The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
A silly question, you might ask, but take the Quake series:
Quake: A game where you play a marine fighting a load of baddies who spawned from the readme file.
Quake 2: After a spectacular intro (one of the best ever in my opinion) you are put in the boots of a DIFFERENT character in a DIFFERENT world. In fact, the only resemblance this has to the original was that it was made by the same people.
Quake 3: Was weird. I didn't get the plot (if any).
But my point is: the only similarity between Q1 and Q2 was their name (and their genre, obviously)! You don’t have film sequels about different scenarios do you? Imagine the outrage if Terminator 2 had featured Woody Allen in a story about love and relationships. It doesn't happen in the film industry, so why does it happen in the gaming world? In contrast, true sequels are often given different names (Alpha Centauri, to name one) these are sequels that have opted not to keep the originals name. Why do people do this? What games have the right to be called a TRUE sequel? Is it a game that expands the story of the first, picking up where it left off? Or is it a game that does the whole thing again, but with better graphics, and more features, etc?
Well, the whole “It doesn't happen in the film industry, so why does it happen in the gaming world” isn’t totally true:
Critters / Highlander - Turned into Sci-Fi
Gremlins / Gremlins 2 - Became a knockabout comedy
Tom and Jerry / Tom and Jerry: The Movie: Teamed the two up together
However, on the Tom and Jerry front, just because they make a truce (i.e. do something unexpected) does not mean this is a counter to my argument. To equate it to Quake / Quake 2, Tom and Jerry: The Movie would feature a different cat and mouse doing sort of the same thing, except in a different surrounding, say, a spaceship, or something. I suppose in the case of the Quake games it would be brand awareness. Quake was already an iconic name in the gaming world, so instead of having to create a new one, they can use the old one, and guarantee better sales. Obviously, the original is named after the big boss baddie. But there is no character called Quake in episodes II or III. Perhaps this is because the plot of the Quake games has always come second to the rest. They did Quake all gothic like because they thought that was cool and because the engine liked brown. They did Quake II in space because they are all just Sci-Fi nuts and needed a place where you could blow a lot of stuff up. Quake III was a load of different styles, just whatever looked good. Each new Quake engine is different from the last and the plots change with them. Perhaps these huge changes are made to help show that the new engine is completely different to the last.
The fact that Quake 1, 2 and 3 are all different "characters" and different scenarios is irrelevant, considering the amount of years between the games, a lot was going to change. Just like Wolf3D - RTCW. The point is you're still shooting stuff. Er…I think that's the point anyway. The Quake series of games was more of a franchise - a brand expansion - than sequels. For a game to be a true sequel, I would expect the same as in movies: recurring characters, storylines, locations etc. This is why Doom 2 was a true sequel to Doom. Compare it to the Outer Limits if you like - just a different story, different setting to make people interested. It's all based on the evolution of technology (ID Soft are hardware geeks you know). Yes, maybe, ID's games are just an excuse to showcase their new technology. So, should everyone scream and shout about sequels when (in the case of the Quake games) the games are completely different in their own right? If Quake 2 was called 'Alien Abyss: Fuzzy Strikes Back' would it be considered a sequel? It's all in the name. Plus, none of the Quake scenarios are particularly brilliant so nobody would want to play in them more than once. I mean, come on. Quake was gothic monsters and such. Quake II was "You're stranded on a hostile alien planet!” Quake III was some weird stuff about some kinds of crazy gods who teleport you into fights and such. None of those are particularly original or clever. Good games though, if not debatable.
The thing is with sequels is that people demand to see the same thing with just a different kind of shine a new innovation. With Quake the plots may have changed but the core of the game was the same, the new technology was the innovation and the change in plot was too provide a new perspective on it, so people can see the innovation.
So, what IS a sequel?
Ryu
Quake: A game where you play a marine fighting a load of baddies who spawned from the readme file.
Quake 2: After a spectacular intro (one of the best ever in my opinion) you are put in the boots of a DIFFERENT character in a DIFFERENT world. In fact, the only resemblance this has to the original was that it was made by the same people.
Quake 3: Was weird. I didn't get the plot (if any).
But my point is: the only similarity between Q1 and Q2 was their name (and their genre, obviously)! You don’t have film sequels about different scenarios do you? Imagine the outrage if Terminator 2 had featured Woody Allen in a story about love and relationships. It doesn't happen in the film industry, so why does it happen in the gaming world? In contrast, true sequels are often given different names (Alpha Centauri, to name one) these are sequels that have opted not to keep the originals name. Why do people do this? What games have the right to be called a TRUE sequel? Is it a game that expands the story of the first, picking up where it left off? Or is it a game that does the whole thing again, but with better graphics, and more features, etc?
Well, the whole “It doesn't happen in the film industry, so why does it happen in the gaming world” isn’t totally true:
Critters / Highlander - Turned into Sci-Fi
Gremlins / Gremlins 2 - Became a knockabout comedy
Tom and Jerry / Tom and Jerry: The Movie: Teamed the two up together
However, on the Tom and Jerry front, just because they make a truce (i.e. do something unexpected) does not mean this is a counter to my argument. To equate it to Quake / Quake 2, Tom and Jerry: The Movie would feature a different cat and mouse doing sort of the same thing, except in a different surrounding, say, a spaceship, or something. I suppose in the case of the Quake games it would be brand awareness. Quake was already an iconic name in the gaming world, so instead of having to create a new one, they can use the old one, and guarantee better sales. Obviously, the original is named after the big boss baddie. But there is no character called Quake in episodes II or III. Perhaps this is because the plot of the Quake games has always come second to the rest. They did Quake all gothic like because they thought that was cool and because the engine liked brown. They did Quake II in space because they are all just Sci-Fi nuts and needed a place where you could blow a lot of stuff up. Quake III was a load of different styles, just whatever looked good. Each new Quake engine is different from the last and the plots change with them. Perhaps these huge changes are made to help show that the new engine is completely different to the last.
The fact that Quake 1, 2 and 3 are all different "characters" and different scenarios is irrelevant, considering the amount of years between the games, a lot was going to change. Just like Wolf3D - RTCW. The point is you're still shooting stuff. Er…I think that's the point anyway. The Quake series of games was more of a franchise - a brand expansion - than sequels. For a game to be a true sequel, I would expect the same as in movies: recurring characters, storylines, locations etc. This is why Doom 2 was a true sequel to Doom. Compare it to the Outer Limits if you like - just a different story, different setting to make people interested. It's all based on the evolution of technology (ID Soft are hardware geeks you know). Yes, maybe, ID's games are just an excuse to showcase their new technology. So, should everyone scream and shout about sequels when (in the case of the Quake games) the games are completely different in their own right? If Quake 2 was called 'Alien Abyss: Fuzzy Strikes Back' would it be considered a sequel? It's all in the name. Plus, none of the Quake scenarios are particularly brilliant so nobody would want to play in them more than once. I mean, come on. Quake was gothic monsters and such. Quake II was "You're stranded on a hostile alien planet!” Quake III was some weird stuff about some kinds of crazy gods who teleport you into fights and such. None of those are particularly original or clever. Good games though, if not debatable.
The thing is with sequels is that people demand to see the same thing with just a different kind of shine a new innovation. With Quake the plots may have changed but the core of the game was the same, the new technology was the innovation and the change in plot was too provide a new perspective on it, so people can see the innovation.
So, what IS a sequel?
Ryu
Page:
Bump. ;)
Ryu Ken wrote:
> However, on the Tom and Jerry front, just because they make a truce
> (i.e. do something unexpected) does not mean this is a counter to my
> argument. To equate it to Quake / Quake 2, Tom and Jerry: The Movie
> would feature a different cat and mouse doing sort of the same thing,
> except in a different surrounding, say, a spaceship, or something.
Not forgetting the change in names! I propose "Ben and Jerry", then it could be a movie about cats, mice, and ICE CREAM in space. Hey, it's a whole new audience, waiting to be accomodated for. ;)
> Obviously, the original is named after the big boss
> baddie. But there is no character called Quake in episodes II or III.
If memory serves there wasn't a character named Quake, in Quake. The creatures were always dubbed "the minions of Quake", but I suspect it was actually the game itself being referred to, rather than a big baddie. Because the leader of them in that game, was Shub Niggurath, or something to that effect. ;)
> Quake III was a load of different styles, just whatever looked good.
You know, to this day I still haven't seen Quake 3, it got lost in limbo shortly after Quake 3 Arena appeared. Haven't been able to find a copy of the no frills single player affair yet. :(
> The thing is with sequels is that people demand to see the same thing
> with just a different kind of shine a new innovation. With Quake the
> plots may have changed but the core of the game was the same, the new
> technology was the innovation and the change in plot was too provide a
> new perspective on it, so people can see the innovation.
>
> So, what IS a sequel?
> Ryu
You have got a point here, I would take it by the word's literal meaning too, which for those not entirely familiar with the terminology is:
Sequel, n. [O.Fr., from L. sequela (sequi, to follow)], that which follows ; result or consequence ; continuation of a story.
By definition, games which do not follow suit, are not sequels but games in their own right inaccurately utilising the same name. The most prominent example of this, at present, would be the Final Fantasy series. True, some of them feature duplicate elements which appeared in earlier games within the series, but aside from that the story and characters differ. Whilst it is excusable for the genre to change between installments, provided the main character is intact (as it is the continuation of that character's story, and the situation they are placed in can be vastly different), the entire format changing does pose the question as to whether it is indeed a sequel or merely a marketing gimmick. As if a game/movie is successful, a second film featuring the same branding, will draw interest from both the existing audience and a larger group via word of mouth.
It's about damn time some interesting topics started being posted again... I was rapidly losing interest after the speight of "Vote for me!" topics, a blatant hypocrisy at best, given the amount of flak users recieve for spamming the forum at any other time.
I'm bumping the topic back up, maybe you'll recieve some more comments, as it seems people have overlooked it due to not recognising you as someone who posts frequently.
Ryu Ken wrote:
> However, on the Tom and Jerry front, just because they make a truce
> (i.e. do something unexpected) does not mean this is a counter to my
> argument. To equate it to Quake / Quake 2, Tom and Jerry: The Movie
> would feature a different cat and mouse doing sort of the same thing,
> except in a different surrounding, say, a spaceship, or something.
Not forgetting the change in names! I propose "Ben and Jerry", then it could be a movie about cats, mice, and ICE CREAM in space. Hey, it's a whole new audience, waiting to be accomodated for. ;)
> Obviously, the original is named after the big boss
> baddie. But there is no character called Quake in episodes II or III.
If memory serves there wasn't a character named Quake, in Quake. The creatures were always dubbed "the minions of Quake", but I suspect it was actually the game itself being referred to, rather than a big baddie. Because the leader of them in that game, was Shub Niggurath, or something to that effect. ;)
> Quake III was a load of different styles, just whatever looked good.
You know, to this day I still haven't seen Quake 3, it got lost in limbo shortly after Quake 3 Arena appeared. Haven't been able to find a copy of the no frills single player affair yet. :(
> The thing is with sequels is that people demand to see the same thing
> with just a different kind of shine a new innovation. With Quake the
> plots may have changed but the core of the game was the same, the new
> technology was the innovation and the change in plot was too provide a
> new perspective on it, so people can see the innovation.
>
> So, what IS a sequel?
> Ryu
You have got a point here, I would take it by the word's literal meaning too, which for those not entirely familiar with the terminology is:
Sequel, n. [O.Fr., from L. sequela (sequi, to follow)], that which follows ; result or consequence ; continuation of a story.
By definition, games which do not follow suit, are not sequels but games in their own right inaccurately utilising the same name. The most prominent example of this, at present, would be the Final Fantasy series. True, some of them feature duplicate elements which appeared in earlier games within the series, but aside from that the story and characters differ. Whilst it is excusable for the genre to change between installments, provided the main character is intact (as it is the continuation of that character's story, and the situation they are placed in can be vastly different), the entire format changing does pose the question as to whether it is indeed a sequel or merely a marketing gimmick. As if a game/movie is successful, a second film featuring the same branding, will draw interest from both the existing audience and a larger group via word of mouth.
It's about damn time some interesting topics started being posted again... I was rapidly losing interest after the speight of "Vote for me!" topics, a blatant hypocrisy at best, given the amount of flak users recieve for spamming the forum at any other time.
I'm bumping the topic back up, maybe you'll recieve some more comments, as it seems people have overlooked it due to not recognising you as someone who posts frequently.
the same company that made the original?
What makes a sequel...?somthing before it...?
A silly question, you might ask, but take the Quake series:
Quake: A game where you play a marine fighting a load of baddies who spawned from the readme file.
Quake 2: After a spectacular intro (one of the best ever in my opinion) you are put in the boots of a DIFFERENT character in a DIFFERENT world. In fact, the only resemblance this has to the original was that it was made by the same people.
Quake 3: Was weird. I didn't get the plot (if any).
But my point is: the only similarity between Q1 and Q2 was their name (and their genre, obviously)! You don’t have film sequels about different scenarios do you? Imagine the outrage if Terminator 2 had featured Woody Allen in a story about love and relationships. It doesn't happen in the film industry, so why does it happen in the gaming world? In contrast, true sequels are often given different names (Alpha Centauri, to name one) these are sequels that have opted not to keep the originals name. Why do people do this? What games have the right to be called a TRUE sequel? Is it a game that expands the story of the first, picking up where it left off? Or is it a game that does the whole thing again, but with better graphics, and more features, etc?
Well, the whole “It doesn't happen in the film industry, so why does it happen in the gaming world” isn’t totally true:
Critters / Highlander - Turned into Sci-Fi
Gremlins / Gremlins 2 - Became a knockabout comedy
Tom and Jerry / Tom and Jerry: The Movie: Teamed the two up together
However, on the Tom and Jerry front, just because they make a truce (i.e. do something unexpected) does not mean this is a counter to my argument. To equate it to Quake / Quake 2, Tom and Jerry: The Movie would feature a different cat and mouse doing sort of the same thing, except in a different surrounding, say, a spaceship, or something. I suppose in the case of the Quake games it would be brand awareness. Quake was already an iconic name in the gaming world, so instead of having to create a new one, they can use the old one, and guarantee better sales. Obviously, the original is named after the big boss baddie. But there is no character called Quake in episodes II or III. Perhaps this is because the plot of the Quake games has always come second to the rest. They did Quake all gothic like because they thought that was cool and because the engine liked brown. They did Quake II in space because they are all just Sci-Fi nuts and needed a place where you could blow a lot of stuff up. Quake III was a load of different styles, just whatever looked good. Each new Quake engine is different from the last and the plots change with them. Perhaps these huge changes are made to help show that the new engine is completely different to the last.
The fact that Quake 1, 2 and 3 are all different "characters" and different scenarios is irrelevant, considering the amount of years between the games, a lot was going to change. Just like Wolf3D - RTCW. The point is you're still shooting stuff. Er…I think that's the point anyway. The Quake series of games was more of a franchise - a brand expansion - than sequels. For a game to be a true sequel, I would expect the same as in movies: recurring characters, storylines, locations etc. This is why Doom 2 was a true sequel to Doom. Compare it to the Outer Limits if you like - just a different story, different setting to make people interested. It's all based on the evolution of technology (ID Soft are hardware geeks you know). Yes, maybe, ID's games are just an excuse to showcase their new technology. So, should everyone scream and shout about sequels when (in the case of the Quake games) the games are completely different in their own right? If Quake 2 was called 'Alien Abyss: Fuzzy Strikes Back' would it be considered a sequel? It's all in the name. Plus, none of the Quake scenarios are particularly brilliant so nobody would want to play in them more than once. I mean, come on. Quake was gothic monsters and such. Quake II was "You're stranded on a hostile alien planet!” Quake III was some weird stuff about some kinds of crazy gods who teleport you into fights and such. None of those are particularly original or clever. Good games though, if not debatable.
The thing is with sequels is that people demand to see the same thing with just a different kind of shine a new innovation. With Quake the plots may have changed but the core of the game was the same, the new technology was the innovation and the change in plot was too provide a new perspective on it, so people can see the innovation.
So, what IS a sequel?
Ryu
Quake: A game where you play a marine fighting a load of baddies who spawned from the readme file.
Quake 2: After a spectacular intro (one of the best ever in my opinion) you are put in the boots of a DIFFERENT character in a DIFFERENT world. In fact, the only resemblance this has to the original was that it was made by the same people.
Quake 3: Was weird. I didn't get the plot (if any).
But my point is: the only similarity between Q1 and Q2 was their name (and their genre, obviously)! You don’t have film sequels about different scenarios do you? Imagine the outrage if Terminator 2 had featured Woody Allen in a story about love and relationships. It doesn't happen in the film industry, so why does it happen in the gaming world? In contrast, true sequels are often given different names (Alpha Centauri, to name one) these are sequels that have opted not to keep the originals name. Why do people do this? What games have the right to be called a TRUE sequel? Is it a game that expands the story of the first, picking up where it left off? Or is it a game that does the whole thing again, but with better graphics, and more features, etc?
Well, the whole “It doesn't happen in the film industry, so why does it happen in the gaming world” isn’t totally true:
Critters / Highlander - Turned into Sci-Fi
Gremlins / Gremlins 2 - Became a knockabout comedy
Tom and Jerry / Tom and Jerry: The Movie: Teamed the two up together
However, on the Tom and Jerry front, just because they make a truce (i.e. do something unexpected) does not mean this is a counter to my argument. To equate it to Quake / Quake 2, Tom and Jerry: The Movie would feature a different cat and mouse doing sort of the same thing, except in a different surrounding, say, a spaceship, or something. I suppose in the case of the Quake games it would be brand awareness. Quake was already an iconic name in the gaming world, so instead of having to create a new one, they can use the old one, and guarantee better sales. Obviously, the original is named after the big boss baddie. But there is no character called Quake in episodes II or III. Perhaps this is because the plot of the Quake games has always come second to the rest. They did Quake all gothic like because they thought that was cool and because the engine liked brown. They did Quake II in space because they are all just Sci-Fi nuts and needed a place where you could blow a lot of stuff up. Quake III was a load of different styles, just whatever looked good. Each new Quake engine is different from the last and the plots change with them. Perhaps these huge changes are made to help show that the new engine is completely different to the last.
The fact that Quake 1, 2 and 3 are all different "characters" and different scenarios is irrelevant, considering the amount of years between the games, a lot was going to change. Just like Wolf3D - RTCW. The point is you're still shooting stuff. Er…I think that's the point anyway. The Quake series of games was more of a franchise - a brand expansion - than sequels. For a game to be a true sequel, I would expect the same as in movies: recurring characters, storylines, locations etc. This is why Doom 2 was a true sequel to Doom. Compare it to the Outer Limits if you like - just a different story, different setting to make people interested. It's all based on the evolution of technology (ID Soft are hardware geeks you know). Yes, maybe, ID's games are just an excuse to showcase their new technology. So, should everyone scream and shout about sequels when (in the case of the Quake games) the games are completely different in their own right? If Quake 2 was called 'Alien Abyss: Fuzzy Strikes Back' would it be considered a sequel? It's all in the name. Plus, none of the Quake scenarios are particularly brilliant so nobody would want to play in them more than once. I mean, come on. Quake was gothic monsters and such. Quake II was "You're stranded on a hostile alien planet!” Quake III was some weird stuff about some kinds of crazy gods who teleport you into fights and such. None of those are particularly original or clever. Good games though, if not debatable.
The thing is with sequels is that people demand to see the same thing with just a different kind of shine a new innovation. With Quake the plots may have changed but the core of the game was the same, the new technology was the innovation and the change in plot was too provide a new perspective on it, so people can see the innovation.
So, what IS a sequel?
Ryu
Page: