How faithful should sequels remain?

[Machocruz]

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

I'm not a sports fan or fan of sports games. But I am aware of seasonal roster changes, which are probably important to hardcore sports fans. And being that FIFA is based on a real sport and being faithful to that real thing is crucial, there are only so many changes you can make outside of improvements, and I just call those "improvements." But the next Street Fighter doesn't have to be set in a future post-apocalypse and have fatalities to be considered a worthy sequel, which is the mindset of reviewers and other assorted morons.

 

[Servo]

Aha! You just said if Street Fighter was in the future it would SUUUUUUUCK!!

Q.E.D.

 

[Machocruz]

It would suck if the mechanics changed for the worse; some people say SF sucks now anyway. But it wouldn't be more worthy of a high score then a new SF that just added a few tweaks.

I don't believe in change just for the sake of change or bored Zelda fans who played too many Zelda games and now want Zelda in post-apocalypse/cyberpunk/Roman times with guns.

 

[Servo]

I don't believe in change just for the sake of change or bored Zelda fans who played too many Zelda games and now want Zelda in post-apocalypse/cyberpunk/Roman times with guns.

That's actually the opposite of his point. He thinks Zelda sucks now because it is nothing like what it used to be.

 

[Machocruz]

That's actually the opposite of his point.

I know, I wasn't addressing him. I'm addressing the ideas that many have that sequels need significant changes to be worthwhile (they literally ask for post-apocalyptic Zelda. Failure of imagination, that), and that a game should score lower than its predecessor if it doesn't bring significant changes, even though the quality is the same.

That's a roundabout way for me to say that a sequel should be like the first game but with improvements and some new content (new enemies, maybe a couple more abilities, new weapons). Not completely different genres, settings, or mechanics. "Innovation," which I think people obsess over, is not required.

In terms of Zelda, the Aonuma/3D games are sequels to the Aonuma/3D games, not the original. They are completely different breeds in my mind. I would prefer a return to the original, which means quicker arcade combat, gloomy dungeons, mysteries, iconic music instead of ambient music. Not better or worse, just a preference

 

[Servo]

I agree with much that is said here:

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

I've been reading through this, and I think his logic is overly simplified.

Electronic games are... pieces of software designed to fulfill a specific function... Does the number in the game's title confuse you? Ignore it. Think of Virtua Fighter 5 as "Virtua Fighter Ver. 0.2963b" if you find it helps you see its essence more clearly. Because that's all Virtua Fighter 5 is: a slightly more advanced version of the original piece of code.

What he's getting at is that video games are technical, therefore we should only evaluate them from a technical perspective:

1. A sequel to an electronic game remains, by and large, the same exact game as the original.
2. Differences between updates to a game are, by and large, of a technical nature, and can better be appreciated (or, in extreme cases, can only be appreciated) by those who have been following the evolution of the game for an extended length of time.
3. Reviewing these updates boils down to evaluating their differences.

He contrasts this with books, plays, and movies which are/should not be evaluated from a technical perspective. But this is crap. For one thing, plays and movies are largely technical: acting, directing, writing, lighting, special effects, etc. are all technical aspects that are open to criticism. Many of these things are also found in video games. Reviewers review the technical aspects plays and movies just as we do video games.

Therefore Virtua Fighter 5 is not a sequel to Virtua Fighter 4 in the same sense as Pirates of the Caribbean 3 is a sequel to Pirates of the Caribbean 2. This is because the essence of books, plays and movies is in the ideas they contain, and hence a rehash of old ideas should be rightfully trashed, especially if those ideas were not that clever, interesting or worthwhile to begin with. But the essence of the Virtua Fighter games is not in the ideas they contain (in fact they do not contain any ideas whatsoever) but in the experiences they provide.

This might be true if games didn't have stories. Virtual Fighter probably doesn't, but some fighting games do. It seems valid to criticize the story in a video game for the same reason it's valid to criticize the story in a movie.

I still need to read the rest but as of right now the premise seems flawed. More convincing needed.

Edit: After reading this:

Indeed, it would not be too far-fetched to claim that every game which belongs to a clearly-defined genre or sub-genre is effectively a different version of the same game as all other games belonging to the same genre or sub-genre.

It's going to be really hard to believe anything this guy says. He even says (more or less) "I don't know shit about soccer games so all soccer games are the same and should be reviewed that way".

Edit 2: Hold on...

Now, in sharp contrast to the best novels, plays and movies -- that is to say, in sharp contrast to art -- games can almost always be improved.

I'm done.

 

[Roguey]

Can I summarize your argument(s) by saying Fallout 1 kinda sucked, so we shouldn't be so hard on Bethesda for thinking it was less than perfect and changing the formula?

I think Bethesda changed the formula because they paid a lot of money for the Fallout license and they weren't going to make a game not-in-their-usual-style that only hundreds of thousands would buy when they could make one in-their-style that millions could. The quality of the originals didn't matter in their assessment.

It looks to me like the game they created was worse, better, and comparable in some aspects, but not a game that would appeal to most Fallout fans, not that it mattered.

 

[DalekFlay]

I'm all about playing good games. The name on the box doesn't really matter much in the end, as long as the game is good.

That said I certainly understand people have expectations when it says "Thief" on the box.

 

[Machocruz]

Therefore Virtua Fighter 5 is not a sequel to Virtua Fighter 4 in the same sense as Pirates of the Caribbean 3 is a sequel to Pirates of the Caribbean 2. This is because the essence of books, plays and movies is in the ideas they contain, and hence a rehash of old ideas should be rightfully trashed, especially if those ideas were not that clever, interesting or worthwhile to begin with. But the essence of the Virtua Fighter games is not in the ideas they contain (in fact they do not contain any ideas whatsoever) but in the experiences they provide.

This might be true if games didn't have stories. Virtual Fighter probably doesn't, but some fighting games do. It seems valid to criticize the story in a video game for the same reason it's valid to criticize the story in a movie.

Not the same. Story is one of the essential, if not most essential pillars of narrative film-making. Not so for fighting games. If a reviewer were to tell me that lack of or poor story was detrimental to the grade they gave a fighting game, I would take them for a clown, an interactive movie lover. Priorities. A fighting game with 5 star mechanics, and 5 star visuals and sound, but with a 1 star story is still a 5 star fighting game by any measure that counts for the FG audience at large.

Indeed, it would not be too far-fetched to claim that every game which belongs to a clearly-defined genre or sub-genre is effectively a different version of the same game as all other games belonging to the same genre or sub-genre.

This is outside of the realm of sequels, which is the matter I'm concerned with. I agree this is problematic

Now, in sharp contrast to the best novels, plays and movies -- that is to say, in sharp contrast to art -- games can almost always be improved.

ONOUDIDNT! I'm done.

Eh, debatable. One can make the argument that the Godfather could be improved with better filmmaking equipment, better lighting, etc. But this is also outside of my concern about how sequels are rated in reviews.

 

[Servo]

Not the same. Story is one of the essential, if not most essential pillars of narrative film-making. Not so for fighting games. If a reviewer were to tell me that lack of or poor story was detrimental to the grade they gave a fighting game, I would take them for a clown, an interactive movie lover. Priorities. A fighting game with 5 star mechanics, and 5 star visuals and sound, but with a 1 star story is still a 5 star fighting game by any measure that counts for the FG audience at large.

Fighting games usually don't have much of a story, but Virtua Fighter is merely an example. From there he extrapolates that all games should be reviewed based on technical improvements alone. But the argument doesn't apply to anything outside of sports/fighting/casual games.

 

[Infinitron]

Insomnia.ac is an ultrasperg, news at 11. This is the same guy who thinks Deus Ex is the world's only true RPG.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

# Used a turn-based combat system that was well implemented.

Not Fallout. When I have to spend 45 minutes fighting a battle because I have to wait for all the Melcars to shuffle around, it's not "well implemented."

Someone didn't find the combat animation speed slider.

Most of the various combat options are useless (shoot them in the eye if you don't have fast shot, otherwise just shoot them a bunch with standard/burst attacks. More effective than doing pretty much anything else). Not to mention the easy, instantaneous, complete healing through stimpacks, and that the second half of the game, after you get power armor, pretty much boils down to "take 0 damage or get critted and instantly die."

True. It boils down to positioning and eyeshots. The combat isn't lethal/disabling enough and there's broken stuff like healing from inventory and ridiculously fast and easy skill progression.
That's why it's sad that they didn't get to keep GURPS or at least didn't make a combat system that would be somewhat it .

 

[Roguey]

Even at max speed Fallout is too slow when you're dealing with large groups. You need SFall to make them crazy-fast.

I'm sure this issue directly contributed to Arcanum's fast turn-based mode, where there are no enemy walking animations whatsoever, as well as ToEE's group-move.

 

[Bilgefar]

# Used a turn-based combat system that was well implemented.

Not Fallout. When I have to spend 45 minutes fighting a battle because I have to wait for all the Melcars to shuffle around, it's not "well implemented."

Someone didn't find the combat animation speed slider.

Incorrect. I may have exaggerated the amount of time it took, but I always use max combat animation speed and it still takes way too long.

 

[Abelian]

I agree with spectre's detailed list. Basically, when I buy a game that uses an earlier game's name in the title, I want something that reminds me of why I enjoyed the earlier game.

Incidentally, as spectre mentioned the HoMM series, I consider the first three games (or four if you include King's Bounty) as a good example of successful sequels, since each game expanded or improved on the gameplay, number of factions, graphics, music, and plot of its predecessor.

One thing that I would add is to keep retcons to a minimum (such as resolving an earlier overlooked contradiction).

Ideally, every game would be evaluated in a vacuum, but it's hard for people to accept that past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.

For example, in 1983, Yes released their biggest selling album 90125 with a new line-up. 90125 consisted of album-oriented rock/hard rock tunes with lots of catchy riffs and a sleek production. When they went on tour, they had to play some of their old hits, which were in symphonic progressive style, so they didn't fit in with their current sound. If they had changed their band name as originally planned, there wouldn't have been as big of need to live up their legacy.

 

[Invictus]

I tend to look at this from the perspective of the developer and us the consumer.
From the developer prespective they get to make serialized games with overreaching storylines which tie togheter to tell one big adventure broken up in smaller pieces. This would idealy lead to the refinement and polishing up of concepts and game mechanicsn as in direct sequels such as the Baldur's Gate games or continuations rather than direct sequel storylines like in the case of The Elder Scrolls series.
From the consumer perspective you have pretty good expectations on what a sequel from a particular series might be about like in Zelda you know who the protagonists are, the gamestyle and overall lore of the series.
I actualy don't mind much when they sequels stay 85% true to the previous games in a series because I know what I am getting beforehand. When they switch things arround too much for the sake of "innovation" like in the last 2 Ultimas it might complety backfire by alienating the older fans trying to go for a more popular or consumer friendly approach.
Modern publishers know this and sometimes take advantage of that comfort zone (like their yearly sports games) but they have seemed to become even more interested in developing the oh so holy franchise which can spawn sequels with an already established consumer base; the more they cater to those gamers the safer an investment will the game be.
All in all I rather play a series like Stalker, where admitedly there where few drastic changes in the formula but it underwent refinments and pulishing up of core concepts and even their missed attempts like the faction system in Clear Sky lead to the last game in the series beign the best
If the current concept of developing franchises would have been more prevalent in the past perhaps we could have kept a few classic series like Might & Magic or Wizardry alive...

 

[Cadmus]

I don't think there's any need to look at games from the developer's perspective because their goal is different from the consumer's.

I used to think that what makes a good sequel was pretty clear but now it's a bit strange.

Take the Hitman series, because that's imo a great example of how sequels should be done.
Each game has:
A) better or somewhat improved graphics. That's the perfect way to go about it. The art direction remains, the feel and atmosphere of the game remains but the game looks prettier.
B) attempted to streamline the interface (not as in "make easy to use for retards by removing functionality and options") but as in easier to do the same shit you could do in the previous games. That's perfect.
C) used the same formula and improved on it. The thing is that the formula has to be good, but when I'm buying a sequel I'm buying it because I liked the previous game. This is the consumer's point of view, fuck what the developers think about "making it available to a larger audience", I don't care and you don't care either, it's not our problem. Do you go "Oh man I wish they'd stop making Fifa about football and introduced shooting, then I'd certainly start buying it" ???

D) they made lots of quality of life changes and played around with the mechanics in order to improve the game, e.g. the ability to upgrade your weapons in BM, improved the melee combat, etc.

So the answer is that it should be very faithful because the consumer either doesn't care in the first place or wants more and better of the same.

Now there's a problem with longer running franchises. Again, Hitman solved it perfectly: when you're tired of making your great games, run the franchise to the ground by shitting all over it with the last game.
Or you know, make bigger changes that don't fuck up the core gameplay.

Heroes of Might and Magic:
all the first 3 games were exactly the same with gradual improvements in all their aspects until you got to 3. There's very little to improve on in that game to warrant making a sequel, because those previous games take hundreds of hours to play and enjoy and if you're a fan of the game, that's practically all you'll ever need. Now you want something a bit newer, fresh. So yeah, it makes sense to change things and I think Heroes 4 is great, it is controversial but I don't understand what the fans would actually want. Heroes 3 with more UI options and prettier graphics? That's not enough as you've put a thousand hours into the exactly same game over years.

In every game there's plenty to improve and that's what the sequels are for. Improve the graphics, improve the interface, add functionality and options to the gameplay and be very respectful of the (presumably successful) theme of the first game. That's how you get your fans to like the next game. If you've run out of things to improve except for the graphics, then start changing shit around, take a new angle at the similar thing but not when every person who likes your game just wants more of the same, that means there was still room for improvement.