The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Mmm. Weird thread name, huh? Well the thread is about sequels (why some are good,bad, why some succeed, fail etc etc). So enjoy.
First of all, why do developers bother with sequels when they can make a brand new game which no-one has ever seen before which will make gaming magazines wag there news hungry tongues. Partly because of the success of the first game. That unfortunately leads to developers thinking the can get lazy quality wise. Wrong. The reason people like the original is basically because of the obvious hard work a developer has put into it. And if the first is a success, developers get a sort of 'ego' which makes them think any releases they make are going to be popular and great. But more often than not, gaming sequels are not as good. They are, in fact, nowhere near as good. Such as Turok 2 (open for debate)
Next, when a developer makes a sequel, do they want to make the first one look worse, or make it look completely different from it's sequel. Now in most cases consumers want the sequels they buy to be completely different from the original, in aspect of levels, characters etc. And sometimes, unfortunately, the developers wants to make a sequel which beats the first one, but has only got things added to it which make it ever so slightly better. Ideally, we would want both, but that is unlikely to happen. So therefore SOMETIMES instead of buying a sequel to a game we will help our craving for originality and buy something completely different, like Rez. This is not what the developer wants, so maybe 'rebelling' against below standard sequels would be good. Then again, I dont know many gamers who would buy a bad sequel (plenty of not so clever gamers would, but not many real gamers)
Then, we have what actually classifies as a sequel. Just putting a number '2' or '3' does not really make it a sequel, smoothly leading me into my next field, the Final Fantasy Series. There is debate whether these are actually sequels (or prequels) as I've just said numbering doesnt make a difference. Each FF game has the same RPG'y feel, but all the characters are different, the story is completely different (although I'd hope that is like most good sequels) the battle system changes ever so slightly and the whole world you play in is completely different (again, I'd hope that is like most good sequels). I think they are no sequels because in most typical sequels you will have a main character from the previous game(s). One game that does keep standards high are sequels and prequels to Zelda games, each getting better (and the cel shading doesn't matter!!!)
So what games are good (and bad) example of sequels. As I said before, Turok 2 wasn't as good as it's predecessor. The FF series does get better and better, but as I said, they're not really sequels. Then we have sequels which, unfortunately, are mainly based to make money. And this happened with Pokemon. They weren't even sequels, they were just games with slight changes. A money making scheme with games like Pokemon Pinball ending up as not very good spin offs. Spyro hasn't really suffered from any of the sterotypical problems of sequels. Each games has a vaguely similar layout, but they feel almost original and new. But the worst sequels must be sports games...
There are so many problems on releasing updated sports game, mainly all for the one who buys them. Firstly, newer versions normally play just as good as last years version, give or take a few players and / or events. Some, rather unfortunately, get worse every year, such as the Fifa series which is even worse for the gamer. Only sports sequels released every few years are essentially worth buying. If you really wnat one or two extra players and a nice interface update, then, go ahead, buy the updates. But at the prices they come out at (£50 on N64!!!) its quite risky. The only way to fix this really is using PC's or online consoles to simply download the upgrades (probably for a fee, though, of course)
With my ranting and raving ending soon, I'd better hurry, so ill end soon. My final points are mainly about the huge stereotype (by some) on sequels. Most console specific magazines will say that the latest version of (that consoles) best game is going to be great, so thankfully I read the multi-format mags. Interesting, too. Now some sequels ae genuinely rubbish, and thats where the stereotype probably comes from, but some are actually really good. Take the Gran Turismo series. Numkber 1 was very good for the time, although evetually was outdated. The success of Number 1 maybe everyone very anxious to get their greedy little paws on Number 2. And when they did, they loved it. So when Number 3 came out on PS2 as a main launch title, there was huge hype. Number 3 was a great game. And now Gran Turismo Concept. From what I've read, seen and heard, the graphics are better but the game has been cut down to 50 cars. Now considering Number 2 had hundreds, it would appear that maybe, just maybe, the GT series may fall. And since the hype for it will be big, its gonna be a big fall. A REALLY big fall.
Well, im out of steam, so you're welcome to comment on my attempt at a serious post. Please reply at all :)
First of all, why do developers bother with sequels when they can make a brand new game which no-one has ever seen before which will make gaming magazines wag there news hungry tongues. Partly because of the success of the first game. That unfortunately leads to developers thinking the can get lazy quality wise. Wrong. The reason people like the original is basically because of the obvious hard work a developer has put into it. And if the first is a success, developers get a sort of 'ego' which makes them think any releases they make are going to be popular and great. But more often than not, gaming sequels are not as good. They are, in fact, nowhere near as good. Such as Turok 2 (open for debate)
Next, when a developer makes a sequel, do they want to make the first one look worse, or make it look completely different from it's sequel. Now in most cases consumers want the sequels they buy to be completely different from the original, in aspect of levels, characters etc. And sometimes, unfortunately, the developers wants to make a sequel which beats the first one, but has only got things added to it which make it ever so slightly better. Ideally, we would want both, but that is unlikely to happen. So therefore SOMETIMES instead of buying a sequel to a game we will help our craving for originality and buy something completely different, like Rez. This is not what the developer wants, so maybe 'rebelling' against below standard sequels would be good. Then again, I dont know many gamers who would buy a bad sequel (plenty of not so clever gamers would, but not many real gamers)
Then, we have what actually classifies as a sequel. Just putting a number '2' or '3' does not really make it a sequel, smoothly leading me into my next field, the Final Fantasy Series. There is debate whether these are actually sequels (or prequels) as I've just said numbering doesnt make a difference. Each FF game has the same RPG'y feel, but all the characters are different, the story is completely different (although I'd hope that is like most good sequels) the battle system changes ever so slightly and the whole world you play in is completely different (again, I'd hope that is like most good sequels). I think they are no sequels because in most typical sequels you will have a main character from the previous game(s). One game that does keep standards high are sequels and prequels to Zelda games, each getting better (and the cel shading doesn't matter!!!)
So what games are good (and bad) example of sequels. As I said before, Turok 2 wasn't as good as it's predecessor. The FF series does get better and better, but as I said, they're not really sequels. Then we have sequels which, unfortunately, are mainly based to make money. And this happened with Pokemon. They weren't even sequels, they were just games with slight changes. A money making scheme with games like Pokemon Pinball ending up as not very good spin offs. Spyro hasn't really suffered from any of the sterotypical problems of sequels. Each games has a vaguely similar layout, but they feel almost original and new. But the worst sequels must be sports games...
There are so many problems on releasing updated sports game, mainly all for the one who buys them. Firstly, newer versions normally play just as good as last years version, give or take a few players and / or events. Some, rather unfortunately, get worse every year, such as the Fifa series which is even worse for the gamer. Only sports sequels released every few years are essentially worth buying. If you really wnat one or two extra players and a nice interface update, then, go ahead, buy the updates. But at the prices they come out at (£50 on N64!!!) its quite risky. The only way to fix this really is using PC's or online consoles to simply download the upgrades (probably for a fee, though, of course)
With my ranting and raving ending soon, I'd better hurry, so ill end soon. My final points are mainly about the huge stereotype (by some) on sequels. Most console specific magazines will say that the latest version of (that consoles) best game is going to be great, so thankfully I read the multi-format mags. Interesting, too. Now some sequels ae genuinely rubbish, and thats where the stereotype probably comes from, but some are actually really good. Take the Gran Turismo series. Numkber 1 was very good for the time, although evetually was outdated. The success of Number 1 maybe everyone very anxious to get their greedy little paws on Number 2. And when they did, they loved it. So when Number 3 came out on PS2 as a main launch title, there was huge hype. Number 3 was a great game. And now Gran Turismo Concept. From what I've read, seen and heard, the graphics are better but the game has been cut down to 50 cars. Now considering Number 2 had hundreds, it would appear that maybe, just maybe, the GT series may fall. And since the hype for it will be big, its gonna be a big fall. A REALLY big fall.
Well, im out of steam, so you're welcome to comment on my attempt at a serious post. Please reply at all :)
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
Mmm. Weird thread name, huh? Well the thread is about sequels (why some are good,bad, why some succeed, fail etc etc). So enjoy.
First of all, why do developers bother with sequels when they can make a brand new game which no-one has ever seen before which will make gaming magazines wag there news hungry tongues. Partly because of the success of the first game. That unfortunately leads to developers thinking the can get lazy quality wise. Wrong. The reason people like the original is basically because of the obvious hard work a developer has put into it. And if the first is a success, developers get a sort of 'ego' which makes them think any releases they make are going to be popular and great. But more often than not, gaming sequels are not as good. They are, in fact, nowhere near as good. Such as Turok 2 (open for debate)
Next, when a developer makes a sequel, do they want to make the first one look worse, or make it look completely different from it's sequel. Now in most cases consumers want the sequels they buy to be completely different from the original, in aspect of levels, characters etc. And sometimes, unfortunately, the developers wants to make a sequel which beats the first one, but has only got things added to it which make it ever so slightly better. Ideally, we would want both, but that is unlikely to happen. So therefore SOMETIMES instead of buying a sequel to a game we will help our craving for originality and buy something completely different, like Rez. This is not what the developer wants, so maybe 'rebelling' against below standard sequels would be good. Then again, I dont know many gamers who would buy a bad sequel (plenty of not so clever gamers would, but not many real gamers)
Then, we have what actually classifies as a sequel. Just putting a number '2' or '3' does not really make it a sequel, smoothly leading me into my next field, the Final Fantasy Series. There is debate whether these are actually sequels (or prequels) as I've just said numbering doesnt make a difference. Each FF game has the same RPG'y feel, but all the characters are different, the story is completely different (although I'd hope that is like most good sequels) the battle system changes ever so slightly and the whole world you play in is completely different (again, I'd hope that is like most good sequels). I think they are no sequels because in most typical sequels you will have a main character from the previous game(s). One game that does keep standards high are sequels and prequels to Zelda games, each getting better (and the cel shading doesn't matter!!!)
So what games are good (and bad) example of sequels. As I said before, Turok 2 wasn't as good as it's predecessor. The FF series does get better and better, but as I said, they're not really sequels. Then we have sequels which, unfortunately, are mainly based to make money. And this happened with Pokemon. They weren't even sequels, they were just games with slight changes. A money making scheme with games like Pokemon Pinball ending up as not very good spin offs. Spyro hasn't really suffered from any of the sterotypical problems of sequels. Each games has a vaguely similar layout, but they feel almost original and new. But the worst sequels must be sports games...
There are so many problems on releasing updated sports game, mainly all for the one who buys them. Firstly, newer versions normally play just as good as last years version, give or take a few players and / or events. Some, rather unfortunately, get worse every year, such as the Fifa series which is even worse for the gamer. Only sports sequels released every few years are essentially worth buying. If you really wnat one or two extra players and a nice interface update, then, go ahead, buy the updates. But at the prices they come out at (£50 on N64!!!) its quite risky. The only way to fix this really is using PC's or online consoles to simply download the upgrades (probably for a fee, though, of course)
With my ranting and raving ending soon, I'd better hurry, so ill end soon. My final points are mainly about the huge stereotype (by some) on sequels. Most console specific magazines will say that the latest version of (that consoles) best game is going to be great, so thankfully I read the multi-format mags. Interesting, too. Now some sequels ae genuinely rubbish, and thats where the stereotype probably comes from, but some are actually really good. Take the Gran Turismo series. Numkber 1 was very good for the time, although evetually was outdated. The success of Number 1 maybe everyone very anxious to get their greedy little paws on Number 2. And when they did, they loved it. So when Number 3 came out on PS2 as a main launch title, there was huge hype. Number 3 was a great game. And now Gran Turismo Concept. From what I've read, seen and heard, the graphics are better but the game has been cut down to 50 cars. Now considering Number 2 had hundreds, it would appear that maybe, just maybe, the GT series may fall. And since the hype for it will be big, its gonna be a big fall. A REALLY big fall.
Well, im out of steam, so you're welcome to comment on my attempt at a serious post. Please reply at all :)
First of all, why do developers bother with sequels when they can make a brand new game which no-one has ever seen before which will make gaming magazines wag there news hungry tongues. Partly because of the success of the first game. That unfortunately leads to developers thinking the can get lazy quality wise. Wrong. The reason people like the original is basically because of the obvious hard work a developer has put into it. And if the first is a success, developers get a sort of 'ego' which makes them think any releases they make are going to be popular and great. But more often than not, gaming sequels are not as good. They are, in fact, nowhere near as good. Such as Turok 2 (open for debate)
Next, when a developer makes a sequel, do they want to make the first one look worse, or make it look completely different from it's sequel. Now in most cases consumers want the sequels they buy to be completely different from the original, in aspect of levels, characters etc. And sometimes, unfortunately, the developers wants to make a sequel which beats the first one, but has only got things added to it which make it ever so slightly better. Ideally, we would want both, but that is unlikely to happen. So therefore SOMETIMES instead of buying a sequel to a game we will help our craving for originality and buy something completely different, like Rez. This is not what the developer wants, so maybe 'rebelling' against below standard sequels would be good. Then again, I dont know many gamers who would buy a bad sequel (plenty of not so clever gamers would, but not many real gamers)
Then, we have what actually classifies as a sequel. Just putting a number '2' or '3' does not really make it a sequel, smoothly leading me into my next field, the Final Fantasy Series. There is debate whether these are actually sequels (or prequels) as I've just said numbering doesnt make a difference. Each FF game has the same RPG'y feel, but all the characters are different, the story is completely different (although I'd hope that is like most good sequels) the battle system changes ever so slightly and the whole world you play in is completely different (again, I'd hope that is like most good sequels). I think they are no sequels because in most typical sequels you will have a main character from the previous game(s). One game that does keep standards high are sequels and prequels to Zelda games, each getting better (and the cel shading doesn't matter!!!)
So what games are good (and bad) example of sequels. As I said before, Turok 2 wasn't as good as it's predecessor. The FF series does get better and better, but as I said, they're not really sequels. Then we have sequels which, unfortunately, are mainly based to make money. And this happened with Pokemon. They weren't even sequels, they were just games with slight changes. A money making scheme with games like Pokemon Pinball ending up as not very good spin offs. Spyro hasn't really suffered from any of the sterotypical problems of sequels. Each games has a vaguely similar layout, but they feel almost original and new. But the worst sequels must be sports games...
There are so many problems on releasing updated sports game, mainly all for the one who buys them. Firstly, newer versions normally play just as good as last years version, give or take a few players and / or events. Some, rather unfortunately, get worse every year, such as the Fifa series which is even worse for the gamer. Only sports sequels released every few years are essentially worth buying. If you really wnat one or two extra players and a nice interface update, then, go ahead, buy the updates. But at the prices they come out at (£50 on N64!!!) its quite risky. The only way to fix this really is using PC's or online consoles to simply download the upgrades (probably for a fee, though, of course)
With my ranting and raving ending soon, I'd better hurry, so ill end soon. My final points are mainly about the huge stereotype (by some) on sequels. Most console specific magazines will say that the latest version of (that consoles) best game is going to be great, so thankfully I read the multi-format mags. Interesting, too. Now some sequels ae genuinely rubbish, and thats where the stereotype probably comes from, but some are actually really good. Take the Gran Turismo series. Numkber 1 was very good for the time, although evetually was outdated. The success of Number 1 maybe everyone very anxious to get their greedy little paws on Number 2. And when they did, they loved it. So when Number 3 came out on PS2 as a main launch title, there was huge hype. Number 3 was a great game. And now Gran Turismo Concept. From what I've read, seen and heard, the graphics are better but the game has been cut down to 50 cars. Now considering Number 2 had hundreds, it would appear that maybe, just maybe, the GT series may fall. And since the hype for it will be big, its gonna be a big fall. A REALLY big fall.
Well, im out of steam, so you're welcome to comment on my attempt at a serious post. Please reply at all :)