Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Thread: Game Series N+1: Wherein I ramble about sequels.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    7,660
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 78 Times in 27 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    EP Points
    55

    Default Game Series N+1: Wherein I ramble about sequels.

    Sequels: A great way to prolong a good thing, or the greatest blight on modern gaming? Depending on who you ask, you might get either response. Sure, a sequel provides plenty of opportunity for growth/improvement and returning to a familiar world can be quite pleasant, but it can also lead to a lack of creativity and stagnation in the gaming industry. Yeah, it leads to brand recognition and there's plenty of cases where you'd buy the next entry just because you liked the first. But that could possibly be a lost sale for an equally good or possibly better new IP. I have a feeling many people would probably lean towards dislike of sequels simply on principal, but I'm sure those same people would count numerous sequels among their favorite games. And if not, then they've clearly gone insane, as there are any number of great sequels out there, and short lists of my favorite games would include quite a few digits among their ranks. And personally, I consider myself at least somewhat informed on what constitutes a good game.

    This topic briefly came up during an online gaming excursion, and after a short while of random thinking, I figured it might possibly make a somewhat decent wall o' text thread or two if I ever wind up bored. As such, I shall commence a TLR post where I put some random thoughts to text.

    At a basic level, the sequel allows the developers to reward the fans with more of the story they enjoyed with potentially more polished and improved gameplay. The way I see it, this is the whole reason why people would like sequels. The audience was left wanting more. And it shows. Go to any gaming site or forum and you'll no doubt see numerous statements that X series needs a new sequel, Y needs to come back, or someone ranting about the newest entry in Z series with regards to its predecessors. In other cases, you'll see the term "proper sequel" pop up, in the case where fans were displeased with the existing sequel. Because, after all, the creation of a sequel is often a crapshoot and you are not always guaranteed to end up with something you like. Especially if you happen to hold absurdly high standards and beliefs on what a sequel to this series should be.

    On the downside, the sequel can simply be a shameless cash in. You'll often find games that were so rapidly pumped out that the sequel plays almost identically to the original. In days past, this was pretty much the cardinal game developer sin with which companies like EA and Activision were damned to the point where you could not bring up one of their series without inciting sneers from the more "hardcore" crowd. While it has become less severe as of late, it still lingers about much like a particularly foul bout of flatulence. The "sequel" might also not truly be a sequel at all, something many fans will no doubt point out in some way. If the game was at any point in its development not supposed to be a sequel to something else, you'll be hearing that all the damn time, even if massive script revisions and concept changes rendered it more pertinent to the central plot than some other entries in the series. Often the claim of a non-true sequel happens because fans are not too pleased with the direction taken, or it was not quite what was expected. Or, perhaps, they just want to claim that their favorite game is the superior one in the face of an influx to the fanbase from the "new" entry.

    And then we have sequel's ugly cousins "reboot" and "remake". In this case, the developer decides to not so much make a continuation of the story as retell it whilst changing details. Or perhaps retell the original story with improved graphics and some new features. In this case, it's kind of hard to defend it against the "cash-grab" torch bearers, since seemingly someone thinks that if you like the game so much, surely you'd buy it again (and again, and again, and again, and again....). However, the case isn't all bad. The remake can allow you to put in plot details that were not introduced until the story continued elsewhere, which often leads to a more cohesive plot. If it's a reboot, you can go in a very different direction, which is great if the original direction happened to be over a rather steep cliff. In the case of both, it can allow people who came late to the party to familiarize themselves with what came before, which is especially important in today's sequel and storyline minded gaming market, even moreso if the original happens to be rather hard to get your hands on for one reason or another. But no matter how hard you try, you're going to wind up enraging fans of the original who'll view it as a way to cash in on nostalgia at best, and a bastardization of something they loved at worst. One wonders why these fans do not opt to simply not purchase the game in question or ignore its existence, but I fear logic is not something heavily practiced in gaming circles.

    And to wind up the sequel gang, we also have our good buddies "genre shift" and "new team sequel". We've been seeing a lot of these lately. Someone stumbles across an old abandoned IP that can work and has a somewhat recognizable brand and decides to make a new one. The problem is that the original team is long defunct and the gameplay style may not work in today's market. Or perhaps the style goes against what the development team is good at, with the logical choice being to adapt it to something that plays to the developer's strengths rather than their weakness.

    This is probably the touchiest of subjects when it comes to sequels, since gamers aren't exactly open to the idea of change, be they retro gamers who generally refuse to acknowledge anything made since 1996 or the modern gamer who has created a gaming landscape as steeped in numbers as a desert is in sand. Often you'll find people rushing to point out that there was a change in teams for this "sequel", and that the person who started it isn't involved. Due to some sort of delusional love of the original team/game(s)/developer, they're often blind to the merits of the game in question, often focusing solely on the perceived negative details. It gets especially strange when a developer shift or team shuffle actually ends up making the game better, or creating a game of similar quality to the earlier ones. An argument with someone like this can perhaps best be described as attempting to tunnel through concrete with a very thin sheet of paper.

    And what would a group be without a tag-along? That's where our good buddy "spiritual successor" comes in. The way this works, the team in question may have salted the earth when it came to making a direct continuation. Perhaps they're the more artsy type and hate the concept of sequels. Maybe they just don't want to make a game that's like the last one, but they still want recognition for being responsible for it (IE: the sales and publicity). Maybe the original didn't quite meet sales expectations but managed to build a cult following that you fear alienating by not continuing their story, but you want to increase your fanbase (and by extension cashflow) by doing something different. Perhaps they just want to move away from what made them famous, but they don't want the fame to go away with it. Perhaps someone else holds the rights to a series you want to make a sequel to, so you have to be sneaky about it.

    In that case, a spiritual successor is what you're looking for. It's never quite a sequel, but it is perhaps a sort of "sequel lite". I picture it as filling the role of sequel's little brother who occasionally hangs around with them but isn't exactly a part of the group. As long as you can even remotely justify it, you can call ANYTHING a spiritual successor. It doesn't need the same team, the same setting, the same gameplay, the same story, or even the same company. It appears to be seeing increased popularity lately, often due to copyright disputes and a lot of developer changeovers. You often see references poked in to what came before, but sometimes they seek to simply move completely away from the predecessor. It's simply another type of name recognition, and it works quite well with several game devs getting somewhat of a fan following. I think part of its popularity is that it allows plenty of freedom as opposed to the more constricted form of sequel normally seen, where you simply must continue onward from the first game and do so in a manner that feels natural.

    The best part of all is that people are often a lot more forgiving of the spiritual successor. It avoids the sequel hating group, it provides something the fans can enjoy, any changes in gameplay style/tone/whatever are quickly glossed over without that eyesore of a number (or subtitle if we're talking about something from ~ 2000-2005) being present, and if the game ends up sucking you can simply bury it later before anyone notices (in some cases only to create another spiritual successor that hopefully fares better). It even covers you in the event you're taking ideas from an earlier game. Rather than trying to pass off your new developer sequel with probable genre shift off as a new entry in the series, you can simply have some people go on record as being huge fans of the original and taking ideas from it. Hire a person or two from the old team as a consultant and you can even stick that information on the box somewhere. Get the company that made the original to publish it. Whatever works. This also protects you from any claims of ripping something off if you happen to do it right.

    .....

    Hmm, it appears I've rambled for too long. I had plans to eventually get into some discussion of how exactly a sequel should be handled along with some more direct thoughts with elaboration, but I'll probably leave that for another post at some point. In any case, there's some information on how sequels work and the sort of shit I've been noticing. Feel free to point out that I'm an idiot and a loudmouth or how this is all clearly stuff people were already aware of.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Astral Void
    Posts
    4,466
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 278 Times in 108 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    EP Points
    120

    Default

    Spiritual successors need to die in a fire.

    Getting around to it... | Available via Retroshare 16/7.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    7,660
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 78 Times in 27 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    EP Points
    55

    Default

    Figures the Baldur's Gate fan would say that.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Astral Void
    Posts
    4,466
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 278 Times in 108 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    EP Points
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raype View Post
    Figures the Baldur's Gate fan would say that.
    You better believe it .

    I like remakes, especially in the case of Lunar, where they have improved the sprites each time. Winback 2 is a good example of a bad sequel, massive changes between the original and 2. I also hate Alundra 2 with great intensity.
    Last edited by Slacker Magician; 31st-May-2011 at 14:48.

    Getting around to it... | Available via Retroshare 16/7.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South of New Orleans, it exists....
    Posts
    17
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    I'm surprised Capcom isn't mentioned by name here while Activision and EA are. Capcom has quite a list of sequels....and some of them seem to follow a pattern.

    Megaman series, Megaman X series...well....why don't we just go with all megaman series sans Legends maybe here?
    RE series
    Street Fighter...

    There are plenty of complaints to be had between their bigger series with sequels, but at the same time they have the really good ones, and they almost have a formula for it too, look.

    Various spinoffs here.
    Megaman X series
    Megaman 1-8

    Resident Evil 4, 5
    Resident Evil 1-3, CV, RE0/REmake
    Leaving out spinoffs here.

    Street Fighter 4, SSF4/SSF4AE
    Street Fighter 3/etc.
    Street Fighter Alpha series
    Street Fighter 2/etc.
    Basically each numbered street fighter has its own series =O. This is also where my thoughts that they have some sort of formula for this popped up....I mean seriously, they keep the same gameplay for a good chunk of a series, then follow up with some gameplay changes/overhaul and keep the ball rolling for the next set. I kind of have mixed feelings about this, on one hand, they are undoubtedly pissing off some people who really want change in their sequels I suppose, on the other you get a good dose of the gameplay that had you hooked onto the series in the first place, and get to experience some good changes to the gaming as well.

    I have to say that I think they got this the most perfect with the Resident Evil series, but everyone is into something different, and the gameplay changed probably the most drastically of my examples. They had a good number of games with the survival/horror element to them over the action, and followed up with the action-oriented RE games we have now, and there were people on both sides of the fence for this, some wish for the old gameplay back, but on the other hand there are many people who feel the change should've come earlier even.

    If I were to have to make a decision like making sequels, I'd probably do something similar here. Similar gameplay for at least a few games, though perhaps not rehashed completely.

    In the case of changing teams, rebooting, reviving, etc. It really all depends on how the game turns out, I like to go into them un-biased and judge them by their merits or lack there of. If they are trying to recreate a gameplay experience, I think their time is better spent with something new, though.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,300
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 33 Times in 25 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    EP Points
    15

    Default

    Good sequels are good.

    Bad sequels are bad.

    That is all.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    10,524
    Thanks
    28
    Thanked 159 Times in 88 Posts
    EP Points
    105

    Default

    I have mixed feeling about sequels. In some cases, I welcome the fact that I'll be getting "more of the same" - the Sands of Time trilogy comes to mind (which was actually also a reboot, but that's beside the point right now). For three games it remained more or less the same, but at the same time it evolved -most noticeably in the battle system department- in a way that new installments didn't feel like cheap cash-ins.

    Similarly, I vastly prefer Persona 4 to 3 because it fixed or altered most of things I didn't like in its predecessor, while keeping the core game the same. A main cast that I actually like, a plot that I actually care about, and a setting more to my liking. At the same time, it kept the parts I enjoyed and even improved upon them.

    In other cases, this doesn't work out too well. Playing through Fatal Frame 4 on the Wii made me realize just how little this series has changed over the years. Sure, the fourth game uses a RE4-like over the shoulder viewpoint, but essentially it's still the same fucking game. As far gameplay -and even the basic premise of the plot- goes, if you've played one FF game, you've pretty much played them all.

    A remake's a good remake if it's not only a graphical update. This is pretty obvious, though. Resident Evil on the GC stays true to the source material, but adds in enough new stuff that it can more or less be considered a different (and to me, much better) game.

    A better example is Tales of Destiny on the PS2, which takes the word 'remake' very seriously. Gameplay-wise, it was completely re-made and re-designed, and the result is something that takes a familiar plot and characters, and builds something new -and superior- with it. The difference between original and remake is day and night, and not just because of the graphics.

    As for genre-shift, RE4 comes to mind. If it's handled well, it can be a good thing. Sure, RE4 has nothing to do with the gameplay of the originals, but what we got in the end was a really good action game.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Ashbury Cemetary
    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkseid View Post
    Good sequels are good.

    Bad sequels are bad.

    That is all.
    That about sums up what I think about sequels. On one hand they can be a way to rejuvenate a game series and bring back the characters that you know and love. On the other hand though, they can ruin not only the game but the original in which they were based off of. Take Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance for example, though the gameplay really wasn't bad, it wasn't even close to the original Baldur's Gate games. Not only that but it in my opinion it made it to where there was less of a chance of the original Baldur's Gate sequel being made and more chance of a Dark alliance being made.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    ????
    Posts
    5,948
    Thanks
    187
    Thanked 138 Times in 84 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    EP Points
    170

    Default

    Ok some quick thoughts.

    First of all really nice OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by shardnax
    Spiritual successors need to die in a fire.
    DRAGON AGE GO DIE RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWR!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by kangaroo
    I'm surprised Capcom isn't mentioned by name here while Activision and EA are. Capcom has quite a list of sequels....and some of them seem to follow a pattern.
    I'll second this. Capcom is brutal with their 4 reboot minimum for Street Fighter. MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY. I mean, I'm not saying sometimes it doesn't produce a great game (like 3rd Strike) but it's ridiculous.

    Moving on to Resident Evil. Yeah idk, Code Veronica was really good, but 4 was a great game as well. Hard to hate. Imo 3 is the worst but still a decent game.

    Disgaea 3 used like, the same sprites basically (rofl amirite?) but I just keep eating up the series. I really like what I'm seeing from 4 and the direction the series is going.

    Quote Originally Posted by gare
    Similarly, I vastly prefer Persona 4 to 3 because it fixed or altered most of things I didn't like in its predecessor, while keeping the core game the same. A main cast that I actually like, a plot that I actually care about, and a setting more to my liking. At the same time, it kept the parts I enjoyed and even improved upon them.
    And 3 was really a lot better than the first entries in the series imo.

    Quote Originally Posted by gare
    In other cases, this doesn't work out too well. Playing through Fatal Frame 4 on the Wii made me realize just how little this series has changed over the years. Sure, the fourth game uses a RE4-like over the shoulder viewpoint, but essentially it's still the same fucking game. As far gameplay -and even the basic premise of the plot- goes, if you've played one FF game, you've pretty much played them all.
    This.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 78 Times in 2 Posts
    EP Points
    385

    Default

    Personally, I happen to like sequels. Sure, sometimes they suck, but when they're done well, they are awesome. I mean, look at Mario Bros. The gameplay's been pretty much the same since the beginning, except for the second, which wasn't a true sequel at all. But Nintendo's given us something new each time. As for Capcom's tendency to re-remake old games into oblivion (in HD!), even though, yes, it's overdone, I feel as though enough is added to make it better. Usually. I mean, SSF4 blows SF4 out of the water. What I'd like to see more of is releasing localizations of games for countries that never got them, along the lines of Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney and Super Mario Bros. The Lost Levels.

    And let us not forget, without the spiritual successor, we never would have gotten Portal. That is all.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Somewhere, USA.
    Posts
    32
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Also mixed on Sequels, there really isn't a golden rule when it comes to making a good or bad one, its ether a hit or miss unfortunately. When it comes to a sequel being an overhaul with lots of changes I think of Jak and Daxter, a series I love. It goes from a comedy heavy item collection game with silent protagonist to.. a game with speaking protagonist, item collection with GTA-like mission environment.. and it just kinda worked out.
    I'd also like to defend Street Fighter for a second, I've got ST2 for SNES, ST Alpha 3 for PS1 and played many in-betweens. Although all games are largely the same they keep the old formula and just make small changes to each sequel, it might not seem like alot but a small change like that really can affect a platform fighter, especially one without 3d movement (like Soul Calibur). They keep it mostly the same, but change it just enough to get a different game-play experience to keep the fans happy.
    Guitar Hero comes to mind, I personally hate the series and discard it as a quick-time-event-hero as a whole but others really like it. The game changes in that series seem to be about none, they already had the formula and wouldn't change it at all until Rock Band came out (a break-off of GH's devs I think). (I only know as I was told by others, feel free to correct me on this if you want)
    When it comes to spiritual sequels.. I like them for the most part. Story is very important to me and nothing butchers it quite like an unplanned sequel, so an indirect continuation of the gameplay you like, with a new setting/story just sounds appealing... There is always the chance it'll be a flop, and there will always be the people who -want- to be displeased no matter what, so its nice to to damage the reputation of series you like.
    Although sequels obviously made only to get a profit from the success of the last game may burn in the unholy fires.
    Politeness is a universal language and everyone knows how to speak it, but some don't choose to.

    "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result" -Einstein

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    10,524
    Thanks
    28
    Thanked 159 Times in 88 Posts
    EP Points
    105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gypsy View Post
    And 3 was really a lot better than the first entries in the series imo.
    I enjoyed Innocent Sin a lot more than P3. Again, better main cast, better plot. Which matters to me more than gameplay or social links.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    La Crosse, WI USA
    Posts
    1,179
    Thanks
    58
    Thanked 13 Times in 11 Posts
    EP Points
    35

    Default

    There are a lot of good points in this thread about the way in which sequels can be tweaked and polished into a superior game overall, but what I have been thinking about lately is the integrity, (or lack thereof,) inherent in subsequent works. I vehemently hate it when a beloved character is rehashed into some cheap imitation to sell a piece of crap. Business is business, but I feel personally insulted when it's taken too far.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Astral Void
    Posts
    4,466
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 278 Times in 108 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    EP Points
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerino View Post
    Also mixed on Sequels, there really isn't a golden rule when it comes to making a good or bad one, its ether a hit or miss unfortunately. When it comes to a sequel being an overhaul with lots of changes I think of Jak and Daxter, a series I love. It goes from a comedy heavy item collection game with silent protagonist to.. a game with speaking protagonist, item collection with GTA-like mission environment.. and it just kinda worked out.
    I'd also like to defend Street Fighter for a second, I've got ST2 for SNES, ST Alpha 3 for PS1 and played many in-betweens. Although all games are largely the same they keep the old formula and just make small changes to each sequel, it might not seem like alot but a small change like that really can affect a platform fighter, especially one without 3d movement (like Soul Calibur). They keep it mostly the same, but change it just enough to get a different game-play experience to keep the fans happy.
    Guitar Hero comes to mind, I personally hate the series and discard it as a quick-time-event-hero as a whole but others really like it. The game changes in that series seem to be about none, they already had the formula and wouldn't change it at all until Rock Band came out (a break-off of GH's devs I think). (I only know as I was told by others, feel free to correct me on this if you want)
    When it comes to spiritual sequels.. I like them for the most part. Story is very important to me and nothing butchers it quite like an unplanned sequel, so an indirect continuation of the gameplay you like, with a new setting/story just sounds appealing... There is always the chance it'll be a flop, and there will always be the people who -want- to be displeased no matter what, so its nice to to damage the reputation of series you like.
    Although sequels obviously made only to get a profit from the success of the last game may burn in the unholy fires.
    I wanted to like Dragon Age, there was the whole not in the Forgotten Realms thing that made me dislike it .

    Getting around to it... | Available via Retroshare 16/7.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    603
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    I liked Persona 3 quite a bit.

    Anywho, I was thinking about this same topic earlier, simply by the fact that Kalypso announced the sequel to Dungeons already. (A game that only came out, what, 4 monthss ago?) I suppose it was an alright game, but it seemed like they are just rushing the next one right out the door.

    I don't mind sequels, but I'm really not a fan of planned trilogies and such. I know games are business and all that, but it makes my wallet sad when a developer pretty much announces they plan to rob me 3 times over for a single story. There is also, of course, the worry that they may just never get around to it. (This means Valve.)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About Us

We are the oldest retro gaming forum on the internet. The goal of our community is the complete preservation of all retro video games. Started in 2001 as EmuParadise Forums, our community has grown over the past 18 years into one of the biggest gaming platforms on the internet.

Social