The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The trend to sequels in mass media (games/movies)
devoir
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Gaming and movies are two aspects of mass media (I hope I'm using the term correctly) in which there has been a marked increase in the production of sequels. A lot of movies are now setup to be trilogy franchises (at the least), and we are seeing games like Heavenly Sword, Mass Effect and others being touted as potential trilogies.
I'm curious as to whether people think this is a good thing or a bad thing. A few points of potential discussion follow.
Obviously, in regards to movies, having a studio plan sequels tends to mean greater continuity between the first movie and any subsequent productions. Cast are usually contracted for one or more sequels, crew usually get first crack as long as they don't have outstanding issues with the studio, etc.
However, the stories (and this applies to both movies and games) can be ridiculously open ended. There can be a real sense of let down when the story isn't wrapped up just so that there's an easy lead into the next movie/game. Can anyone say Halo 2? What happens if, for whatever reason, a franchise is discontinued? This applies a lot to television shows as well - look at the uproar when Jericho was cancelled. People care about these stories, invest a lot of themselves into these characters and plots.
For games, it tends to mean that assets can be reused especially if the sequels are in the pipeline directly after the previous production. I'm sure that Bioware will benefit greatly from this in terms of reduced costs, time, etc if they are able to get their "3 games in 5 years, all on the 360" plan into gear.
I'm sure I'm missing other potential problems and positives. What do you think?
Edit: Ah, thought of another one. Is it stifling innovation and new ideas? Look at how many big (northern hemisphere) summer movies this year are sequels. I think the first non-sequel was Transformers. Even if it wasn't, it was damn close.
I'm curious as to whether people think this is a good thing or a bad thing. A few points of potential discussion follow.
Obviously, in regards to movies, having a studio plan sequels tends to mean greater continuity between the first movie and any subsequent productions. Cast are usually contracted for one or more sequels, crew usually get first crack as long as they don't have outstanding issues with the studio, etc.
However, the stories (and this applies to both movies and games) can be ridiculously open ended. There can be a real sense of let down when the story isn't wrapped up just so that there's an easy lead into the next movie/game. Can anyone say Halo 2? What happens if, for whatever reason, a franchise is discontinued? This applies a lot to television shows as well - look at the uproar when Jericho was cancelled. People care about these stories, invest a lot of themselves into these characters and plots.
For games, it tends to mean that assets can be reused especially if the sequels are in the pipeline directly after the previous production. I'm sure that Bioware will benefit greatly from this in terms of reduced costs, time, etc if they are able to get their "3 games in 5 years, all on the 360" plan into gear.
I'm sure I'm missing other potential problems and positives. What do you think?
Edit: Ah, thought of another one. Is it stifling innovation and new ideas? Look at how many big (northern hemisphere) summer movies this year are sequels. I think the first non-sequel was Transformers. Even if it wasn't, it was damn close.
devoir on
0
Posts
Games are a little different as the technology can change quite drastically between iterations. Also, people often don't mind getting a very similar product to the first game. Take GTA, for example, I doubt they are going to completely revolutionize the gameplay for GTA 4, but that's not why I'll buy it anyway. I'll buy it because I simply want more of what I had in the previous game with new places to explore.
- A game usually learns from the mistakes of its predecessors. The developers will have had more time to refine the engine, smooth out any bugs. See BG1 > BG2. So many little irritating things were removed from the first game and the gameplay in the second was so much better.
- Consistency and continuity, especially if the trilogy has been pre-planned (i.e. LotR). Compare to movie trilogies where there has been a long gap between the first and second movies, or where a duology has been turned into a trilogy. Apart from the original Star Wars trilogy and LotR, all other trilogies I can think of fail miserably at either the second or third movie.
I don't think the stories have to suffer. I actually think the stories suffer more when the trilogy was never planned from the beginning. Compare LotR/SW above to The Matrix or PotC, for example. Regardless of what others think, my personal opinion is that the second and third movies of both of those trilogies were absolutely abysmal, at least with regards to the story.
Same with games. Was Halo planned from the start as a trilogy? I don't know, but look at BG, which was (or at least had the inklings of having being pre-planned). When a trilogy is planned from the beginning writers seem to be a lot better at coming up with individual stories for each movie/game.
Minuses:
- When the writers haven't really considered how it will all pan out, and the pacing is uneven and the last part feels tacked on.
- When it gives the studio an excuse to rush out a half-finished product.
- When they buy too much into fandom and attempt to give something back to the fans, only it looks tacky/forced.
One example: Psychonauts. Fantastic game! Truly interesting, quirky, cool. Sold like shit and lost the company money.
Another example: Okami. Cloverleaf releases a magnum opus and one of my favorite games of all time. My gf, who is a fine artist, was incredibly impressed by the artwork (and I thought it was rather pretty as well
Last example: Katamari Damacy. Everyone I know who has played it, loves it. The gaming world loved it, reviewers loved it, I loved it. It sold just well enough to get a sequel but was honestly a cup of water compared to the Madden franchise ocean in terms of revenue generated.
Essentially: Vote with your pocketbooks. These companies are out to make money, period. It's like training a dog. Retrain them to make better, more interesting games by buying the good, interesting games they make.
Although... when you look at the Star Wars franchise and what George has managed to do with it...
I guess it's the old saying, each person might be smart, but the crowd is as dumb as horse puckey.
It's easy to say that, but it doesn't really work. If Madden rakes in the money, it does it without any sort of organized effort. An organized effort from gamers will never compete with the Maddenites who buy the game every (or every other) year.
Updated roster and small refinements to a great formula mostly.
I mean, whereas you can't guarantee that a movie remake will have better acting, better directing and better cinematography, you can guarantee that a game will have better graphics, better gameplay and better features. When that's all a person wants from their game, yes, they will buy it. Why not? It's guaranteed; it's not going to be a waste of their money.
Like Gorak said with the GTA series - it's a critically acclaimed but also very, very popular game series and yes, I bought San Andreas and I'll buy the new game, too. Because I'd like another San Andreas, and all Rockstar really have to do is repeat their already-winning formula.
Doesn't mean I can't buy other great games as well, and I do. But there are always going to be great games side-lined, and great indie movies side-lined, because they can't generate the amount of advertising and publicity needed. Unless you're a serious cinema goer or gamer, you're not going to hear about X good movie/game unless it catches your eye in a shop or you're feeling daring and have some cash to spare.
What does it matter if Madden exists? If there is enough money to be made in niche games, then those niche games will be made, perhaps by independent developers or big studios who want to make "prestige" games (the way movie studios fund "prestige" films). They just have to be able to cover costs and make a small profit. They're not competing for the same gamers as EA does so the existence of Madden is irrelevant.
And trust me, if EA sees a profit opportunity, no matter how small, they will try to capitalize on it, perhaps by giving small studios the funds they need to make games like Katamari Damacy and Psychonauts. We would see more games of those types if they were bought more, not at Madden levels, but at levels at which making those games is profitable (which Psychonauts was not, by a significant amount).
I believe that a organized effort from gamers will inspire designers with aspirations beyond ph4t 100tz (in the real world) to make great games while still being able to pay the rent and put their kids through college.
I must admit that I bought Madden 2004. My bro got 2005 and we didn't like it as much. I see no reason to buy any of the new Madden products since they'll be pretty much the same game.
@Janson: I can support series like GTA since they at least tell interesting stories and provide a reason to buy the next game. Since environment plays such a huge role in GTA, having new cities to explore is a huge reason to buy the next game, far more compelling than what Madden provides (Wii madden excepted). Similarly, I can support Halo because the story is interesting (though weird) and for shooters, updated graphics are a big plus (more visual authenticity = better visceral experience).
Though I really do miss the Baldur's Gate series. NWN is just not the same.
Take Blizzard. They have been relying on the same 3 franchises for the past 10 years: Diablo, Starcraft, Warcraft. I'd sure like them to get out of the paradigm and come up with something new.
The trend isn't so bad with movies though.
Movie sequels (well good movie sequels) try to retain elements from the original story (main character, setting, scenario) while changing just enough to make it worth watching again. Examples of good sequels in my mind are the Pirates movies (loved all 3) Die Hard (big fan of the franchise) Dirty Harry had at least 2 decent sequels (Magnum Force and Sudden impact) you could stretch the definition of sequels to cover fist full of dollars, For a few dollars more and the good the bad and the ugly. There is the cameron twins of Aliens and Terminator 2. Those are just off the top of my head.
I think there should be a distinction between movies like LOTR where it is an obvious trilogy and an actual sequel like Bill and teds.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Now, Bioware are pretty good at making unique games. Their last three major games have all been set in very different universes. They hand off their own franchises to others - NWN2 and KotOR2 were not made by them. But it's not as if the fans clamoured for Mass Effect - if they hadn't mentioned Mass Effect but had instead announced KotOR3, just as many people would be excited. They've been driven by their own employees, not by game sales.
Also re. Madden.
I've not played Madden, but say I buy a console and want a sports game. I want the latest Madden, because I've heard it's a reliable series. I don't want to buy a 2 or 3 year old Madden; I want the newest and shiniest.
I'm betting that many people don't buy Madden every year, but every couple of years, or every 3 or 4 years - just when the graphics have made a significant increase in improvement.
pleasepaypreacher.net
My understanding is that the most reliable IPs are movie licenses. Gamers sniff at these, and honestly they're not usually very good from a game point of view, but they sell very well. These are pretty much the only games that my girlfriend will play to completion.
The other good bet is franchise extensions and sequels. And, honestly, there have been some good ones. Mario games, whether you like platformers or not, are incredibly polished. Halo is a great shooter, and its sequels have polished the game nicely. Yes, a lot of franchises eventually become tired - someone needs to put Dynasty Warriors out of its misery at this point, and some would probably say the same about Final Fantasy.
There's some hope for newer franchises with the introduction of the Wii - allowing simplified gameplay, a nontraditional audience for novel concepts, less intensive art requirements. The 360's XBN (I think this is what it's called) is supposed to ease the difficulty of development by quite a bit as well.
First, FF has a definite formula. They are all very good games but they borrow heavily from each other. The job system from FFV (using japanese numbers here, I think) was brought into X-2. The sphere system in X was updated to the grid system in XII. The turn based system hung around, essentially unchanged, until XII (though it's still basically there, just updated).
There are some game series out there that are more like movies, like the .Hack series.
As for movies, I guess your definition of "good" is very different than mine. The Pirates movie franchise, which is based off an amusement park ride, should have died after the first movie. The second two were awful, imho, and basically excuses to sell merchandise. The third was the worst offender; it's way too long and self-important. The entire "mythology" is flimsy and fell apart under the weight of its own idiocy.
The Alien series was good mostly because it didn't try to do too much. It essentially went "if 1 alien is good, lots of aliens are better!" Terminator 1 and 2 were good because of excellent writing, directing, and acting and would stand alone just fine. This is routinely not the case even for planned trilogies and actual sequels. The Matrix movies (planned to be a trilogy) fell apart after the first and really ate crap in the third. Bill and Ted wasn't all that amusing to begin with and died an horrible death after the first.
I think that franchises actually have better possibilities than movies because they can completely change themselves from game to game as technology changes and ideas evolve. The "Sim" franchise has roots with SimCity, but spawned a ton of games like SimEarth and, of course, The Sims. Each has the same basic idea (you're firmly in control of something based roughly on the real world) but has its own unique take on that idea (controlling a city or the entire earth or just an individual/family). The idea of a franchise should be reexamined and not dictated by previous forms of media. It can be far more amorphous and therefore, more interesting.
Btw, I'm really excited to play Spore when it launches. Anyone else?
Games have sequels because a franchise name can carry a game to sales that the game couldn't earn on its own (as evidenced by the talk of gta 4, so far the game has shown very little to the public to get the interest other then the name, hell igns recent preview of the e3 build hoped what they had been shown was old code because it had major issues, yet people have faith the sequel will be good with little proof of it) for the most part a sequel to a game is usually better then the original, updated graphics, better controls, optimized UI etc make for a better game experience. So in the game world a sequel is usually a good thing.
Where as Movies also hope to capitilize on the name recognition of a previous film, sequels usually suck, they are generally rehashes with bad corrolations to previous films and feel like a cash in. I can think of more movies that have terrible sequels then movies that have good ones.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The making trilogies all at once and by design seems relatively new, though. This summer is particularly notable for the prevalence of threequels.
A good portion of Madden fans trade in the old one and buy the new one. I used too, untill they started the Whining Super Star Modes and QB vision.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
EA just published it in Europe.
Anyway, when it comes to games and movies where sequels weren't obviously planned, I find that the more time between sequels, the better.
For instance, Mario 64 came out in 1996, Mario Sunshine came out in 2001, and Mario Galaxy is coming out in 2007.
Half-Life came out in 1998; Half-Life 2 in 2004.
Starcraft came out in 1998; Starcraft 2 will come out in 2008 at the very earliest.
And so on.
By comparison, you have titles like, say, Jak, which has had like 19 games in the past six years.
(Though to be fair, I didn't think the first Jak game was that great, though it was certainly better than the X-TREAM!!!!-ness that followed.
Not to mention in the old studio system a studio deciding that the same pair of actors and their director should make 10 movies together with slightly changed names yet eerily similar plots. Not technically sequels, but they might as well be.
And then become kart racers.
The Dirty Harry movies were quite good. I'm not familiar with the Leone 3, at least by that name. I would liken the Dynasty Warriors series to the Pirates movie franchise. The same concepts are reused and slightly tweaked. For Dynasty Warriors, the formula is: kill tons of weak enemies punctuated by an occasional boss battle from an isometric view with some light RPG elements and cooperative multiplayer. For Pirates, the formula is: supposedly witty banter of people in period clothing punctuated by light story elements of a specific mythology combined with romance elements and occasional gunfights, ship fights, and sword fights. The stories are completely throwaway in both cases and simply serve as the lead-up to complicated fight set-pieces. They are conceptually very similar.
Comparing the FF series to a movie series is, of course, futile since they're different media so not all of the pieces will line up, especially the way you pointed out game series can go. However, you can usually tell a FF game by the presence of some, all, or one of the following:
Limit breaks, job names (red mage, white mage, monk, etc etc), chocobos, moogles, specific sprites or in later games character stylizations, airships, aeons/summons, specific weapons/armor, grid/sphere system, and specific audio themes.
FF created the jrpg archetype to a large extent; it borrowed a bit from games like Dragon Quest but essentially launched the entire genre. Other games are borrowing from the FF series, not the other way around (with the exception of FF taking some cues from the MMORPG genre). That's why it has managed to remain vital and viable even after all this time (I thought FFXII was competent but not amazing, but I'm still pumped for FFXIII).
However, this does not make game franchises/sequels inherently better than movies. I simply think that it is far easier to pump out movie sequels than it is to pump out game sequels. You can easily make a "Wild Things 2" on a limited budget because the technology doesn't really change that much for your standard non-action film. The rom-com genre has remained essentially untouched for years. For games, it's not that easy. You often have to recode for the latest consoles, or if it's a PC/Mac game, then make good enough graphics that people will buy it. This is a lot more complicated than, say, paying a small amount to struggling actors/actresses to crap out something lame.
Oh, I know Katamari is Namco, I'm simply saying that in the larger picture of the gaming economy, it's small fry compared to even the new Harry Potter video game (which I hear is horrible).
I think that the Mario franchise has been blessed with fantastic management. Most of the spin-offs, like Paper Mario and Warioware, have been excellent and well thought out. Franchise management is a huge deal in the gaming industry because franchise have flexibility in the medium that, say, book and movie franchises don't.
I mean, I don't think Lord of the Rings would make an excellent spy thriller or romantic comedy (though I might be wrong). However, it does make excellent RTS, MMORPG, and action-RPG games, all of which appeal to slightly different demographics.
Though to be fair, Mario Kart continues to rock.
Totally, I still play my SNES version. But Crash Bandicoot Racing? Jak XTREME Kart Time? Its like kart racers are the graveyard for washed up video game characters now.
Fox McCloud might now be extinct except for in the hearts of furries, but he's a goddamned hero in Smash Brothers.
Mario Kart 64 is why I still have my N64.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
yeah, i try to ignore all but the best of those genres. Smash Bros is a lot of fun, as is Warioware and Rayman Raving Rabbids. Rayman used to be a series unto itself but happily, the franchise lives on in a completely unforeseen way.