

What constitutes as a sequel in your book?
#1
Posted 02 June 2009 - 05:45
In your mind, what does a sequel need to do differently (Or the same) as its precessor in order to still warrant a buy?
Masonicon, on 17 Oct 2009, 13:44, said:
#2
Posted 02 June 2009 - 05:51
If it feels the same then it really isn't anything more than an expansion, so to say.
However, 'feeling' is a completely subjective notion and as such would differ between people.

#4
Posted 02 June 2009 - 09:57
I suppose the saying "Customer knows best" can makes lots of sales, but it doesn't usually make good games.
On the subject of L4D 2, i believe it is made form the ground up to aim at the console market, where reasonably big expansions are hard to make because of the limitations so you end up having to buy them as small chunks of DLC. So Valve, instead of having to end up flinging tiny bits of game at the console market, have just decided to package it into a new game, which IMO is better than paid for DLC. This however is not good for the PC market, but i don't think the game has ever been designed specifically for the PC market, its a very console-ish game.
Edited by The Dr, 02 June 2009 - 10:01.

F O R T H E N S

#5
Posted 02 June 2009 - 10:50
But with a few new features, throw in a new mechanic and extra weapons/units etc.
Thats the sort of sequel Im used to...
Tbh if its a sequel of a game I previously liked then it really doesnt matter if its more of the same. It would definatley warrant a buy, but would come with some added dissapointment

Edited by Pav3d, 02 June 2009 - 10:52.
#6
Posted 02 June 2009 - 19:10
#7
Posted 02 June 2009 - 19:32
#8
Posted 04 June 2009 - 23:30
Ex. SCI --> SCII is what I'm looking for, simply advancing the story, gameplay is fairly different from the first. Though from a casual PoV SC remains much the same, anyone with a decent amount of experience in SC would know that it's a whole new world [in a bad way maybe].
Not Warcraft II --> Warcraft III, completely different in terms of gameplay and a change in focus in the storyline.
If it's done well I wouldn't mind completely different gameplay but 9 times out of 10 the sequel that features a ton of innovation will simply feel too much of a different game.

#9
Posted 05 June 2009 - 00:11
for example gears of war... the first was a great game, and the second didnt change too much (a new campagn, a couple guns, a couple baddies, and a new mode) but it still managed to be one of my favorites
but the difference between CoD1 and 4 was pretty big, but i liked em both as well
#10
Posted 05 June 2009 - 03:04
umm not dachamp, on 4 Jun 2009, 20:11, said:
for example gears of war... the first was a great game, and the second didnt change too much (a new campagn, a couple guns, a couple baddies, and a new mode) but it still managed to be one of my favorites
but the difference between CoD1 and 4 was pretty big, but i liked em both as well
Well CoD 4 is a branch off from the series anyway. I myself loved the changes from CoD to CoD2. Multiplayer became far more intense.
#11
Posted 05 June 2009 - 05:55
Scope, on 4 Jun 2009, 20:04, said:
umm not dachamp, on 4 Jun 2009, 20:11, said:
for example gears of war... the first was a great game, and the second didnt change too much (a new campagn, a couple guns, a couple baddies, and a new mode) but it still managed to be one of my favorites
but the difference between CoD1 and 4 was pretty big, but i liked em both as well
Well CoD 4 is a branch off from the series anyway. I myself loved the changes from CoD to CoD2. Multiplayer became far more intense.
That and pretty much like everything else in this world, the games evolve and change. Comparing COD1 to COD4 is comparing games from not only a completely different setting but also completely different generations. Games, like society, evolve. Mostly for the better.
#12
Posted 05 June 2009 - 07:26
Quote
The true sequels of generations past are scarce due to developers pushing hardware to the very limit leaving little to no room for improvement in future titles.
I would get used to seeing these "expansion packs" because you probably wont get a true overhaul of a game until the next generation of consoles.

Edited by Nem, 05 June 2009 - 09:33.
#13
Posted 05 June 2009 - 10:24
Scope, on 5 Jun 2009, 4:04, said:
umm not dachamp, on 4 Jun 2009, 20:11, said:
for example gears of war... the first was a great game, and the second didnt change too much (a new campagn, a couple guns, a couple baddies, and a new mode) but it still managed to be one of my favorites
but the difference between CoD1 and 4 was pretty big, but i liked em both as well
Well CoD 4 is a branch off from the series anyway. I myself loved the changes from CoD to CoD2. Multiplayer became far more intense.
CoD2 looked like a half arsed graphics pack for CoD...removal of sprint, further decrease in movement speed, laser accurate rifles, steady sights...frankly other than a new engine (which didnt even had ragdolls) and that ridicilous rechargeable health system it was more of a devolved version of CoD1
And thats how a sequal SHOULD NOT look like
Edited by TehKiller, 05 June 2009 - 10:24.

#14
Posted 05 June 2009 - 12:25
#15
Posted 05 June 2009 - 14:09
#16
Posted 05 June 2009 - 15:03

#17
Posted 05 June 2009 - 16:19
Overdose, on 5 Jun 2009, 11:03, said:
indeed, same with supersmash brothers, the game needs to be the same, unless whats the point of being a sequal. the reason people bought it is becauser the enjoyed the 1st game and want a similar but new one.
#19
Posted 05 June 2009 - 21:28
Scope, on 5 Jun 2009, 12:20, said:
That just means it's a well made game, not a well made sequel.
For example, say Game I was the first of the series, a successful RTS. Then Game II (sequel) was also a success, but it was an RPG with a change in character focus (naturally). Both are considered great games.
I wouldn't consider Game II to be a good sequel to Game I because it's a completely different game. I wouldn't outright say it's not a sequel because it probably has similar themes, mostly the same characters, etc. But a sequel shouldn't completely redesign gameplay, because then there's no point in calling it a sequel except for the storyline, you might as well make a completely new franchise. Both are good games, which means that they're enjoyable but Game I and Game II will have a different audience too. There are always exceptions to the rule but those are exceptions.
I don't want an exact copy but I want something that's similar, I want to be able to pick up the 2nd game and know right off from the feel that it's the sequel to the first game.

#20
Posted 07 June 2009 - 03:00
Also, the cancelled TIBERIUM shooter was a sequel because it followed up 11 years after Tiberium Wars. It was an FPS, but it still continued the story. See what I'm sayin'?


#22
Posted 08 June 2009 - 03:22


#23
Posted 08 June 2009 - 08:17
Quote


1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users