22 replies to this topic

[RaiDK]

Is anyone else noticing that all these so called sequels are getting less and less different from their precessors?

In your mind, what does a sequel need to do differently (Or the same) as its precessor in order to still warrant a buy?

[Alias]

It needs to feel different in order to be a sequel.
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.

[RaiDK]

YES LEFT 4 DEAD 2, I'M LOOKING AT YOU.

[TheDR]

It used to be anything the game company wants it to be but now its more the fussy fans who think they know best.
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.

[Pav:3d]

Same storyline, same genre.
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.

[BeefJeRKy]

Well for a sequel to be a "legitimate" sequel in my eyes, it has to advance the storyline and adhere to the overall theme. It's playstyle should be familiar enough for older players but still fresh enough to not feel like a clone in such a way that by the time you get to the third game the style should be a lot more different than the first. Left 4 Dead 2 would seem to me like a new game but its feels a bit too early.

[Golan]

Being a sequel to another game, such games should always carry something over from the original game, basically the defining features of its precursor IMO. For example, a game depicting the story of a specific individual should have its sequel focus on this person too but doesn't need to be set in the same genre. A sequel to a game depicting a very unique setting should be set in the same world, but might stray away from the original in characters and timeline. A competitive game should focus on the same genre, but might feature an entirely setting.

[Sharpnessism]

Close enough to the original that it still has what made the original a good game. If the only means to do that is to replicate the original, so be it. I rather have a decently fun game that's a sequel than a completely new one that might as well be a completely different series. If I want something refreshing or innovative I'd look for another series/game.

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.

[amazin]

i think it depends

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

[BeefJeRKy]

umm not dachamp, on 4 Jun 2009, 20:11, said:

i think it depends

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.

[Lord Atlantis]

Scope, on 4 Jun 2009, 20:04, said:

umm not dachamp, on 4 Jun 2009, 20:11, said:

i think it depends

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.

[Nem]

Quote

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

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.

[TehKiller]

Scope, on 5 Jun 2009, 4:04, said:

umm not dachamp, on 4 Jun 2009, 20:11, said:

i think it depends

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.

[General]

I think sequels must be like expansions, but big ones, still must not change the fundamental parts of the game, but there is always exceptions, Resident Evil 4 and Dawn of War 2 is pretty different than their precessors but they are still great games and does not ' cross the line ' and stay in the story.

[amazin]

RE4 is a GREAT example on a sequel that changed a lot, but still managed to be awesome... however RE5 is a great example of a sequel that didnt change enough (still a good game in its own right though)

[Overdose]

Sonic 2 just had new different stages, enemies and bosses and it's considered one of the greatest sequels of all time. If you want an entirely new game then buy a game that doesn't have the same name. Thank you.

[WNxMastrefubu]

Overdose, on 5 Jun 2009, 11:03, said:

Sonic 2 just had new different stages, enemies and bosses and it's considered one of the greatest sequels of all time. If you want an entirely new game then buy a game that doesn't have the same name. Thank you.

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.

[BeefJeRKy]

You know, a good sequel is one that you enjoy playing no matter how similar or different it is from the original.

[Sharpnessism]

Scope, on 5 Jun 2009, 12:20, said:

You know, a good sequel is one that you enjoy playing no matter how similar or different it is from the original.

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.

[Admiral Wesley]

For me, a sequel is a continuation of a story left to be completed. Halo was a perfect example. Manhunt 2 was NOT. I don't care what genre the next game is, I don't care is a game trilogy goes FPS-RTS-RPG. Just keep the story alive, and it's a sequel. That's just my opinion.

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'?

[RaiDK]

Tiberium was more of a spin off than a direct sequel, even if its story was to be considered canon.

[Admiral Wesley]

Good point, given the fact that it didn't even bear a number OR the phrase "Command and Conquer," in its title.

[CommanderJB]

I think to define a sequel is a tricky business as it varies from instance to instance, particularly from genre to genre. To be a genuine sequel it should logically follow on from the first game in terms of a plot; thus I do not consider games such as Battlefront II a sequel to Battlefront I, strange as that may seem, because they do not follow the same story (much as either of them actually have a story; rather the campaign modes, particularly in the first game, are simple 'oh look, a famous Star Wars battle! Off you go!' affairs more than anything else). It should maintain at least some characters for consistency and re-use as much of the setting as is appropriate to give the player a feeling of place that aligns with that of the previous one; it can then change settings all it likes, but it must evoke the same 'feelings' in the player, at least to begin with, of belonging to the same world as before.