The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Lets start from the start. How do define 'sequel'?
Is it just the games that have a the same name, such as Tomb Raider 2, 3 etc, or does it also include games made my the same team as the original with different characters, locations and story?
I think that there a bigger problem in the games indusrty with the same engine being used to make countless similar games, to be honest. Just because there are new characters, weapons and it's a game that isn't part of a series, doesn't make it at all original, but if you make a sequel to a game it doesn't have to go down these lines. If can be innovative and original, but people will still criticise it for being a sequel. Especially if it's on the Playstation!
Obviously there are a number of poor sequels out there, from companies that are guilty of putting out quite similar games, but I think developers should use the popular name, knowing they'll sell games, to give the public something new.
Is it just the games that have a the same name, such as Tomb Raider 2, 3 etc, or does it also include games made my the same team as the original with different characters, locations and story?
I think that there a bigger problem in the games indusrty with the same engine being used to make countless similar games, to be honest. Just because there are new characters, weapons and it's a game that isn't part of a series, doesn't make it at all original, but if you make a sequel to a game it doesn't have to go down these lines. If can be innovative and original, but people will still criticise it for being a sequel. Especially if it's on the Playstation!
Obviously there are a number of poor sequels out there, from companies that are guilty of putting out quite similar games, but I think developers should use the popular name, knowing they'll sell games, to give the public something new.
Right, a sequel could be any game that follows up from an old series, as you said Tomb Raider 1 & 2 are linked to each other. Some of them base their stories after what happened in the previous game, in the sequel they are able to try new things they couldn't be able to do before hand, but the number of Tomb Raider's and Final Fantasy are crazy, but they need to be carried on because they are 2 very popular series.
Everybody must be concerned with the lack of quality in the Tomb Raider games, but do we expect something new and fresh like Deus Ex to be released every month?
The amount of sequels that fill the release schedule for any machine will contain games that are in a series already, new or old a sequel usually contains well known Characters in them such as Mario and Solid Snake, and they usually are redifined versions of the previous games.
Look out for new sequels on the GameCube such as Perfect Dark 2 but this doesn't matter if the game turns out better than it's predeccessor, just like the hype of Metal Gear Solid 2 now that's a sequel to look out for.
Everybody must be concerned with the lack of quality in the Tomb Raider games, but do we expect something new and fresh like Deus Ex to be released every month?
The amount of sequels that fill the release schedule for any machine will contain games that are in a series already, new or old a sequel usually contains well known Characters in them such as Mario and Solid Snake, and they usually are redifined versions of the previous games.
Look out for new sequels on the GameCube such as Perfect Dark 2 but this doesn't matter if the game turns out better than it's predeccessor, just like the hype of Metal Gear Solid 2 now that's a sequel to look out for.
Hmmm.
Very interesting subject/topic that shouldn't be allowed to leave for a good while yet.
I do believe that the FIFA games aren't strictly sequels, in that they are continuations - they're practically the same game, but with some adjustments - it's like real life: You can't call the 2001/2 Premier League season a sequel of the 2000/1! It's a continuous presence and aspect of our lives, just like the FIFA games by Electronic Arts have become.
Now, the Tomb Raider games maybe said to be sequels of the original, but again they are continuations - a continued storyline, however linear and inexplicably similar the games maybe to each other, they aren't sequels or are they?
Are sequels such a bad thing? How does one define a sequel? Hmm, well basically a sequel should be better than the first. It should contain similar gameplay, but offer a whole lot more in terms of everything than the first game! Crazy Taxi is about to be joined by Crazy Taxi 2, and that is a sequel, but it's going to improve upon the original - just think, the reality of simultaneous 4player action, set in New York, with the ability to pick up more than one person? I'm taking time off for this one!
But hey, it's gonna offer similar graphics, but build upon the strengths of the first game, whilst erradicating the weaknesses - namely the longevity of the 1player experience - shouldn't be a problem if you make use of the dreamcast's four ports!
In a way, the FIFA games do disappoint, in that they are often too similar, just like the tomb raider games, and quite frankly they should be better, but they're decent enough. Except, with better games like ISS Pro (as opposed to FIFA) and Soul Reaver (as opposed to TR), you don't have to get sucked in to corporate franchise!
Never mind, I haven't really got a clue what I mean, maybe you do.
Dan2K1
Very interesting subject/topic that shouldn't be allowed to leave for a good while yet.
I do believe that the FIFA games aren't strictly sequels, in that they are continuations - they're practically the same game, but with some adjustments - it's like real life: You can't call the 2001/2 Premier League season a sequel of the 2000/1! It's a continuous presence and aspect of our lives, just like the FIFA games by Electronic Arts have become.
Now, the Tomb Raider games maybe said to be sequels of the original, but again they are continuations - a continued storyline, however linear and inexplicably similar the games maybe to each other, they aren't sequels or are they?
Are sequels such a bad thing? How does one define a sequel? Hmm, well basically a sequel should be better than the first. It should contain similar gameplay, but offer a whole lot more in terms of everything than the first game! Crazy Taxi is about to be joined by Crazy Taxi 2, and that is a sequel, but it's going to improve upon the original - just think, the reality of simultaneous 4player action, set in New York, with the ability to pick up more than one person? I'm taking time off for this one!
But hey, it's gonna offer similar graphics, but build upon the strengths of the first game, whilst erradicating the weaknesses - namely the longevity of the 1player experience - shouldn't be a problem if you make use of the dreamcast's four ports!
In a way, the FIFA games do disappoint, in that they are often too similar, just like the tomb raider games, and quite frankly they should be better, but they're decent enough. Except, with better games like ISS Pro (as opposed to FIFA) and Soul Reaver (as opposed to TR), you don't have to get sucked in to corporate franchise!
Never mind, I haven't really got a clue what I mean, maybe you do.
Dan2K1
sequels are brilliant, and just think what thye gaming world would be like with out them. What if there was just one tombraider, one fifa, one quake etc ,then thre probably wouldnt be maany games around today. Mostimportantly gaming companies learn from the mistakes on the first games and on the sequel they enhance grphics, the gameplay sometimes gets more enjoyable, but the best of all new modes!
New modes in the game give the gamers something to play with even longer take smckdown 2 for instance it had double the game modes double the popularity compared wit the first one. Perfect dark has the simulants to bnattle but you didnt see that on the previous shooitng/bond games.
So the companies improve the sequel but the modes cant run on forver and games will start getting a little bit to similar to its rival if the modes are virtually the same.
New modes in the game give the gamers something to play with even longer take smckdown 2 for instance it had double the game modes double the popularity compared wit the first one. Perfect dark has the simulants to bnattle but you didnt see that on the previous shooitng/bond games.
So the companies improve the sequel but the modes cant run on forver and games will start getting a little bit to similar to its rival if the modes are virtually the same.
It's getting a bit analogous with films, meka_dragon. There's only so many stories that you can base a film around. Same with games, there's only so many engines that you can base a game around, and so soon we'll be seeing the same characters pop up in more and more games. (Mario/Sonic/Lara/Ford Focus and so on).
The good thing about games is that they are still in their infancy, so we've got better engines and more ideas than ever still to come, more than can ever be fitted into our lifetimes.
So although the same engines are used again and again, they make up the main gameplay of a game, and if you like that style of engine, you'll like those sorts of game because the gameplay appeals.
The good thing about games is that they are still in their infancy, so we've got better engines and more ideas than ever still to come, more than can ever be fitted into our lifetimes.
So although the same engines are used again and again, they make up the main gameplay of a game, and if you like that style of engine, you'll like those sorts of game because the gameplay appeals.
My thoughts on the FIFA series are that EA do not intend for everyone to buy every version of the game that's released. That would be daft. But to simply have an up-to-date version available for those that are in the market for a new game.
EA are milking it just a little bit, but as they have an official license, when people buy the game, they expect to have up to date players on the game.
If FIFA 99 was the newest version available no one would really want to buy it as half of the players would be on the wrong teams, and the wrong teams would be in the wrong leagues.
EA have to have an up to date version available so thatt it is marketable.
Konami don't need to update their ISS game quite so often because 'Gofen' as an example, doesn't play for England, so it will never go out of date.
EA are milking it just a little bit, but as they have an official license, when people buy the game, they expect to have up to date players on the game.
If FIFA 99 was the newest version available no one would really want to buy it as half of the players would be on the wrong teams, and the wrong teams would be in the wrong leagues.
EA have to have an up to date version available so thatt it is marketable.
Konami don't need to update their ISS game quite so often because 'Gofen' as an example, doesn't play for England, so it will never go out of date.
I dont think that MGS2 can be used as an example in this topic. Yes its a sequel, but because its being made for a different platform the whole engine can be re-done brining about a greater gaming experience.
I also dont have a problem with the sequel to Shenmue, as it is continuing a story which coulnt be fitted into one game, so they are carrying it on with a sequel.
What really annoys me is the FIFA type of games. What has improved in these games, apart from the graphics? Can EA really justify releasing a new game avery time a new seaon or major competition comes along?
The Tomb Raider type games are a difficult one, i suppose you could say that they are continuing a story on, to some extent. As they are released on the PC, the hard ware has improved for each installment, so in theory more is possible from the engine, in the same way as MGS2 is a step up from MGS.
What about GT and GT2, released on the same system, with similar graphics, similar engine. So why release a new game? Surely if the original was that good then people wouldnt mind still playing it for a long time. What did the sequel bring?
Thoughts anyone?
I also dont have a problem with the sequel to Shenmue, as it is continuing a story which coulnt be fitted into one game, so they are carrying it on with a sequel.
What really annoys me is the FIFA type of games. What has improved in these games, apart from the graphics? Can EA really justify releasing a new game avery time a new seaon or major competition comes along?
The Tomb Raider type games are a difficult one, i suppose you could say that they are continuing a story on, to some extent. As they are released on the PC, the hard ware has improved for each installment, so in theory more is possible from the engine, in the same way as MGS2 is a step up from MGS.
What about GT and GT2, released on the same system, with similar graphics, similar engine. So why release a new game? Surely if the original was that good then people wouldnt mind still playing it for a long time. What did the sequel bring?
Thoughts anyone?
I dont think theres anything wrong at all with sequels. Maybe if we looked at them like they were games on there own, they'd get the credit some of them deserve!!!
Look at Metal Gear Solid 2 as an example. People are going ga-ga over the demo! It must be a good game then! But if say Konami chose not to do a MGS2 but still put this game out with different characters, would it be quite so popular? It would still be just as good, but it wouldnt already have that name that makes people want it.
Gaming is about fun and adventure. I am always chuffed when I manage to finish a game but am a little bit gutted that my journey has come to an end. A sequel can continue this.
Sequels should excite gamers! The adventure can continue, but it should be bigger and better than ever!!!
I think some people have had the image of sequels ruined for them by games they've never played. Some Nintendo owners for having 5 or so Tomb Raider games, when they havent ever played one themselves. Then they sit at home playing the excellent games on their N64 like Zelda, Mario and Donkey Kong that are all sequels anyway!!!
Don't let a few naff sequels ruin your expectations of what a sequel should be though! They should be a good thing taking the games we love to new levels of gaming superiority!
Look at Metal Gear Solid 2 as an example. People are going ga-ga over the demo! It must be a good game then! But if say Konami chose not to do a MGS2 but still put this game out with different characters, would it be quite so popular? It would still be just as good, but it wouldnt already have that name that makes people want it.
Gaming is about fun and adventure. I am always chuffed when I manage to finish a game but am a little bit gutted that my journey has come to an end. A sequel can continue this.
Sequels should excite gamers! The adventure can continue, but it should be bigger and better than ever!!!
I think some people have had the image of sequels ruined for them by games they've never played. Some Nintendo owners for having 5 or so Tomb Raider games, when they havent ever played one themselves. Then they sit at home playing the excellent games on their N64 like Zelda, Mario and Donkey Kong that are all sequels anyway!!!
Don't let a few naff sequels ruin your expectations of what a sequel should be though! They should be a good thing taking the games we love to new levels of gaming superiority!
Lets start from the start. How do define 'sequel'?
Is it just the games that have a the same name, such as Tomb Raider 2, 3 etc, or does it also include games made my the same team as the original with different characters, locations and story?
I think that there a bigger problem in the games indusrty with the same engine being used to make countless similar games, to be honest. Just because there are new characters, weapons and it's a game that isn't part of a series, doesn't make it at all original, but if you make a sequel to a game it doesn't have to go down these lines. If can be innovative and original, but people will still criticise it for being a sequel. Especially if it's on the Playstation!
Obviously there are a number of poor sequels out there, from companies that are guilty of putting out quite similar games, but I think developers should use the popular name, knowing they'll sell games, to give the public something new.
Is it just the games that have a the same name, such as Tomb Raider 2, 3 etc, or does it also include games made my the same team as the original with different characters, locations and story?
I think that there a bigger problem in the games indusrty with the same engine being used to make countless similar games, to be honest. Just because there are new characters, weapons and it's a game that isn't part of a series, doesn't make it at all original, but if you make a sequel to a game it doesn't have to go down these lines. If can be innovative and original, but people will still criticise it for being a sequel. Especially if it's on the Playstation!
Obviously there are a number of poor sequels out there, from companies that are guilty of putting out quite similar games, but I think developers should use the popular name, knowing they'll sell games, to give the public something new.