How faithful should sequels remain?

[Servo]

This thread, and the article in question (non-Kotaku version), has really got me thinking about this topic. In said article, the author laments over the fact that modern Zeldas hardly resembles their namesake. The conclusion is that modern Zeldas suck because they do everything poorly that the originals did well - like exploration, tough combat.

I think it's valid to critique a sequel for straying to far from its heritage. After all, it's the reason (well, one reason) we think Fallout 3 sucks. It claims to be a Fallout game, yet it fails to implement most of its core mechanics - turn-based, challenging combat being foremost. It claims to be a role-playing game, yet it totally botches character stats and skill progression.

What do you think? Should a sequel be judged purely by its own merits, without any regard for prior games in the franchise? Or if Torment: Numenara turns out to be a really good shooter would that be okay?

 

[laclongquan]

Wrong! It's backward

I ignore Fallout 3 because it suck donkey's ass. I can forgive the lack of TB, and challenging combat easily enough. After all I did play FNV. Combat in FNV is easy but people say F3's is easier than that? No thank. And whatever has been said about its quality of dialog and writing sure doesnt help.

The problem you mention is endemic to Western game developers. They run toward to the call of innovashun, so they discard almost everything of yore. The dark side of Innovation is that a lot of new things suck in every way imaginable.

The one who do sequels well is Japanese, Russian and Polish developers. Look at lots of jap games. Look at Witcher series. Look at Patrician series. Look at Silent storm series. Or Space Rangers series.

 

[SCO]

Brand recognition is for lusers

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Should a sequel be judged purely by its own merits, without any regard for prior games in the franchise?

No, never. A sequel is, by definition, a follow-up to a prior work of fiction. Therefore while it should be judged somewhat on its own merits, it is inevitable that it should be compared to its prequel(s). As laclongquan mentions, many developers don't stop to take a look at what has come before. As a result many developers are re-inventing the wheel, with the appropriate self-pats on the back and exclamations of "Eureka!"

Games should strife to be as faithful to their prequels as possible, the most revered and best game-series made did this (at least on the PC, my limited console experience hinders me from speaking of those platforms) but that doesn't mean that there isn't room for improvement.

Fallout has been mentioned, so let's start there. The original has a clumsy interface, a wonderful turn-based combat system, minimal interaction and control with party members, jokes and "shout-outs" (the modern-day term for pop culture references) that fit and compliment the setting, rather than take the piss out of it, and finally an open-ended world and approach to solving the quests thrown at you. Fallout 2, being a "one-year" sequel (developed in roughly the span of a year) is a very faithful sequel, yet it improves a little on the clumsy interface, makes virtually no changes to the turn-based combat system, greatly improves interaction and control over party members... but suffers a little less open-endedness, but in ways that most people don't even notice. As for the jokes and shout-outs... Fallout 2 tries way too hard in both categories, to the point that until Dungeons of Dredmor came along in 2011, Fallout 2 was the game with THE biggest amount of shout-outs, clocking in at around 400 of them. (I'm not sure that Dredmor even beats Fallout 2, but it's the first game in all these years that even has a chance to do so.)

Another example? Star Control. The original was a mix of a Spacewar!-clone fused with a very simple strategy game, and... that was it. The setting and backstory was cool and thought-out, but it all felt like a weak excuse to get those spaceships fighting one another. There was very little there that looked like it could grow into something more. 2 years later Star Control 2 is released. It retained the core element of the Spacewar! combat, but ditched the simple strategy game completely and went in a whole different direction, an open-ended exploration/adventure game with interesting alien species, a riveting plot and some very memorable gaming moments. The shift is so great that it's almost a reboot of the series and not a sequel. And yet the comparisons will be made, which just goes to show that even in the cases of franchise reboots, comparisons will be made to the originals/prequels. As for Star Control 2? It's not just a cult classic, it's one of the best PC games ever made. It dared to do something drastically different, and succeeded. Very few game series can claim the same.

But the other side of the argument is when a game cannot escape from the shadow of its prequel(s) and receive a fair treatment. Again the Star Control series points this out with Star Control 3. Compared to its prequel, the only innovations present there were technical. More realistic graphics, an attempt to make the game appear to be three-dimensional, full voiceovers. Everything else that was changed or added resulted in an inferior game to its prequel, to say the least. Many Star Control fans simply refuse to acknowledge SC3. I can't blame them. But what if you remove Star Control 2 from the equation entirely? Try to look at SC3 as a standalone game? Then it isn't that bad a game. It's a fairly enjoyable space opera, and technically it's a Legend Adventure game, those are above average in general, aren't they? SC3 has its share of memorable moments and can be as funny as SC2 at times. As a stand-alone space opera it probably would have fared better. The same argument applies to Fallout 3, if that had just been a generic post-apocalyptic game, we wouldn't be hating on it as much as we do. But it is, and we are. SC3 would have fallen into that limbo state of 90s games that people really don't seem to care about, instead of being vilified and hated by its fanbase.

 

[laclongquan]

Truth be told i find the Japanese understanding "sequel" better than the Westerners. They are quite flexible, as witnessed the Final Fantasy series where only a few gameplay elements link each game together with the FF franchise. FF prove that continuaty of storylines is not necessary in a series. And maybe not even combat systems, as a few game try the real time approach instead of Phase based. Or in a direct opposite of THAT, the hack and slash Dynasty Warriors series, the turnbased strategy Romance of Three Kingdoms series, with each game adhere pretty tightly to the last in term of story and most of gameplay.

I dont oppose the "innovashun" approach, you understand? That is the way to open new grounds, from the Dwarf Fortress to Unreal World. I just want to attach some caution toward game of that school "gamers beware!" that's all.

 

[Servo]

Brand recognition is for lusers

That's one vote for "every game should be judged on its own merits" I think.

No, never. A sequel is, by definition, a follow-up to a prior work of fiction. Therefore while it should be judged somewhat on its own merits, it is inevitable that it should be compared to its prequel(s).

So a sequel should never be judged purely on its own merits, but it should be a little bit. Huh?

I think what your point is that a sequel should be judged on its own merits but unfortunately it will always be judged in comparison to its prequel because human nature, or something.

This reminds me of a discussion we had about The Witcher games (somewhat) recently. Grunker said some stuff about adaptations sticking to their source material, which is kinda relevant here:

People who accuse anything of "raping the lore" in any derivative works - be it films or games - are idiots. As long as the work can stand on its own, who cares if it aligns 1:1 with its foundation?

Fallout 3 is a shitty game because it is a shitty game, and it has shitty lore because it has shitty lore. Not simply because it twists the lore of the original.

Something "gets" to be whatever it wants to be. Its only "responsibility" to critics and users to the extend that it has any is that it has quality. And quality isn't derived from some adherence to the original work.

Granted the context was different but I'm curious, what'cha think Grunker?

 

[Kane]

A game should stand on its own. That means, the designer(s) have to ask themselves the following questions, that game designers of the past 100,000 years have been asking themselves:

What is my idea?
(Do I actually have an idea?)
Why do I think it's fun?
How can I make a game out of it? (prototyping)

If you start off by saying "I am gonna make a World of Warcraft" or "a Zelda", it doesn't matter if you just increment the version number or call it Hyrul Hyper-Adventures in Space 3000, it will be shit, regardless. Because you didn't make a game.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

No, never. A sequel is, by definition, a follow-up to a prior work of fiction. Therefore while it should be judged somewhat on its own merits, it is inevitable that it should be compared to its prequel(s).

So a sequel should never be judged purely on its own merits, but it should be a little bit. Huh?

I think what your point is that a sequel should be judged on its own merits but unfortunately it will always be judged in comparison to its prequel because human nature, or something.

Looking back I'm kinda confused myself, I wrote that when it was late and I have the flu on top of that. Let me get back to you on what I was trying to say when I'm better.

 

[felipepepe]

Games should stand on their own, but if you're making a sequel/using the brand name, then there should be a reason for that besides easy marketing.

It's a double-edged knife; if you take a franchise that's know for being isometric/turn-based and make it a FPS, then obviously you'll be questioned about it.

 

[laclongquan]

No worry, mate. We Codexers get confused all the time. At least you recognize that.

EDIT: Felipepepe, I still dont get why Codexers rave about Final Fantasy Tactic's turnbased system while sneering at other FF tittles. it's not that good. At least I never get beyond the third map.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

i don't give a flying fuck about faithfulness. all i want is a better game.
of course it's easier to make a better game from an already established good one, so some faithfulness is still implicitly required, but i still piss my pants thinking of the unborn x-com alliance, a mix between x-com and rainbow 6.

 

[Roguey]

I think developers should try to make a good game. While this means they do have to understand the expectations established by previous titles, they have to be willing to re-evaluate mechanics if they've demonstrably failed or caused problems in the past. I think its most important that they keep the spirit of a franchise/series/world alive. If they can do that while improving a mechanic, they should go for it. If changing mechanics radically alters the feeling of the setting and series, the cost has to be weighed very carefully.

Regarding OP "challenging combat", "botches character stats and skill progression", um....

 

[AlexOfSpades]

Quick question: If back in the days, Interplay had the technology and resources to make Fallout a first person exploration/shooter game instead of turn-based, do you think they would have gone for it?

 

[Roguey]

Quick question: If back in the days, Interplay had the technology and resources to make Fallout a first person exploration/shooter game instead of turn-based, do you think they would have gone for it?

They tried their hand at that with games like Stonekeep and Descent to Undermountain and they were terrible.

 

[Servo]

I think developers should try to make a good game. While this means they do have to understand the expectations established by previous titles, they have to be willing to re-evaluate mechanics if they've demonstrably failed or caused problems in the past. I think its most important that they keep the spirit of a franchise/series/world alive. If they can do that while improving a mechanic, they should go for it. If changing mechanics radically alters the feeling of the setting and series, the cost has to be weighed very carefully.

Regarding OP "challenging combat", "botches character stats and skill progression", um....

Who are you quoting Roguey? And what is "um" about the OP?

 

[Machocruz]

A sequel should be judge on its own merits and how it stacks up to its predecessor. More importantly, even if a sequel just tweaks the previous game, it should at least earn the same score as the previous game if it's at least as good. The idea of scoring a sequel lower because it's "bringing nothing new to the table" never made sense to me. That's not judging something on its own merits, and sequels don't have to have drastic changes.

I agree with much that is said here:

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/sequel_the_videogame/

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

so you buy fifa every year because it makes sense to you not bringing anything new to the table.

 

[Behelit]

Batman Arkham City was everything a sequel should be. It kept solid core mechanics intact, with additional refinement and adding onto it. Riddler mini puzzles, new enemy types, additional movesets, etc. A sequel done right is when you're reluctant to replay its predecessor because its missing that extra polish.

 

[Roguey]

Who are you quoting Roguey?

I'm pretty sure I've reached the point where I don't even have to say.

And what is "um" about the OP?

Fallout 3 didn't botch stats and skills any more than its predecessors did. Though I think they should have rethought it from the ground up instead of forcing SPECIAL into a shooter.

Also the previous games weren't challenging.

 

[felipepepe]

Felipepepe, I still dont get why Codexers rave about Final Fantasy Tactic's turnbased system while sneering at other FF tittles. it's not that good. At least I never get beyond the third map.

They like tactical games but don't like jRPGs plots and characters? Even FF X and XII, that are considered to have the best combat in the series, are sneered because of Tidus & Vaan...

FFT game gets better as it goes; you only have a couple of classes and allies at start, but the game has a amazing class system with multi-classing included, and jobs like the Mime and the Calculator that are the joy of any munchkin.

 

[Servo]

Fallout 3 didn't botch stats and skills any more than its predecessors did. Though I think they should have rethought it from the ground up instead of forcing SPECIAL into a shooter.

I have two words to say to that: level scaling.

Also the previous games weren't challenging.

Now I know you're trolling

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

My ideal Fallout sequel would be SPECIAL 2: Arcanum.

 

[deuxhero]

Quick question: If back in the days, Interplay had the technology and resources to make Fallout a first person exploration/shooter game instead of turn-based, do you think they would have gone for it?

Let's see: Pathways Into Darkness, System Shock, Arena, Daggerfall, Ultima Underworld and Ultima Underworld 2 all came out BEFORE Fallout, so...

 

[Roguey]

I have two words to say to that: level scaling.

That has little to do with how they implemented stats and skills. It's a content issue.

Now I know you're trolling

I suppose they're challenging if you accidentally make a bad character through ignorance or even intentionally for a self-imposed challenge.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Quick question: If back in the days, Interplay had the technology and resources to make Fallout a first person exploration/shooter game instead of turn-based, do you think they would have gone for it

Let's see: Pathways Into Darkness, System Shock, Arena, Daggerfall, Ultima Underworld and Ultima Underworld 2 all came out BEFORE Fallout, so...

Yeah, but none of them were "inspired" by a top-down view RPG, were they?

In the case of the Ultima Underworld, it was a case of "returning" to the 3D dungeon views of the first Ultima games, so the intent to go 3D was always there.

I'm not saying that the answer to the question put forth by AlexOfSpades is "No", just pointing out some backstory and (hopefully) context.

Now, I promised a few posters that I'd explain a previous post that seemed conflicting. Now that flu fever isn't screwing with me I can give a coherent answer. I started out with a simple reply to a question, but then I kept writing and eventually realized that the argument is more complex, but I didn't put that into context with my "simple reply". That simple reply still applies to the question, but what's missing is the bridge between that and the argument I later built. Servo put forth a question whether an extremeist perspective should be used when judging sequels. The answer to that, obviously, is no.

What I mean to say is that the other extreme, judging a sequel solely on the basis that it is a sequel is also wrong. People that love Fallout 3 don't do so because it is a sequel to Fallout 2, they do so because it is an atmospheric post-apocalyptic game with a rich lore and background and a fun combat system seemingly tacked on. They also completely ignore the fact that it is a sequel and most of them either refuse to acknowledge the prequels or are incapable of understanding them. Compared as a sequel to Fallout 2, FO3 is a horrible and atrocious abomination in far too many ways. But not even a game like Fallout 3 can be both loved and adored and also a digital eldritch abomination, can it? It has to fall somewhere in the middle. In all likelyhood FO3 is probably just an overhyped, but otherwise average game.