As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Genres and Sequels - They aren't a BAD thing, are they?

HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
edited April 2009 in Games and Technology
The last few years in gaming have shown me something of an increasing... well, I was going type out "problem," but I'm not sure if it is one (because there's always the chance that I'm the crazy one here). I've made an observation, how's that? And here it is in its simplest form:

The concept of genres and sequels are either coming to a point of being lost on 'gamers,' OR the concepts are no longer acceptable.

I've been on this forum for six years. This recent console gen has generated way more animosity and negativity for the industry. A lot of us have generated these sort of unfair demands of developers. Now, a lot of it I guess can be summed up as people being frustrated in originality being scarce. I'm not going to argue against that, I know it; I've come to accept that presentation should take precedence over expectations of originality (an example is that I like Blizzard's take on marines vs. bugs over Hollywood's).

So I see things like people being upset that companies are making a sequel to some game series and are sticking to the guidelines and genre of that series. And this is what makes me think, "Really? Really?" Is this not the standard? Is this not what is expected? Mario games involve jumping on Goombas and collecting a powerup or two along with coins. If the next Mario follows that general standard, what exactly is the problem? Or take Halo. Three games in a row, all FPS. I could never understand someone getting upset at Halo 2 for being like Halo 1 in genre.

I see these kind of arguments being made on this forum and several others. In the thread for Blizzard's acquisition of the Redneck Rampage series, someone referred to Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 as "the same old shit with new coats of paint." Well, yes. Should they not be? Should the be a radically different concept or story, or kind of gameplay? I don't think I'd be prepared to see Starcraft suddenly become a platformer series.

Sequels generally come along with updates here and there to their predecessors, or some new focus powerup (Sonic Unleashed) or item (Zelda games). If you liked the previous iteration, and don't like the next because it didn't differ enough, is the problem really with the game or your understanding of sequels and genres?

I'm not gonna accuse people of having shitty opinions. I think what we base our opinions on needs work though.

Am I just crazy? Am I the outsider that isn't following this trend of, "sequels suck, give us something totally radically different"? I like Zelda games because they generally follow the same style of play and design. I like the original Castlevania games because platformers are fun for me like that, and I got enough. I dunno. Maybe my expectations and standards are lower. Then again, I do have my oddball issues (the recent Zelda game announcement, I'm sick of Final Fantasy, for a couple).

I suppose I'm just ranting to or at the forum. But really I think this is something we can all investigate. As long as we don't rip each others' heads off.

Henroid on
«1

Posts

  • Options
    DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Sequels allow developers to build on proven successes, which, obviously, is less risky than having to try new properties. The best sequels always fix some of the problems their predecessors had, while also adding new innovations they lacked. And some franchises are even considered to not have really hit their stride until their second or third game.

    DarkPrimus on
  • Options
    Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Well, these forums consist of folks who are rabid gaming fans. You are likely to get the most extreme of opinions and the most jaded of attitudes. While I wouldn't say that there are NO average or casual gamers among the Penny Arcade forums, I'd say that the percentage is lower than in the general population (even among the specific population of console/PC owners capable of gaming). There are many folks who are seeking "more of the same", but around here, the population is more likely to say "give us something new!" And the "more of the same" crowd clearly drives the games industry, in both sales and popularity of franchises.

    Hahnsoo1 on
    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • Options
    SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I'd say there's more outcry about new sequels that don't follow the genre of the previous game, Fallout 3 and Halo wars come to mind, but Bioshock to a lesser extent too

    Spoit on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    anoffdayanoffday To be changed whenever Anoffday gets around to it. Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Spoit wrote: »
    I'd say there's more outcry about new sequels that don't follow the genre of the previous game, Fallout 3 and Halo wars come to mind, but Bioshock to a lesser extent too
    They can't win, though. If a sequel takes a new direction then half the people are mad they changed it. If the sequel stays the same style as the previous game, then half the people complain that it's not innovative.

    As far as I'm concerned all that matters is if it's fun.

    anoffday on
    Steam: offday
  • Options
    CoopraCoopra Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    What outcry about Bioshock? Have I missed something major recently?

    Coopra on
  • Options
    SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Coopra wrote: »
    What outcry about Bioshock? Have I missed something major recently?

    Nothing like the stupidity of of NMA, but there were a couple people here and there who wished it were more like Splinter shock 2

    Spoit on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    anoffdayanoffday To be changed whenever Anoffday gets around to it. Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Spoit wrote: »
    Coopra wrote: »
    What outcry about Bioshock? Have I missed something major recently?

    Nothing like the stupidity of of NMA, but there were a couple people here and there who wished it were more like Splinter shock 2
    System Shock?

    anoffday on
    Steam: offday
  • Options
    ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    If you ask me, genres and sequels are a bad thing. They bottleneck creativity (which is why it's much easier to pump out an uninspired sequel than to launch a new IP). Even genre-mixing games seem to adopt the standard tropes when they should be exploring the unique opportunities each genre presents.

    "Sequelitis" is part of the problem we're facing: a severe lack of creativity and risk-takers.

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • Options
    CoopraCoopra Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    It's foolish though to pretend that this "Sequelitis" is a recent trend. Even as far back as Donkey Kong at the arcade there were countless ripoffs of that same game with altered sprites. People have always loved familiarity and mostly gravitate towards concepts they already understand.

    Coopra on
  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    If you ask me, genres and sequels are a bad thing. They bottleneck creativity (which is why it's much easier to pump out an uninspired sequel than to launch a new IP). Even genre-mixing games seem to adopt the standard tropes when they should be exploring the unique opportunities each genre presents.

    "Sequelitis" is part of the problem we're facing: a severe lack of creativity and risk-takers.

    But what would you propose when every single new IP possibility is persued by developers? The industry just stop?

    Henroid on
  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Coopra wrote: »
    It's foolish though to pretend that this "Sequelitis" is a recent trend. Even as far back as Donkey Kong at the arcade there were countless ripoffs of that same game with altered sprites. People have always loved familiarity and mostly gravitate towards concepts they already understand.

    It's not a recent trend. The trend I see is people getting more frustrated at it, and this last console gen has generated more of it than previous years.

    Henroid on
  • Options
    CoopraCoopra Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    That's probably because playing video games has gotten way more mainstream in recent years, along with the fact the internet makes it easier for a disgruntled consumer's voice to be heard.

    Coopra on
  • Options
    DrakeDrake Edgelord Trash Below the ecliptic plane.Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I don't understand the constant demand for "new" that goes on either. What I want is a solid game. Something with a well designed system of rules and setting that creates a "classic" experience. I guess this is one of the reasons that I find myself playing more wargames these days, or well established FPS that seek to refine their experience. I'm less impressed with graphics and flashy technology these days. That sort of chrome can greatly enhance an experience as well as good background fluff, but what it all comes down to for me these days is the desire to spend my limited gaming time on a satisfying experience.

    I've found that many of the games that I have spent a great deal of time on are games like Korsun Pocket (a great refinement of the Decisive battles series in one of the most dramatic theaters of battle in history), TacOps 4, Harpoon Commanders Edition, iD shooters, Valve shooters etc. These are games, that in my opinion, have hit a level of refinement that makes them special. They deliver great gameplay with themes that I find attractive for various reasons. I value that much more than new gimmicks.

    Drake on
  • Options
    SkutSkutSkutSkut Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Nothing wrong with sequels, what if a new series comes out and it's popular enough to warrant sequels, then by the time we have the 3rd you have people abloo blooing about the series sucking and not being innovative or new anymore.

    SkutSkut on
  • Options
    SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    anoffday wrote: »
    Spoit wrote: »
    Coopra wrote: »
    What outcry about Bioshock? Have I missed something major recently?

    Nothing like the stupidity of of NMA, but there were a couple people here and there who wished it were more like Splinter shock 2
    System Shock?

    Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking about:oops:

    Spoit on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    CoopraCoopra Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Spoit wrote: »
    anoffday wrote: »
    Spoit wrote: »
    Coopra wrote: »
    What outcry about Bioshock? Have I missed something major recently?

    Nothing like the stupidity of of NMA, but there were a couple people here and there who wished it were more like Splinter shock 2
    System Shock?

    Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking about:oops:

    It is my assumption that you were thinking about Tom Clancy's: Splinter Cell or one of its many sequels. This is an acceptable mistake.

    Coopra on
  • Options
    MiserableMirthMiserableMirth Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I don't care really. If I enjoy the game's formula, then I will buy it. That said, the sequels I enjoy the most are the ones that try new shit. Majora's Mask, Mario Galaxy, and RE4 come to mind.

    MiserableMirth on
  • Options
    mntorankusumntorankusu I'm not sure how to use this thing.... Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Practically all of my favorite games are sequels of some sort.

    A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask
    Super Mario Bros 3, Super Mario World, Super Mario 64
    Mother 2, 3
    Metal Gear Solid, 2, 3,
    Shadow of the Colossus (kind of)
    Mega Man 2, 3, X...
    Final Fantasy VI, VIII, VIII, IX, X...

    I love sequels.

    mntorankusu on
  • Options
    LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    If you ask me, genres and sequels are a bad thing. They bottleneck creativity (which is why it's much easier to pump out an uninspired sequel than to launch a new IP). Even genre-mixing games seem to adopt the standard tropes when they should be exploring the unique opportunities each genre presents.

    "Sequelitis" is part of the problem we're facing: a severe lack of creativity and risk-takers.

    How exactly is there less creativity and risk-taking now than during previous videogame eras?

    Lawndart on
  • Options
    SirUltimosSirUltimos Don't talk, Rusty. Just paint. Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    If the sequel is a good game, why does it matter if another game came before it? As long as the new game is good, I couldn't care less whether or not it's a sequel.

    SirUltimos on
  • Options
    DrakeDrake Edgelord Trash Below the ecliptic plane.Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    SirUltimos wrote: »
    If the sequel is a good game, why does it matter if another game came before it? As long as the new game is good, I couldn't care less whether or not it's a sequel.

    And I'll suggest that a non-shovelware sequel that is a refinement of its predecessor usually stands a better chance of being a good game than a new IP.

    Drake on
  • Options
    EvilBadmanEvilBadman DO NOT TRUST THIS MAN Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Drake wrote: »
    SirUltimos wrote: »
    If the sequel is a good game, why does it matter if another game came before it? As long as the new game is good, I couldn't care less whether or not it's a sequel.

    And I'll suggest that a non-shovelware sequel that is a refinement of its predecessor usually stands a better chance of being a good game than a new IP.

    This is a fundamental flaw ruining movies and now games. New IPs are gambles, while sequels to proven blockbusters are no-brainers.

    EvilBadman on
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    I should note that Badman is fucking awesome
    XBL- Evil Badman; Steam- EvilBadman; Twitter - EvilBadman
  • Options
    ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    If you ask me, genres and sequels are a bad thing. They bottleneck creativity (which is why it's much easier to pump out an uninspired sequel than to launch a new IP). Even genre-mixing games seem to adopt the standard tropes when they should be exploring the unique opportunities each genre presents.

    "Sequelitis" is part of the problem we're facing: a severe lack of creativity and risk-takers.

    But what would you propose when every single new IP possibility is persued by developers? The industry just stop?

    In what, 4,000 years? Books have been around for God knows how long, and people are still writing them.

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • Options
    randombattlerandombattle Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    EvilBadman wrote: »
    Drake wrote: »
    SirUltimos wrote: »
    If the sequel is a good game, why does it matter if another game came before it? As long as the new game is good, I couldn't care less whether or not it's a sequel.

    And I'll suggest that a non-shovelware sequel that is a refinement of its predecessor usually stands a better chance of being a good game than a new IP.

    This is a fundamental flaw ruining movies and now games. New IPs are gambles, while sequels to proven blockbusters are no-brainers.
    Ah but a sequel doesn't have to be exactly the same. Look at things like Resident Evil 4. Totally changed everything while still being a sequel.

    randombattle on
    itsstupidbutidontcare2.gif
    I never asked for this!
  • Options
    ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Lawndart wrote: »
    If you ask me, genres and sequels are a bad thing. They bottleneck creativity (which is why it's much easier to pump out an uninspired sequel than to launch a new IP). Even genre-mixing games seem to adopt the standard tropes when they should be exploring the unique opportunities each genre presents.

    "Sequelitis" is part of the problem we're facing: a severe lack of creativity and risk-takers.

    How exactly is there less creativity and risk-taking now than during previous videogame eras?

    I don't remember stating there was, but if I did I take it back. We're probably seeing more creativity in games now than ever before, but 90% of what we see is still contrived garbage, and the other 10% is split between genuinely original games and sequels.

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • Options
    EvilBadmanEvilBadman DO NOT TRUST THIS MAN Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    EvilBadman wrote: »
    Drake wrote: »
    SirUltimos wrote: »
    If the sequel is a good game, why does it matter if another game came before it? As long as the new game is good, I couldn't care less whether or not it's a sequel.

    And I'll suggest that a non-shovelware sequel that is a refinement of its predecessor usually stands a better chance of being a good game than a new IP.

    This is a fundamental flaw ruining movies and now games. New IPs are gambles, while sequels to proven blockbusters are no-brainers.
    Ah but a sequel doesn't have to be exactly the same. Look at things like Resident Evil 4. Totally changed everything while still being a sequel.

    I will concede my point in the face of some examples, Resident Evil 4 for sure. But I would like to mention that a lot of sequels are "more of the same" instead of "changing series defining gameplay."

    EvilBadman on
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    I should note that Badman is fucking awesome
    XBL- Evil Badman; Steam- EvilBadman; Twitter - EvilBadman
  • Options
    ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    EvilBadman wrote: »
    EvilBadman wrote: »
    Drake wrote: »
    SirUltimos wrote: »
    If the sequel is a good game, why does it matter if another game came before it? As long as the new game is good, I couldn't care less whether or not it's a sequel.

    And I'll suggest that a non-shovelware sequel that is a refinement of its predecessor usually stands a better chance of being a good game than a new IP.

    This is a fundamental flaw ruining movies and now games. New IPs are gambles, while sequels to proven blockbusters are no-brainers.
    Ah but a sequel doesn't have to be exactly the same. Look at things like Resident Evil 4. Totally changed everything while still being a sequel.

    I will concede my point in the face of some examples, Resident Evil 4 for sure. But I would like to mention that a lot of sequels are "more of the same" instead of "changing series defining gameplay."

    See: Halo. Good series, but by the time I got to Halo 3...just didn't care that much.

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • Options
    SkutSkutSkutSkut Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    We're just getting more sequels faster, RE1 and RE2 are pretty much the same game, just like Gears and Gears 2 are pretty much the same. Minor improvements then major changes.

    SkutSkut on
  • Options
    RoyceSraphimRoyceSraphim Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    What is that saying, "The artist knows he has finished, not when he knows he has nothing more to add, but when he has nothing more to take away."

    A game sequel should be the original refined and added on with what has been developed lately and become standard. That was the biggest complaint about RE5 was that it didn't add anything newly accepted in the medium and didn't repair anything remaining from from the previous iteration.

    Sequels are also necessary to ensure the same joy on newer hardware. The majority of new hardware titles are sequels to pull old gamers into the new era.

    RoyceSraphim on
  • Options
    DrakeDrake Edgelord Trash Below the ecliptic plane.Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    EvilBadman wrote: »
    Drake wrote: »
    SirUltimos wrote: »
    If the sequel is a good game, why does it matter if another game came before it? As long as the new game is good, I couldn't care less whether or not it's a sequel.

    And I'll suggest that a non-shovelware sequel that is a refinement of its predecessor usually stands a better chance of being a good game than a new IP.

    This is a fundamental flaw ruining movies and now games. New IPs are gambles, while sequels to proven blockbusters are no-brainers.

    Games are not movies. Film is passive entertainment. Gaming is an activity that should engage active thought processes. The line between gaming and films have become blurred because new technology has allowed games to get fluffed and chromed up to become more effective forms of wish fulfillment. That's why the argument about good and bad stories in games is largely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Does Go or Chess have a story? How about Poker? Yet people will still be playing these games long after this generation of consoles have been abandoned as last years junk.

    I think a big part of this is that things that have always been considered ancillary in gaming have taken center stage lately. I think lots of people don't want games. They want interactive TV.

    Drake on
  • Options
    SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    What about how the majority of new IPs are planned as trilogies nowadays, which is great when they take off and are popular enough to support more games, like Mass effect, but what about if they aren't, say like Mirrors edge, or *cough*too human*

    Spoit on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    In my mind, there are three very broad categories of sequels. Some games can fall under the heading of multiple types. They are not mutually exclusive of each other.


    Type 1: The Story Sequel -- The developers create a sequel to a game in order to progress the story of the world and/or its characters.

    Type 2: The Technology Sequel -- A sequel in which the game pushes technology forward. Generally speaking, there is a large amount of time between technology sequels.

    Type 3: The Cash Cow Sequel -- A sequel created purely for the sake of cashing in on a successful franchise. Profit is the number 1 goal of this type.


    Now for some examples:

    Type 1: The Gears of War games. Both games are released on the 360, both have an almost identical game engine, with slight modifications and tweaks made to GoW2. The main purpose of this game series is to continue the story of Marcus and Dom and humanity's struggle against the Locusts.

    Type 2: Half-Life. There is a large span of time between HL1 and HL2. One of Valve's primary goals with the source engine of Half-Life 2 was to push game technology forward. With advanced physics, amazing facial animations, and an all around sturdy game engine, the source engine is as much or more about technology as it is about Gordan Freeman.

    Type 3: Madden, Splinter Cell, Mario Party, and Prince of Persia are all examples of game sequels in which the company just cranks them out simply because they know it will turn a profit. New features, good writing, story depth are not as important as quantity. Using the Splinter Cell series as the prime example, there is very little iteration between the first 3 games. The one awesome new thing about Chaos Theory (the co-op campaign) was abandoned in the 4th installment of the series.

    Lucascraft on
  • Options
    Darth NathanDarth Nathan Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    What are you defining as a sequel here, a gameplay evolution or a story evolution? For example, a movie sequel is only a sequel if it continues the plot of the previous film. In my eyes, a game can be a sequel if it directly builds on the gameplay foundation of the first (Gears 1 > Gears 2), but it can also be a sequel in a story sense, even if it's an entirely different game (Halo 3 > Halo Wars, or for a less drastic example, RE3 > RE4).

    So is a story only sequel like Halo Wars considered a new, fresh game, or a sequel? What if Gears 2 had kept the exact same gameplay, but it was now set in a land of bunnies and rainbows? Would that be an original IP?

    The question this thread poses is somewhat muddied by the fact that games have multiple characteristics that make them what they are. Is Shadow of the Colossus a sequel to Ico, despite featuring entirely different stories and gameplay? I'd wager there are a lot of people who would argue either way.

    So in order to tie this post up, in answers to the OP's question, sequels are not inherently bad. Creative stagnation is always bad, but sequels do not always lead down that path, especially in gaming where the definition of the word is so loose.

    Darth Nathan on
    camo_sig2.png
  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    If you ask me, genres and sequels are a bad thing. They bottleneck creativity (which is why it's much easier to pump out an uninspired sequel than to launch a new IP). Even genre-mixing games seem to adopt the standard tropes when they should be exploring the unique opportunities each genre presents.

    "Sequelitis" is part of the problem we're facing: a severe lack of creativity and risk-takers.

    But what would you propose when every single new IP possibility is persued by developers? The industry just stop?

    In what, 4,000 years? Books have been around for God knows how long, and people are still writing them.

    But how many of them are similar to each other? Do you see where I'm going with this?

    Henroid on
  • Options
    LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    If you ask me, genres and sequels are a bad thing. They bottleneck creativity (which is why it's much easier to pump out an uninspired sequel than to launch a new IP). Even genre-mixing games seem to adopt the standard tropes when they should be exploring the unique opportunities each genre presents.

    "Sequelitis" is part of the problem we're facing: a severe lack of creativity and risk-takers.

    But what would you propose when every single new IP possibility is persued by developers? The industry just stop?

    In what, 4,000 years? Books have been around for God knows how long, and people are still writing them.

    But how many of them are similar to each other? Do you see where I'm going with this?

    If we're going to talk about literary sequels, lets go all the way back to Homer, shall we? The Iliad and the Odyssey. Two of the oldest stories known to man and one is a sequel of the other.

    Lucascraft on
  • Options
    DrakeDrake Edgelord Trash Below the ecliptic plane.Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    If you ask me, genres and sequels are a bad thing. They bottleneck creativity (which is why it's much easier to pump out an uninspired sequel than to launch a new IP). Even genre-mixing games seem to adopt the standard tropes when they should be exploring the unique opportunities each genre presents.

    "Sequelitis" is part of the problem we're facing: a severe lack of creativity and risk-takers.

    But what would you propose when every single new IP possibility is persued by developers? The industry just stop?

    In what, 4,000 years? Books have been around for God knows how long, and people are still writing them.

    But how many of them are similar to each other? Do you see where I'm going with this?

    If we're going to talk about literary sequels, lets go all the way back to Homer, shall we? The Iliad and the Odyssey. Two of the oldest stories known to man and one is a sequel of the other.

    And the style of the Odyssey is a complete departure from the Iliad. So is the Odyssey really a sequel, or is Homer taking something from myth and legend and making it his own, while the Iliad was his continuation of a tradition?

    Drake on
  • Options
    mynameisguidomynameisguido Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    People tend to dislike sequels when the sequel isn't significantly different enough than the original game to warrant making a new game.

    Especially if you end up finding out the hard way by buying it.

    mynameisguido on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    redraptorredraptor Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    What I miss is when I would go to a gamestore with a friend and describing a game based on what it is instead of its appropriate genre.

    A game would be "In this one you have a chainsaw and fuck up some zombies, its two players as well - rent it."

    Now its "Oh this is that new Survival Horror, Action-Third Person Shooter with RPG Elements - let's rent this".

    It doesn't even feel like it's my fault either. I just got brainwashed from reading proffesional writing about videogames in magazines and what not. Weird how just getting further into something you love can change your enjoyment to something more refined, less pure. But I'm trying to change that attitude, back to renting whatever has the goriest/sexiest/most explosions on the box cover.

    redraptor on
  • Options
    LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    To touch on the post I made above about the 3 types of sequels, I have very strong feelings about them.

    There are 3 developers that I hold with much higher esteem than any other company. These devs are Bioware, Blizzard, and Valve.

    Bioware is a truly standout company in the sense that they are willing to say "No" to sequels and invent new IPs. Bioware could have easliy have been the ones to have made KotOR2, and it probably would have been a much better game than it was. But they wanted to make Jade Empire. So they did. Then the made Mass Effect, and now they are making Dragon Age. Their original bread and butter was D&D games, but they wanted to branch out and try new things, so they did. This is one company, above all else, that I would say is willing to take risks.


    Currently, Blizzard only has 3 IPs, but the space between each sequel is enormous. We're looking at an 11 year difference between Starcraft and Starcraft 2. On top of that, Blizzard is not afraid to pull the plug on production of a game that won't live up to their high standards. In fact, they have done this twice. Both Warcraft Adventures and Starcraft Ghost have been canceled, because these games did not meet the standards of the company.


    Valve has really turned into a pioneer in several different areas. First of all, the source engine and all of its technology were amazing when it came out. As I stated above, Half-Life 2 is as much about technology as it is about continuing the story of Gordon Freeman. On top of that, Valve is one of the front-runners in the idea of "episodic content." And finally, (this has nothing to do with sequels), Valve has taken digital distribution to such a level that the old brick and mortar method of game sales is being threatened by Steam.


    I loath companies like EA, Ubisoft, and even Nintendo to some extent. Companies that care little about the craft of game making and only care about quantity.

    Lucascraft on
  • Options
    UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    While I don't mind sequels (in fact I tend to like them a lot), something I wish I would see more often is the branching out of a franchise beyond one genre. Halo Wars is a good move. Resistance and Killzone are doing this.

    The reason being that it may get people interested in other genres, or if not, at least allow them to experience a fictional universe that you may hold dear even though they might not be interested in your particular favored gameplay type.

    I'm not an RTS type. I recently bought Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3 on a whim. The opening cutscene with Tim Curry was absolutely brilliant, and if anything, I was all ready to submit myself to this crazy alternate universe where Einstein was killed and no nuclear weapons had been made.

    But I didn't even make it past the tutorials. I just can't do RTS. There's too much to micro-manage, so many things to keep track of at once. And not only that, because it's real-time, one of the things I enjoy the most about video games - seeing things react onscreen to what I'm doing - is lost, because if I stop and stare to watch my infantry units take out other infantry units, chances are my shit is being ruined somewhere else on the map.

    But I still want to experience this universe. It just seems so crazy and campy and fun. I want to be one of those infantry units. I want a Red Alert 3 third-person shooter.

    As we all know, Blizzard was going to do this with StarCraft Ghost, and I think they could have started something. They could have at least finally made a game that I really enjoyed. But alas, it was not meant to be. Hopefully Halo Wars helps pave the way for this kind of thinking.

    UnbreakableVow on
Sign In or Register to comment.