Corrion]

I think sequels can be great or bad, case is point Fallout 2 (Better than the first in my opinion,) and Call of Duty 2. (Horrible sequel.)

It largely depend on the developer, the time given, the parent company (Doesn't apply to some,) and many other factors .

 

[MaxFan]

Already been plenty of examples given. There are right ways and wrong ways to do sequels. If you have a cool new idea for an existing universe, fine. If you're trying to milk the money machine, blah.

 

[Aethonic]

Sequels are fine as long as they can stand on their own as a good game. They don't need to be better, they only need to be good enough. Like for example, if they kept releasing sequels to Deus Ex that all played like the original but in a different scenario, I'd buy them. So would a lot of others. There would be complaints that the game isn't going anywhere, but it doesn't have to, it's good the way it is. And look how "innovation" "helped" the series. I think it would probably be best for consumers and producers if they would test any extensive changes in a spin-off before applying it to the main big-budget games; I'm not really sure what other environments there are with the same level of feedback, and QA departments never seem to cut it or (sadly, more likely) are brushed off by the designer.

From a financial standpoint, sequels are all over the place because of branding. Once you have a strong brand, you don't even need a good game. Sonic. Do I even need a complete sentence to explain that series's relevance? And this proliferation, from a consumer's perspective, can be a good or bad thing. Even though there is a lot of vocal criticism of newer Sonic games, there is also a fanbase who will swear by there quality. A game being a sequel doesn't mean jack in terms of whether it's good or not for any particular person, but it means a lot in terms of being financially stable.

In conclusion, a game being a sequel does not provide any information on the quality of the game, only the financial prospects. I like games, so I like game companies being in business, so I guess I'm leaning in favor.

 

[Metalchair]

My opinion on sequals sway from game to game. most sequels i play r pointless because its the same thing in a different place wit a few changed characters. i think that sequals in video games are meant to bring something new to the table while keeping the original stuff (that worked) in the game and polishing it up a bit. for example saints row 2 was an awesome sequal in my opinion. it kept most of the old stuff (except some of the- most of the characters) then brought in new stuff which increased the awesomeness that what was Saints Row. the story was even better now that the player would talk, the character detail on all the characters was a lot better and almost every cutscene made me laugh.
Now in my opinion Ninja Gaiden 2 was a pointless sequal because it was no different except that it was a different place in the world, there was a new busty blonde in the story line and the speed of the game went up by about five times- oh yea and there were new weapons to turn the npc's from a working set of virtual skin and bones to nothing but a pile of pixilated mush. this made me start to think that sequals r just bad. but then i get to thinking of the goo sequals and that makes me come to the conclusion that u cant base all sequals on a few bad ones... or dozens. there r some jewels in the rocks of sequals

 

[vidiogameboy]

Sequels are great but only at the apropriate times if the movie is good can be better and the ending makes sense a sequel is acceptable ie transporter series

But when the ending of a movie is closing a series but a sequel is made anyway for money ie saw 4 and 5 because it should have ended at 3.
also the Jason movies

 

[vidiogameboy]

srry forgot it was games

 

[songnar]

A sequel is a marvelous thing if (and only if) it furthers a story which was set up for a sequel in the previous title.

Example - Metal Gear Solid. We all saw the sequel coming, it was well thought out and sure enough, after 4 years of waiting there it was.

Example of a poor sequel - FEAR 2. Let's face it, while it WAS technically set up for a sequel like every single horror movie since the film industry first poked its head out of the primordial soup of entertainment, it really, really did NOT need it. The gameplay did not improve, the story was not actually usefully contributed to (in a manner in which most people would give two squirts) and the ideas weren't even original.

 

[tendo82]

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!

I think purely from a gameplay perspective you are correct, but don't discount your love for Vice City. While it's gameplay mechanics may not have changed much the story and the environment were a huge innovation. Sure it was basically just GTA III with a coat of 80's paint on it, but what a coat of paint! In my mind that game was a huge innovation in the sense that it tied videogames directly to pop cultural history. You're in the car listening to 80's music, wearing the styles of the time, living in an iconic 80's city. GTA 3 was a really generic experience compared to this, it didn't evoke culture at large, at least not to the same extent. That's a worth use of a sequel to me and in some ways, even though something like MGS4 made major gameplay changes, what GTA does is harder because they are tasked with nothing less than recreating an entire world from scratch with each iteration, even if the gameplay is largely the same.

 

[wyldefire]

I don't mind sequels as long as they are complete stories unto themselves. There is a lot of this Halo 2 ending crap where story arcs get stretched out for the purpose of creating another game instead of telling a complete story. Take the Uncharted series as an example. The first game is a complete story with a beginning and an end, and the next installment is introducing completely new characters and setting apart from the first. So while technically U2 is a sequel to UDF, it will likely cover a completely different set of themes and relationships. That to my mind is how sequels should be done.

 

[Galletea]

I find that the only problem with sequels is the need of developers to create them. I don't think a lot of games needed a sequel, but got them anyway to milk the cash cow. I think that very few sequels are done well, and I think that MGS4 was one of them. It took the series and integrated new things while maintaining the same feel and continuing the story.

I guess there's also the question of what you define as a sequel. I wouldn't say that the Guitar Hero games are a series, more like a collection. I find the same with the Street Fighter games, so many came out without really altering the idea, that there are only 5 games, each with multiple extended versions.