Acceptable Reasons for a Game Sequel

[oli821]

Yes sequels are leading to some stagnant days of gaming, but if devs were to follow these guidelines...

1. You didn't get it right the first time, but there was potential in your ideas.

2. You created a successful and enjoyable game, but did not get to put all of your ideas into the game and you want another go at it to make your masterpiece.The success of the first game will fund it's ridiculously better and more polished older brother.

3. There is a new series of gaming consoles and you want to make a great game at the next level to introduce your timeless gameplay to new generations of fans and please the older ones who long for gaming of days past. Addendum: The first game you made was early in a console's lifetime and you want to explore another one with all the cool new things you've learned about maximizing the efficiency of the machine.

4. You tried to make a sequel on the basis of rules 1-3, but totally failed and you have a big enough fan base that wants you to redeem yourself.

5. You use the disgusting amount of profit that you will make from a reskinned/lazy sequel to fund a new IP that will blow everyone's minds. (One can dream).

6. You are lucky enough to be working in the sports genre where games need roster updates and "tweaks" to the gameplay/physics and graphics over the years. Roster DLCs won't cut it because eventually graphics will look outdated etc...also applies to racing sims (maybe?).

7. You are bringing a popular PC franchise to consoles for the first time and you do not want to make a straight port that a lot of console owners have already played.

8. Continual story lines. Respective fans of the series would want a conclusion to a saga they have begun. (Staticneuron)

What if all games were new IPs? Sure we would see a lot of new ideas and inventive gameplay (along with A LOT of trash), but we would never see the full potential out of many of them...Good ideas that were not fully fleshed out will be lost due to the fear of being unoriginal :nono

Good sequels this generation (imo): Uncharted 2, Assassin's Creed II, SF4/SSF4 (if you played your cards right it should've cost you as much as a cheap DLC to upgrade), MGS4, GOWIII, Obivion, Fallout 3 (at least in namesake), Wipeout HD, TBOGT(the real GTAIV)... COD4.

Feel free to add to or disagree with my list of reasons,discuss sequels that should have never been/be made and good ones that I may have missed... or tell me why a game on my good sequels list is an abomination.

Also to the others saying money. Lol it's not like I forgot about it... remember I said acceptable and thats from the perspective of a gamer, not a developer (no i'm not saying they are mutually exclusive and I understand that developers need to make money).

 

[Kxizm]

Although the most important reason to these ppl is going to be the one you didnt list

9. It makes you loads of money

its an unfortunate truth

 

[MiNiMaL_sAnItY]

Monies. Then anything else.

 

[Staticneuron]

You seem to have forgotten the concept of continual story lines. Respective fans of the series would want a conclusion to a saga they have begun.

 

[reasonable_doubt]

11.) Dont make a sequel unless it was planned on day one as part of a trilogy or whatever.

 

[oli821]

Good point static, I totally forgot about that one. But, at what point does that cross the line into a planned sequel like WKC where imo it would have been better to have been one cohesive game rather than a trilogy.

Also to the others saying money. Lol it's not like I forgot about it... remember I said acceptable and thats from the perspective of a gamer, not a developer (no i'm not saying they are mutually exclusive and I understand that developers need to make money).

This thread is mostly a response to Shadowcoust's decline of gaming thread, but I figured it warranted it's own thread because it was different enough and would lead to different branches of discussion than his.

 

[Kasor]

[QUOTE="Kxizm, post: 0]Although the most important reason to these ppl is going to be the one you didnt list

9. It makes you loads of money

its an unfortunate truth[/quote]

Its a fortunate truth . they're making loads of money cause they're giving us what we want .

Sequels we don't want (cause the original sucked) don't really make a lot of money :hand .

 

[Evil_the_Cat]

[QUOTE="Staticneuron, post: 0]You seem to have forgotten the concept of continual story lines. Respective fans of the series would want a conclusion to a saga they have begun.[/quote]

I actually disagree with that, I really hate it when games stay open for a sequel, a sequel that they might never get. Take Shenmue for example, we'll probably never see how that trilogy will end.

On the other hand, there is Gears of War, did that really need to be a trilogy, or could they have just came up with a different gritty TPS game!? Or Darksiders, which was obviously left open for a sequel, could that story not have been ended in 1 game? There are others...

In general, there are far too many trilogies. If anything, I think its the Japanese devs of games like Persona and Final Fantasy who have a much better approach to it. Establishing names of there IP, yet creating a completely different game with every 'sequel'.

 

[Staticneuron]

[QUOTE="oli821, post: 0]Good point static, I totally forgot about that one. But, at what point does that cross the line into a planned sequel like WKC where imo it would have been better to have been one cohesive game rather than a trilogy.

Also to the others saying money. Lol it's not like I forgot about it... remember I said acceptable and thats from the perspective of a gamer, not a developer (no i'm not saying they are mutually exclusive and I understand that developers need to make money).

This thread is mostly a response to Shadowcoust's decline of gaming thread, but I figured it warranted it's own thread because it was different enough and would lead to different branches of discussion than his.[/quote]


The catch to your reasoning is "if" the first game didn't feel complete. Technically uncharted's story didn't directly lend itself for a sequel, but the first was fantastic and the second one upped the ante so no one complained.

I think complaining about sequels just because they are sequels is kinda lame. If a game suffers, it won't be "because" it is a sequel, it will suffer because of the team making the game. It isn't as if we have had a lack of IP this gen. Almost every gen we get flooded with new IP.

I think there is a clear line between making sequels and milking a franchise. Certain series lend themselves to be milked..... like the call of duty or final fantasy titles. Some are abused, like the mario and the sonic titles. But most seem to fall in line with what can be considered decent sequels.

 

[Lebowski]

the plot always comes first for me in a series I love...as for games like gran turismo...they should have a sequel with many more cars, more tracks, more features, bonus features and updated graphics for the current gen..I still wanna see wtf happened to Makarov after MW2

 

[Kxizm]

[QUOTE="Kasor, post: 0]Its a fortunate truth . they're making loads of money cause they're giving us what we want .

Sequels we don't want (cause the original sucked) don't really make a lot of money :hand .[/quote]

my point was that everyone's milking their titles. how many more COD games are we gonna see? Even though theyre flawed, ppl will still pay for them. we even give them money for more maps for the flawed game. No, ppl still pay good money for sequels that suck.

 

[oli821]

[QUOTE="Staticneuron, post: 0]The catch to your reasoning is "if" the first game didn't feel complete. Technically uncharted's story didn't directly lend itself for a sequel, but the first was fantastic and the second one upped the ante so no one complained.

I think complaining about sequels just because they are sequels is kinda lame. If a game suffers, it won't be "because" it is a sequel, it will suffer because of the team making the game. It isn't as if we have had a lack of IP this gen. Almost every gen we get flooded with new IP.

I think there is a clear line between making sequels and milking a franchise. Certain series lend themselves to be milked..... like the call of duty or final fantasy titles. Some are abused, like the mario and the sonic titles. But most seem to fall in line with what can be considered decent sequels.[/quote]

Hehe I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing, but I made this thread in the defense of sequels that work and I agree with most of what you said above. I think point 2 of the OP aligns pretty well with Uncharted 2, but in the case of WKC it felt incomplete (by design of course). It just feels like the balance between sequels and new IP is tilting further in favor of sequels whether for good reason or not, but I am just hoping that the industry doesn't over do it. I guess where we may disagree is that I think a game can be good or great even and at the same time be completely unnecessary.

 

[Staticneuron]

[QUOTE="oli821, post: 0]Hehe I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing, but I made this thread in the defense of sequels that work and I agree with most of what you said above. I think point 2 of the OP aligns pretty well with Uncharted 2, but in the case of WKC it felt incomplete (by design of course). It just feels like the balance between sequels and new IP is tilting further in favor of sequels whether for good reason or not, but I am just hoping that the industry doesn't over do it. I guess where we may disagree is that I think a game can be good or great even and at the same time be completely unnecessary.[/quote]

I think we agree on most thing except the last. How can there be such a thing as an unnecessary sequel? Games in general can be considered unnecessary. The point of games is to entertain. And normally the consensus seems that games are only considered unnecessary if they fail when released. Either with ratings or with the sales. Like I pointed out before, technically Uncharted to was unnecessary... but very welcome.

 

[Smorkin Panda]

The production studio wants to make more money because of the success of your first game or games should be up there. Because that is generally the rule for the companies that put up the money. It is sad, but acceptable because that is the way the world works (especially now). I know you said these rules are from the perspective of a gamer, and I agree as a gamer...But as a realist...I have to say that money is the main reason for a sequel. I too dream of a day where money doesn't decide everything, but that day is unfortunately not today .