The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Games developers, like film producers, have a habit of making sequels. First time round, they come up with brilliantly original and playable ideas that become huge successes with the gaming public and make them an awesome amount of money. So, the most logical thing to do is to make a sequel to this hugely successful title in order to make another vast sum of money, possibly more than with the first game.
Here’s the scenario: you buy game X (say, Deus Ex for example) and rate it as one of the most delightful pieces of gaming goodness you’ve ever experienced. Three months down the line, the games publisher announces the sequel to this game is in development. You get excited. Very excited. So much so that you put £40-odd aside, in anticipation of release day.
Your imagination runs wild. This is the sequel to one of your most treasured games. What will it be like? Will it be a revolution, or an evolution? Or, dare say it, a complete disaster of a game? You try not to dwell on the final possibility and think more about what the game will be like. Will the game feature graphics so realistic, that you get mixed up between playing the game and living your real life? Will the game have so many inventive and addictive ideas that you’re made to play the game for a sizeable portion of your life? Well, I’m now going to try and discover the purpose of game sequels, what we expect from them, and analyse a few past sequels and how successful they’ve been at fulfilling our expectations.
Ok, first section – how much should a game sequel differ from the original? Well, I believe sequels should be a case of evolution rather than revolution. If the original game was so enjoyable, why change the way it looks and plays completely? Doing this would not only take a long time to develop (and perhaps dampen our enthusiasm for the game), it may mess up the whole game structure completely and be a disaster.
So, there’s the first thing that I’ve determined – a game sequel should build on the success of the original by improving what was wrong with it (after all, there’s no such thing as a perfect game). However, you can’t just have the same game with the old errors ironed out, can you? You need a new plot (not usually the case in sports games) and you need things that weren’t in the original. But how do you know how much to put in? Where is the line between putting in too little extra ‘stuff’ that the sequel could be classed as an add-on, and putting in too much extra stuff that makes it a waste of development time and resources?
Well, this is quite difficult to answer, but here goes anyway. I believe a game should last, at the very least, 15 hours. If not, then the game is not good value for money (please don’t start comparing this to buying films). So, the game needs enough ‘stuff’ in it to last at least 15 hours. However, it’s not quite that simple, because any developer could do that. This stuff needs to remain refreshing all the way through and maintain the player’s enjoyment and interest in the game. THAT is where a lot of developers struggle.
Although most people will probably protest against this, I like game sequels to be noticeably enhanced in the visuals department. I know the most important thing about a game should be its playability and lastability factor, but I pay great attention to a game’s graphics and merit them upon this. For example, when Gran Turismo was released on Playstation all those years ago, we were all amazed. It was a graphical revolution and lifted the expectations of what all future Playstation games should look like. So, along comes Gran Turismo 2 and, I believe, it failed to live up to this expectation. The graphics were unimproved (some believe they were slightly smudgy) and other areas of the game changed little aswell. So, the developers depended on the vast number of cars, tracks and races to woo the crowds and, thankfully for them, it did.
Next up was Gran Turismo 3 on the Playstation 2. The gaming public demanded something special from this game and, due to the far greater power of Playstation 2, the game delivered. The graphics were the most realistic ever seen in a videogame (and, perhaps, still are) and the handling had been tweaked to perfection. The developers met expectation, and the game sold stupidly well.
Another greatly successful Playstation game (over here and in America, anyway) was Metal Gear Solid. It featured gameplay unlike anything before it in the form of stealth-based progression and truly got the player involved and attached to the characters with a deep and complex storyline. The one main gripe most had with the game was the length of it – for most, well below 10 hours. Sure those were sweetest 10 hours of our gaming lives, but it was over as soon as it begun.
With the sequel, many magazines have stated that the game last roughly 16 hours (which eliminates the problem with the last game) but have marked the game down mainly because of (SPOILER ALERT!) the new playable character. So in this case, the developer has eradicated an old problem, but created a new one by changing the game too much. We’ve all grown to love Snake and his gruff voice, and the thought of playing a different character for most of the game is a little off-putting for many.
Now, time for a totally different kind of sequel – Perfect Dark. OK, so Goldeneye was a classic FPS, which redefined the genre in many ways. But let’s be honest; it sold as well as it did because it had the Bond license. Perfect Dark, although considered by many as the sequel to Goldeneye, was always going to be different in many ways. The game was set in a different place and time. The characters were completely different, as were the guns and enemies. Goldeneye was a game based on a popular film. Perfect Dark was based a game designer’s imagination. If Rareware wanted the same kind of success with Perfect Dark as they did with Goldeneye, they had to do two things – relate the game as closely as possible to Goldeneye (e.g. ‘from the makers of Goldeneye’ on the box, etc) and also come up with some truly original and enjoyable ideas to incorporate into the game. The game took many of Goldeneye’s best ideas, and extended them or supported them with news ones. Seeing as the game sold by the bucket-load, the developers had made the right choice.
So, to summarise, a sequel should feature the following (in my opinion):
1) All the ideas that made the first game so successful.
2) Improvements that eradicate the problems with the first game.
3) A wealth of new features and ideas that make the game slightly refreshing, but never lose contact with the original game.
4) Vastly improved graphics (delete this point, if necessary).
Well, there you have it, another piece of boring drivel from your favourite Uncle. I’ll do better…one day.
Here’s the scenario: you buy game X (say, Deus Ex for example) and rate it as one of the most delightful pieces of gaming goodness you’ve ever experienced. Three months down the line, the games publisher announces the sequel to this game is in development. You get excited. Very excited. So much so that you put £40-odd aside, in anticipation of release day.
Your imagination runs wild. This is the sequel to one of your most treasured games. What will it be like? Will it be a revolution, or an evolution? Or, dare say it, a complete disaster of a game? You try not to dwell on the final possibility and think more about what the game will be like. Will the game feature graphics so realistic, that you get mixed up between playing the game and living your real life? Will the game have so many inventive and addictive ideas that you’re made to play the game for a sizeable portion of your life? Well, I’m now going to try and discover the purpose of game sequels, what we expect from them, and analyse a few past sequels and how successful they’ve been at fulfilling our expectations.
Ok, first section – how much should a game sequel differ from the original? Well, I believe sequels should be a case of evolution rather than revolution. If the original game was so enjoyable, why change the way it looks and plays completely? Doing this would not only take a long time to develop (and perhaps dampen our enthusiasm for the game), it may mess up the whole game structure completely and be a disaster.
So, there’s the first thing that I’ve determined – a game sequel should build on the success of the original by improving what was wrong with it (after all, there’s no such thing as a perfect game). However, you can’t just have the same game with the old errors ironed out, can you? You need a new plot (not usually the case in sports games) and you need things that weren’t in the original. But how do you know how much to put in? Where is the line between putting in too little extra ‘stuff’ that the sequel could be classed as an add-on, and putting in too much extra stuff that makes it a waste of development time and resources?
Well, this is quite difficult to answer, but here goes anyway. I believe a game should last, at the very least, 15 hours. If not, then the game is not good value for money (please don’t start comparing this to buying films). So, the game needs enough ‘stuff’ in it to last at least 15 hours. However, it’s not quite that simple, because any developer could do that. This stuff needs to remain refreshing all the way through and maintain the player’s enjoyment and interest in the game. THAT is where a lot of developers struggle.
Although most people will probably protest against this, I like game sequels to be noticeably enhanced in the visuals department. I know the most important thing about a game should be its playability and lastability factor, but I pay great attention to a game’s graphics and merit them upon this. For example, when Gran Turismo was released on Playstation all those years ago, we were all amazed. It was a graphical revolution and lifted the expectations of what all future Playstation games should look like. So, along comes Gran Turismo 2 and, I believe, it failed to live up to this expectation. The graphics were unimproved (some believe they were slightly smudgy) and other areas of the game changed little aswell. So, the developers depended on the vast number of cars, tracks and races to woo the crowds and, thankfully for them, it did.
Next up was Gran Turismo 3 on the Playstation 2. The gaming public demanded something special from this game and, due to the far greater power of Playstation 2, the game delivered. The graphics were the most realistic ever seen in a videogame (and, perhaps, still are) and the handling had been tweaked to perfection. The developers met expectation, and the game sold stupidly well.
Another greatly successful Playstation game (over here and in America, anyway) was Metal Gear Solid. It featured gameplay unlike anything before it in the form of stealth-based progression and truly got the player involved and attached to the characters with a deep and complex storyline. The one main gripe most had with the game was the length of it – for most, well below 10 hours. Sure those were sweetest 10 hours of our gaming lives, but it was over as soon as it begun.
With the sequel, many magazines have stated that the game last roughly 16 hours (which eliminates the problem with the last game) but have marked the game down mainly because of (SPOILER ALERT!) the new playable character. So in this case, the developer has eradicated an old problem, but created a new one by changing the game too much. We’ve all grown to love Snake and his gruff voice, and the thought of playing a different character for most of the game is a little off-putting for many.
Now, time for a totally different kind of sequel – Perfect Dark. OK, so Goldeneye was a classic FPS, which redefined the genre in many ways. But let’s be honest; it sold as well as it did because it had the Bond license. Perfect Dark, although considered by many as the sequel to Goldeneye, was always going to be different in many ways. The game was set in a different place and time. The characters were completely different, as were the guns and enemies. Goldeneye was a game based on a popular film. Perfect Dark was based a game designer’s imagination. If Rareware wanted the same kind of success with Perfect Dark as they did with Goldeneye, they had to do two things – relate the game as closely as possible to Goldeneye (e.g. ‘from the makers of Goldeneye’ on the box, etc) and also come up with some truly original and enjoyable ideas to incorporate into the game. The game took many of Goldeneye’s best ideas, and extended them or supported them with news ones. Seeing as the game sold by the bucket-load, the developers had made the right choice.
So, to summarise, a sequel should feature the following (in my opinion):
1) All the ideas that made the first game so successful.
2) Improvements that eradicate the problems with the first game.
3) A wealth of new features and ideas that make the game slightly refreshing, but never lose contact with the original game.
4) Vastly improved graphics (delete this point, if necessary).
Well, there you have it, another piece of boring drivel from your favourite Uncle. I’ll do better…one day.
Page:
HelloHowAreYou wrote:
it pretty much follows all the rules you set out doesnt it?
Hey, I know what I'm talking about! ;)
it pretty much follows all the rules you set out doesnt it?
Hey, I know what I'm talking about! ;)
Well done Uncle....
I have to say one of the best Sequels are Shenmue and Shenmue II it pretty much follows all the rules you set out doesnt it?
I have to say one of the best Sequels are Shenmue and Shenmue II it pretty much follows all the rules you set out doesnt it?
AfroJoe wrote:
Pity that they can't seem to get on very well.
First point, we're actually the best of friends. We're only joking when we dig into one another!
Second point, thankyou to everyone who contributed to this thread and ESPECIALLY thankyou to Special Reserve! Not only are you my best friends for giving me the game of my choice for zilch, but also I'd like to express my up-most respect for you guys. Reading through every post every day must surely be quite a laborous task. You have my sympathies. :)
YES!!!!
Pity that they can't seem to get on very well.
First point, we're actually the best of friends. We're only joking when we dig into one another!
Second point, thankyou to everyone who contributed to this thread and ESPECIALLY thankyou to Special Reserve! Not only are you my best friends for giving me the game of my choice for zilch, but also I'd like to express my up-most respect for you guys. Reading through every post every day must surely be quite a laborous task. You have my sympathies. :)
YES!!!!
Yup, honest to God great topic. Well worthy of the win.
Great post from Uncle Albert. Congrats on your first GAD win.
And great reply post from Cooky.
Pity that they can't seem to get on very well.
And great reply post from Cooky.
Pity that they can't seem to get on very well.
I thought that Majora's Mask was briliant.
It was a spin-off but instead of trying to better than Ocarina of time, it decided to be a neat alternative.
That time travel idea was brilliant, the way certain things happened over 3 days and you had to solve them.
It was very cleverly done.
Not so much a Major Zelda game as a spin-off but a damn good one!
It was a spin-off but instead of trying to better than Ocarina of time, it decided to be a neat alternative.
That time travel idea was brilliant, the way certain things happened over 3 days and you had to solve them.
It was very cleverly done.
Not so much a Major Zelda game as a spin-off but a damn good one!
Solskjær_24 wrote:
> Sequels are one of the best things about computer games! Look at the Zelda
> series, each time a new game has come out, it's got better each time!
Excluding Majora's Mask which was the same game, but a bit harder and a lot more boring.
Ocarina of Time was cool though!
> Sequels are one of the best things about computer games! Look at the Zelda
> series, each time a new game has come out, it's got better each time!
Excluding Majora's Mask which was the same game, but a bit harder and a lot more boring.
Ocarina of Time was cool though!
Sequels are one of the best things about computer games! Look at the Zelda series, each time a new game has come out, it's got better each time! And what about the Perfect Dark sequel? It's expected to be one of the most wanted games, due to the success of the original on the N64!
If there were no prequels or sequels, then we'd be missing loads of top games and characters. Where would the likes of Mario and Sonic be now?? And would we really be happy with only one Resident Evil game???
If there were no prequels or sequels, then we'd be missing loads of top games and characters. Where would the likes of Mario and Sonic be now?? And would we really be happy with only one Resident Evil game???
Ermmm, I think you've missed the point somewhere along the line Cook! I clearly stated that I, personally, like to see a noticable improvement in the visuals of a game sequel. However, this is far from the most important factor.
I wasn't using the Gran Turismo series as an example of how the graphical standard changed, but how the game in general changed and how the developer tried to change the game substancially enough to classify them as sequels.
I wasn't using the Gran Turismo series as an example of how the graphical standard changed, but how the game in general changed and how the developer tried to change the game substancially enough to classify them as sequels.
"Oh baby, baby! Something isn't right here!"
Another flawed argument by Albert!
For the most part of your speech (LOL), you waffled on about how all sequels should have vastly improved graphics! Then you used the example of Gran Turismo on "PLAYSTATION"!
Right :-
Point 1 : You chose to use a console game.
Point 2 : You chose a game, which pretty much pushed the Playstations power to its limits the first time round.
Points explained :-
1: K! You chose to use a console for your example. Your main problem with this choice is that a console doesn't really evolve that much. Unless you are comparing first generation titles, with second or third generation titles, then the graphics ain't gonna change that much. Why? Cos the consoles innards unlike a PC don't change. This means that the level of graphical brilliance isn't really gonna change that much. Whereas on a PC, between sequels there more than likely would have been another graphics card brought out, which lets the graphics improve vastly. This doesn't happen on consoles so developers are stuck with the same graphics card for all the games.
2: For you example of a sequel you chose to base you argument on Gran Turismo. Well this game pretty much pushed the Playstation to its full extent graphics wise in the first edition! So for Gran Turismo 2, the main thing that could be improved on was aspects of the game such as, more cars, tracks, and a few options. The graphics couldn't be improved that much, cos the technology wasn't capable of it. So really what were you expecting? From the sounds of it, you sound like you were expecting graphics of the standard of GT3! MADNESS!
The Cooky POV! :-
In my view sequels ain't that bad!
I use to think that they were BAD! But not anymore!
Why?
Most people will say that it's just an easy way for developers and publishers to make easy money!
Well ask yourselves this.
How do they make the money off the sequels?
Because YOU, the gaming public buy them!
Then ask yourself why you do this.
Because YOU, liked the original game.
So what's wrong if a sequel was made?
Nothing!
You obviously enjoyed the game the first time round, so why won't you this time!
Even if the game is exactly the same in style and graphics as the original, then why’s this soo bad?
I'm gonna use Tomb Raider as my example!
Right loads of people complained about this game and the fact that it had annual sequels made.
But each game did really well in the charts!
The reason behind this was because it wasn't that bad a game. Each game was pretty much the same, with the graphics improving only slightly each time. The main character stayed pretty much the same. Only improving in poly count and a certain anatomy size.... But the main difference between each game was..... The PLOT! Isn't this enough of a reason to create a sequel. If you loved a game the first time round, then what's wrong with creating another game, which is exactly the same, but with a new plot. Thus you go to new locations, meet new characters, learn new skills, etc etc. This results in a game that is different enough from the original cos the player won't have seen it all before, and a game that the player should enjoy. How do I know the player will enjoy it?
Because if the player enjoyed the original, and the sequel plays in much the same way, then the player is getting more of what made them enjoy the original, thus they should enjoy this version.
Another example of what i've been waffeling about can be seen in Zelda Majoras Mask. This game uses the Zelda Ocarina Of Time engine, doesn't really do much with the graphics (improvement wise), and it uses quite a lot of the original cast in it to. Was this game BAD??? NO!!! Everone who got the original Zelda game wanted Zelda Majoras Mask because it was more of the same. It was just another game about the adventures of Link the little fairy boy! The same can be said about the Tomb Raider games. Each game is just another adventure of Ms Lady Croft! Thus people buy the sequels for the same reason that you buy the next Harry Potter book. It's another story. It's a sequel, but you enjoyed the original, so why not continue the fun in the next installment!
I agree with ol' Albert in that sequels should improve to eradicate the promblems in the original. But only if there major ones. I don't think that a game should be totally reworked just for a sequel. If people liked the original, then that's the way they liked it. Why change it?
Well that's enough of a rant from the Slayer!
I can't be bothered to re-read it, so if there's something wrong, feel free to have a go! (if ya think your hard enough! LOL!)
The Slayer's spoken!
:)
Another flawed argument by Albert!
For the most part of your speech (LOL), you waffled on about how all sequels should have vastly improved graphics! Then you used the example of Gran Turismo on "PLAYSTATION"!
Right :-
Point 1 : You chose to use a console game.
Point 2 : You chose a game, which pretty much pushed the Playstations power to its limits the first time round.
Points explained :-
1: K! You chose to use a console for your example. Your main problem with this choice is that a console doesn't really evolve that much. Unless you are comparing first generation titles, with second or third generation titles, then the graphics ain't gonna change that much. Why? Cos the consoles innards unlike a PC don't change. This means that the level of graphical brilliance isn't really gonna change that much. Whereas on a PC, between sequels there more than likely would have been another graphics card brought out, which lets the graphics improve vastly. This doesn't happen on consoles so developers are stuck with the same graphics card for all the games.
2: For you example of a sequel you chose to base you argument on Gran Turismo. Well this game pretty much pushed the Playstation to its full extent graphics wise in the first edition! So for Gran Turismo 2, the main thing that could be improved on was aspects of the game such as, more cars, tracks, and a few options. The graphics couldn't be improved that much, cos the technology wasn't capable of it. So really what were you expecting? From the sounds of it, you sound like you were expecting graphics of the standard of GT3! MADNESS!
The Cooky POV! :-
In my view sequels ain't that bad!
I use to think that they were BAD! But not anymore!
Why?
Most people will say that it's just an easy way for developers and publishers to make easy money!
Well ask yourselves this.
How do they make the money off the sequels?
Because YOU, the gaming public buy them!
Then ask yourself why you do this.
Because YOU, liked the original game.
So what's wrong if a sequel was made?
Nothing!
You obviously enjoyed the game the first time round, so why won't you this time!
Even if the game is exactly the same in style and graphics as the original, then why’s this soo bad?
I'm gonna use Tomb Raider as my example!
Right loads of people complained about this game and the fact that it had annual sequels made.
But each game did really well in the charts!
The reason behind this was because it wasn't that bad a game. Each game was pretty much the same, with the graphics improving only slightly each time. The main character stayed pretty much the same. Only improving in poly count and a certain anatomy size.... But the main difference between each game was..... The PLOT! Isn't this enough of a reason to create a sequel. If you loved a game the first time round, then what's wrong with creating another game, which is exactly the same, but with a new plot. Thus you go to new locations, meet new characters, learn new skills, etc etc. This results in a game that is different enough from the original cos the player won't have seen it all before, and a game that the player should enjoy. How do I know the player will enjoy it?
Because if the player enjoyed the original, and the sequel plays in much the same way, then the player is getting more of what made them enjoy the original, thus they should enjoy this version.
Another example of what i've been waffeling about can be seen in Zelda Majoras Mask. This game uses the Zelda Ocarina Of Time engine, doesn't really do much with the graphics (improvement wise), and it uses quite a lot of the original cast in it to. Was this game BAD??? NO!!! Everone who got the original Zelda game wanted Zelda Majoras Mask because it was more of the same. It was just another game about the adventures of Link the little fairy boy! The same can be said about the Tomb Raider games. Each game is just another adventure of Ms Lady Croft! Thus people buy the sequels for the same reason that you buy the next Harry Potter book. It's another story. It's a sequel, but you enjoyed the original, so why not continue the fun in the next installment!
I agree with ol' Albert in that sequels should improve to eradicate the promblems in the original. But only if there major ones. I don't think that a game should be totally reworked just for a sequel. If people liked the original, then that's the way they liked it. Why change it?
Well that's enough of a rant from the Slayer!
I can't be bothered to re-read it, so if there's something wrong, feel free to have a go! (if ya think your hard enough! LOL!)
The Slayer's spoken!
:)
Page: