The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Thanks for that spoiler alert, i quickly scrolled to the bottom of the page just in time.
When the PS2 was first released, it was ridden with sequels, which was a great disappointment to me. Luckily this was irridicated and now there are some quality titles out there. This brings me to my next point, is originality still in games? Are we just having the same old games re-packaged with different characters but in spirit and mind, they are the same? It will take a catastrophic event to change this, but I sure hope that something happens. These IS a solution, we just have to dig deep to find it.
Citzen.
Citzen.
As in GUI (for those who don't know: Graphical User Interface).
Basically, for those which use a GUI, like the Command & Conquer series, you'd expect better in a sequel (as there was).
You'd also expect better ways of playing other types of games like FPS's and RPG's (Pity Majora's Mask was too similar).
that's basically what I meant....
{gets in a car and drives away}
Basically, for those which use a GUI, like the Command & Conquer series, you'd expect better in a sequel (as there was).
You'd also expect better ways of playing other types of games like FPS's and RPG's (Pity Majora's Mask was too similar).
that's basically what I meant....
{gets in a car and drives away}
Nice one, Its always the Sequels that get pumped up as the 1st game i have no idea whats going to be in it. but its not always the case of that, Sometimes the game could have really Bad sales and still make a sequel. e.g. On the Nintendo 64 the game "Chameleon twist" Got low sales, And It still made a Sequel.
Updated gaming interface? Care to explain that in a bit more detail? Spot on for the developer and publisher though!
Just to answer your question "What is the purpose of videogame sequels?"
For the Developer: To make money
For the Publisher: To make money
For the Customer: To continue the storyline with an updated gaming interface.
For the Developer: To make money
For the Publisher: To make money
For the Customer: To continue the storyline with an updated gaming interface.
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: