Sequels

[ríomhaire]

So we've got a fancy new site here. Lets try and get some quality discussion going on it to show any new members that we're a highbrow lot. I have been seeing comments online about how there is too much hype for sequels and not for original games (because it totally hasn't always been like that) in the industry.


But that got me thinking. What exactly do we mean by a sequel in a video game? A sequel in films (the medium most often compared to video games it seems) and books a sequel is defined as a continuation of a story. The story is generally the most important part of these media other than in the more "artsy" pieces, but we're talking about the mainstream here (I suppose many people argue that films like Michael Bay's adaptations of Hasbro toys is less about story and more about giant robots punching each other in the face, though I would say that there is far too much of the former and not nearly enough of the latter, but I'm getting rather off the topic at hand now).


But of course, there is another entertainment that is very comparable to video games, though that comparison is seldom made, that invariably have no story other than a slight background as a framing device: Board games. The word sequel is used to describe iterations of these too, though the idea of continuing the story of a board game is pretty laughable. For board games a sequel is about expansion or refinement of the gameplay elements (ludological elements as our friend Mr. Dodds Brindle might say). This definition is very relevant to video games too. Story in games varies from non-existent to the entire point of the enterprise.


So what do we mean when we say sequel in relation to video games? Are we talking about the narrative or the mechanics? Well, it seems we're talking about both. Clearly most game sequels are both a story and gameplay sequel to its predecessor, but not always. Sonic Advance 3 is called a sequel to Sonic Battle because it continues some elements of the story (the robot Emerl/Gemerl who servers as a major gameplay element and final boss in both games) but they are very different genres (Advance being a 2D platformer and Battle being a (mostly) 3D beat-'em-up). Conversely the Final Fantasy games took until X-2 to have a continuation of a previous story but the long list of iterations are still often called sequels to each other due to sharing many gameplay elements and themes (and of course, that they are numbered sequentially, more on that in a minute).


So then why is Amensia: The Dark Decent not generally called a sequel to the Penumbra series? It was made by the same people and the two probably have more similarities in mechanics than Final Fantasies XIII and VII. I think the answer is unfortunately marketing. Why is Bioshock Infinite a sequel to Bioshock despite being set in a different universe? Because it shares themes and mechanics with the original game but, I think, more importantly because the marketers want you to associate the two games and buy the new one based off liking the old one. Now, there's nothing actually wrong with this - I don't mind them sharing a name or making a game with similar themes to the old one - but I think we're allowing publishers and marketing teams to define what a sequel is for us without us actually giving it much thought.


Now back to the original issue: What exactly do people mean when they say they don't want to see so many sequels? I doubt they've thought on the meaning of those words nearly as much as I have just now. So it makes it hard to tell. Perhaps they're not even positive what they mean themselves. Are they sick of the same stories? Of the same gameplay? Of the same names? They generally don't make it clear. I suppose they could just be sick of publishers trying to cash in on previous successes, though that is just in their nature.


I can't help but wonder would these people be contented if these games just had the name, plot and dressing changed and left with the exact same gameplay? Throwing out the previous techniques and mechanics with each project seems a bit mad to me. Refinement is equally as important as innovation I think, it not more so. We don't complain that Hitchcock used similar camera techniques in different films or "Jesus Dickens, not the third person past tense again!"


So in conclusion: Shut the hell up and just enjoy the flashy make fun machines.

 

[Dog--]

Eh to me a game is a game. Whether it's a sequel or not it can be just as good if not better. For example most Mario sequels were WAY better than Mario 1. That's not to say Mario 1 wasn't good, the sequels were awesome though. I don't really focus on whether or not it's a sequel to another game and compare it, because most of the time the sequel ISN'T as good. Take Crysis and Crysis 2 for example. Sequel wasn't nearly as good, but it was still a good game. I judge them for what they are and try not to compare. Except Deus Ex 2. That was just an abomination.

Also Simons Quest was terrible.

 

[Dinnesch]

IMO it's important that the new game is based on the same main concept as the previous one, but has enough new stuff to do. It has to show the developers actually put a comparable amount of effort in making it as in the original.

An example of a game that I really enjoyed on its own but didn't like as a sequel was Fallout: New Vegas. Feature-wise the game is hardly different from Fallout 3, and from my experience 95% of the art assets were recycled. However, they balanced the concept and story a lot more to turn Fallout 3's mess of FPS-with-some-RPG stuff into a proper RPG with guns, and managed to make the players' actions matter in a meaningful way.

Despite the games being awfully addictive(judging from the free weekends) I wouldn't buy the recent Call of Duty sequels because it seems like they sell a map pack and some weapons as a new game.

So well, I'm happy with sequels as long as there's enough new stuff added.

 

[Lobster]

I think a lot of it has to do with hindsight. When a new IP is announced, there is a level of unknown mystery surrounding the quality of the game. It is difficult to say whether you are going to like or dislike a game based on screenshots, videos and optimistic previews, whereas with a sequel, those that disliked aspects of the original, have already made their mind up about the entire franchise. So with each subsequent release, the amount of people hating on it grows and grows.

Usually when a game gets a sequel, the original was successful, and therefore has gained enough fans to justify a new release. They know that some of the original customers won't be wanting a repeat experience, but statistically speaking, enough of them will.

Lots of gamers are fickle by nature, they buy games, play them through once or twice, then immediately focus on the next big release. Repeat experiences lose their edge, and even nostalgic hope in a series returning to its former glory, inevitably falls flat. So there is always a persistent group of customers looking for original releases to spark their excitement again.

As for what classifies a sequel? I think that comes down to each individual developers intended goal. The battlefield series is a good example to use. With Bad Company and 2142, Dice chose to explore different styles and attract alternative customer bases to the series, without alienating fans of Battlefield 2 that wanted a straight up sequel to that game. Much of it has to do with branching into different platforms and genres, without damaging customer loyalty.

 

[Krynn72]

I clicked on agree because I agree.


Except for the part about board games having story lines continue into sequels being laughable. That'd be cool.

 

[Stigmata]

I think people don't want to see so many sequels which have the same gameplay. It's pretty much exactly the same as having a movie sequel with an identical plot, or a book sequel with identical sentences. A rehash is a rehash regardless of medium. Everyone has their own personal standard of rehash, or which levels of repetition in which given aspects of each game constitutes a rehash ("ME3 isn't a rehash because the story is different and x y z" and story is an aspect of gameplay), but the standard is applied in pretty much the same way.

 

[ríomhaire]

I clicked on agree because I agree.


Except for the part about board games having story lines continue into sequels being laughable. That'd be cool.

If that sounds cool to you should definitely read this if you don't already know about Risk Legacy.

 

[Barnz]

For me, a sequel must fix the design flaws of the original game, expand the story, or tell a new story, and have more content, and gameplay. Fallout 2 is a sequel done right. They took the base, and the core mechanics from the original, and expanded it. There are more quests, more locations you can explore, and more characters you can talk to. It's a better game.

Now, let's examine Duke Nukem: Forever, and try to understand why it was poorly received. They've tried to reinvent the game by changing its core mechanics to make it more appealing for the (casual) console audience, and by doing this, they've completely ignored their original fanbase. They took a fast paced shooter, and turned into a game where you need to hide behind a cover, and shoot to survive. The mechanics that made the game special at the first place were replaced.

Duke Nukem wasn't just another Doom clone on the market. It didn't bring anything new to table, but it was done so well that it became an instant classic. Forever is nothing, but a generic shooter. It looks, and plays like every other shooter on the current market.

 

[Edeslash]

I think people take the idea of sequels too seriously. There is no solid definition to a sequel and there shouldn't be. I like your Bioshock example.

Bioshock is said to be a spiritual sequel to System Shock. The two games have a lot in common and Irrational developed SS2 and BS. Why is it not a sequel? I think Irrational made a decision that they don't want player to automatically associate those two games. The major difference between them is the whole concept. Bioshock takes a philosophy and applies it to a massive scale. This is also the reason why Bioshock Infinite is a Bioshock in the first place. The universe or Rapture had objectivism. Bioshock Infinite has American exceptionalism. And as we see, these concepts lead to dystopian civilizations.

When looking at the Bioshock series, we should also look at the ways of storytelling. It's another series-defining aspect, I think. Bioshock did a fantastic job telling the story through the environment. You can clearly see that they put a massive amount of time and effort into it. This time, in Infinite, it's dialogue. Levine has talked about it in dozens of interviews and it's very clear that it's the big thing of storytelling in Infinite.

Another thing that bothers me about gamers' attitude towards sequels is major changes. Protecting your favorite game from the 90s like a white knight is a thing I see often. X-Com and Syndicate are perfect examples. When the sequels were announced to be first person shooters, the internet just exploded into tears. I still fail to see why. There had been no news about RTS sequels. If the genre is different and you don't like it, you don't have to play it. It's not the game you are looking for.

 

[Barnz]

You can clearly see that they put a massive amount of time and effort into it.

No, they didn't.

 

[Hot Soup]

For me sequels are a few things. As mentioned they can be a continuation / improvement on an original concept , in theory to to the betterment of the game. In terms of

What exactly do people mean when they say they don't want to see so many sequels?

It's the implication that original ideas aren't being worked on or produced. It's like the movies , despite how much you want to see a sequel to a good movie , you kind of always want something new to get stuck into!