Sequel Planting. Your thoughts, please?

[GamingKnight]

Gamers...

This is something that I haven't asked yet.

Lately, I have seen a few comments from some of you guys in terms of a...how do you say..."hate" for gaming sequels. This is something I really want to get into detail on.

If anyone would like to explain as to why they dislike the "sequel" idea, then please, explain it here...

One thing that I personally hate about sequels, are that they don't connect directly...as if the developers put no thought into the connection. Like...Suikoden. The concepts that they try to pull are great...gameplay may be so so...but in terms of story connection, involvement, and the overall experience, the latest sequels so far do not get my vote.

Now, this is not to say that making Sequels are a sign of desperation. What if a developer came to the press and said "Yes, the next game idea we are working on will have 20 games total as a saga" would you support it? Like...if Bungie came by and said that Halo will be a 10 game saga, would you support Halo?

Also, what type of concept would you like to see made into a solid sequel, or Saga? For me, I'll have to say the Mighty Max TV series. You know, the teenager with the red cap, Norman, a big brutish warrior who guards Max, and Virgil, a philosophical chicken (Foul, Actually) who guides Max on his quest to stop Skull Master (Voiced by Tim Curry, who also did KiloKhan in the Superhuman Samurai Cyber Squad TV show, which was a rip off of Power Rangers. I just love his voice as a villain..."meat thing") from obtaining a legendary book called the Lemurian Arkana. Now, if THAT was made into a saga for today's platform formats, I'd support it, so long as the developers know the story front to back. The story is excellent, by the way.

What are your thoughts on Sequels, Sagas, and your support? Let us know by posting here, please.

[folken001]

Gamers...

This is something that I haven't asked yet.

Lately, I have seen a few comments from some of you guys in terms of a...how do you say..."hate" for gaming sequels. This is something I really want to get into detail on.

If anyone would like to explain as to why they dislike the "sequel" idea, then please, explain it here...

One thing that I personally hate about sequels, are that they don't connect directly...as if the developers put no thought into the connection. Like...Suikoden. The concepts that they try to pull are great...gameplay may be so so...but in terms of story connection, involvement, and the overall experience, the latest sequels so far do not get my vote.

Now, this is not to say that making Sequels are a sign of desperation. What if a developer came to the press and said "Yes, the next game idea we are working on will have 20 games total as a saga" would you support it? Like...if Bungie came by and said that Halo will be a 10 game saga, would you support Halo?

Also, what type of concept would you like to see made into a solid sequel, or Saga? For me, I'll have to say the Mighty Max TV series. You know, the teenager with the red cap, Norman, a big brutish warrior who guards Max, and Virgil, a philosophical chicken (Foul, Actually) who guides Max on his quest to stop Skull Master (Voiced by Tim Curry, who also did KiloKhan in the Superhuman Samurai Cyber Squad TV show, which was a rip off of Power Rangers. I just love his voice as a villain..."meat thing") from obtaining a legendary book called the Lemurian Arkana. Now, if THAT was made into a saga for today's platform formats, I'd support it, so long as the developers know the story front to back. The story is excellent, by the way.

What are your thoughts on Sequels, Sagas, and your support? Let us know by posting here, please.
I don't mind sequels. They are all good as long as they have good story and gameplay. There is no point on hating sequels just because they are "sequels". A good game is a good game. What gives? There aren't many sagas out there. The only one I know about is Xenosaga. The 1st one was ok, but it seems the 2nd game is going to be much better. I love the idea, because I play RPGs like reading a good book. Sequals are like chapters, It is more of "the more the marrier" kinda thing to me. Of course, once again, the story HAS to be good.

["The Game"Evolution]

I don't mind sequels. They are all good as long as they have good story and gameplay. There is no point on hating sequels just because they are "sequels". A good game is a good game. What gives? There aren't many sagas out there. The only one I know about is Xenosaga. The 1st one was ok, but it seems the 2nd game is going to be much better. I love the idea, because I play RPGs like reading a good book. Sequals are like chapters, It is more of "the more the marrier" kinda thing to me. Of course, once again, the story HAS to be good.

The thing about sequels is this:When you make a sequel to anything you want to pick up where the original left off,compliment the gameplay that was in the original,make the A.I.twice as competitive,and raise the bar in terms of gameplay the next time out.Plus if it aint broke dont fix it.There is nothing wrong with adding new things but sometimes too much change can hurt more than anything.DMC2 for example? Need I say more?

And the other thing that I would add here,and this goes straight to the ears of videogame developers out there.Ask what the consumers that buys your products think.Thats all I ask.Listening to videogame critics isnt enough.The people that buys and plays these games is the people that really knows the pros and cons inside a game.

[GameLegend]

People above have done a wonderful job of illustrating my thoughts...

I guess some people really hate sequels because when a game is made and it is a real hit, gamers are really excited about the next release. Sometimes the sequel is a load of garbage slapped up with the game title and a hefty price.

Perfect Example: The Turok Series

Turok: dinosaur hunter came out and it was a real hit for Nintendo, soon Turok 2 was released. IT was flawless, i loved every mintue of it. THe music, the gameplay, the graphics, the multiplayer all above and beyond my exspectations. Many gamers felt the series was getting better and better....they were wrong

Turok 3 was released and it was a load of crap. The first level is like a Duke Nukem rip off. I hated it, the graphics seemed a bit too blurry here (more than turok 2) and the gameplay was dull. I never passed the first level and the game is still collecting dust.


Turok RAGE WARS. (A game devoted to multiplayer)
Heres a game given a lot of hype becuase of Turok 2's wonderful multiplayer. It was the WORST game ever on the NINTENDO 64 system. The dinosaurs dont even look like dinosaurs. Everybody has HUGE heads and feet, the game level design felt like a co-op student worked on it.

The turok series has been tainted by these last 2 releases.
Now if they release another turok game, u wont see me jumping for joy.

Like "THE GAME" said, "...if it aint broke dont fix it."

[Glockstar]

You want my honest opinion?

All this hating on sequels is just System Wars BS!!!
And that's it.

"A good game is a good game. What gives?" -- folken001

(Why I do believe that that is the smartest thing I've ever seen you write, folken! Wow.)

[The Prince of Darkness]

Gamers...

This is something that I haven't asked yet.

Lately, I have seen a few comments from some of you guys in terms of a...how do you say..."hate" for gaming sequels. This is something I really want to get into detail on.

If anyone would like to explain as to why they dislike the "sequel" idea, then please, explain it here...

One thing that I personally hate about sequels, are that they don't connect directly...as if the developers put no thought into the connection. Like...Suikoden. The concepts that they try to pull are great...gameplay may be so so...but in terms of story connection, involvement, and the overall experience, the latest sequels so far do not get my vote.

Now, this is not to say that making Sequels are a sign of desperation. What if a developer came to the press and said "Yes, the next game idea we are working on will have 20 games total as a saga" would you support it? Like...if Bungie came by and said that Halo will be a 10 game saga, would you support Halo?

Also, what type of concept would you like to see made into a solid sequel, or Saga? For me, I'll have to say the Mighty Max TV series. You know, the teenager with the red cap, Norman, a big brutish warrior who guards Max, and Virgil, a philosophical chicken (Foul, Actually) who guides Max on his quest to stop Skull Master (Voiced by Tim Curry, who also did KiloKhan in the Superhuman Samurai Cyber Squad TV show, which was a rip off of Power Rangers. I just love his voice as a villain..."meat thing") from obtaining a legendary book called the Lemurian Arkana. Now, if THAT was made into a saga for today's platform formats, I'd support it, so long as the developers know the story front to back. The story is excellent, by the way.

What are your thoughts on Sequels, Sagas, and your support? Let us know by posting here, please.

I don't really think that anyone here genuinely "hates" sequels. I think the point is that we would like to see a good balance of sequels and original titles in a console's library.

["The Game"Evolution]

You want my honest opinion?

All this hating on sequels is just System Wars BS!!!
And that's it.

"A good game is a good game. What gives?" -- folken001

(Why I do believe that that is the smartest thing I've ever seen you write, folken! Wow.)

A kodak moment folks.

[Gadfly2317]

You want my honest opinion?

All this hating on sequels is just System Wars BS!!!
And that's it.

"A good game is a good game. What gives?" -- folken001

(Why I do believe that that is the smartest thing I've ever seen you write, folken! Wow.)

Yeah, hating on sequels, like You, Evolution, Massimodo and a couple other gimpy tagalongs ragging Mario Kart DD as "tired rehash" even though NO ONE rose to the challenge of listing any other racing sequel with more new and altered attributes.

Some sequels suck--they add stuff that doesn't work and lose the stuff that did. But I agree with you glock, a lot of this "sequel" hating is just systems wars BS. And it started, if you've paid attention, from xbots--who, short on original exclusives once upon a time (aside from drek like Brute Force)--started resorting to calling all the money making sequels on PS2 and GC (Metal Gear, Mario, Final Fantasy, Zelda) tired, rehashed sequels. Yippee doo, ya'll but xbox is all about bein' fresh and orignal!!!

The xbox crowd here at systems wars has tried to make "sequel" a dirty word, unless that sequel happens to be precious Halo. So thanks xbot glock and evolution for finally admitting that sequels done well can be the finest of gaming experiences.

And no one does franchised sequels like Nintendo. Huah! :D

[Darwin]

Gamers...
If anyone would like to explain as to why they dislike the "sequel" idea, then please, explain it here...

The problem I have with sequals doesn't have to do with story, but rather the lack of new gameplay material. Sequals are good to a point, and there are many sequals that I look forward to and many sequals that surpass their precedessor.

The fundamental problem with sequals is that they are recycling some of the same gameplay material that was done in the previous game. Instead of thinking outside the box, the game developers are already within the confines of the gameplay parameters set in the previous iteration. I mean, game developers cannot completely revamp the gameplay or else fans will be dissapointed that the sequal is nothing like the first. Game developers are already confined when making a brand new game ... they will, even subconsciously, already think in terms of what they have already seen in other games and tend to make their game imitate what they've seen ... let alone a sequal. For example, look at a brand new racing game that comes out. Even though it's new, it still embodies much of what we've already seen in racing games before. Game developers can't help it, because they are "pre-programmed" to think of racing games in terms of what they've already seen.

What point am I making here? Maybe I cannot explain it too well, but I think what I'm trying to do is explain how too many sequals are bad for gaming.

Every once in a while, someone will take a chance and produce a game that has never really been done before, or at least introduce a signficant gameplay aspect that hasn't really been done before. Grand Theft Auto 1 was a good example. Metropolis Street Racer was another. The very first Tomb Raider was quite innovative for it's time. Wolfenstein 3D was innovative for it's time. Unless someone takes a chance and thinks outside the box, gaming will not evolve and we won't ever see any new ideas. Now, not all innovative ideas are good ideas, but somebody has to take that gamble.

Companies that churn out sequals like clockwork are not really helping gaming. EA and Activision are NOTORIOUS for this. The jump from Tony Hawk 1 to 2 was significant. Tony Hawk 2 is an example of how a sequal should be done. However, the subsequent sequals have brought nothing significantly new and are just reinforcing the fact that the gaming public will buy another Tony Hawk game, no matter what improvements (or lack thereof) you make to the next game.

[Bob-the-Fish]

The jump from Tony Hawk 1 to 2 was significant. Tony Hawk 2 is an example of how a sequal should be done. However, the subsequent sequals have brought nothing significantly new and are just reinforcing the fact that the gaming public will buy another Tony Hawk game, no matter what improvements (or lack thereof) you make to the next game.

I'd say that Tony Hawk 4 and UG have changed a lot about the game. Free roaming in 4 and the build your own skater mode and story-like qualities in UG.

I don't mind sequals myself. Most games these days always build in an ending that leaves an opening for a sequal just like they do in action movies. As long as the game is entertaining, I don't care if has a 2 or a 9 in the title.

[T.Tashi]

Gamers...

This is something that I haven't asked yet.

Lately, I have seen a few comments from some of you guys in terms of a...how do you say..."hate" for gaming sequels. This is something I really want to get into detail on.

If anyone would like to explain as to why they dislike the "sequel" idea, then please, explain it here...

One thing that I personally hate about sequels, are that they don't connect directly...as if the developers put no thought into the connection. Like...Suikoden. The concepts that they try to pull are great...gameplay may be so so...but in terms of story connection, involvement, and the overall experience, the latest sequels so far do not get my vote.

Now, this is not to say that making Sequels are a sign of desperation. What if a developer came to the press and said "Yes, the next game idea we are working on will have 20 games total as a saga" would you support it? Like...if Bungie came by and said that Halo will be a 10 game saga, would you support Halo?

Also, what type of concept would you like to see made into a solid sequel, or Saga? For me, I'll have to say the Mighty Max TV series. You know, the teenager with the red cap, Norman, a big brutish warrior who guards Max, and Virgil, a philosophical chicken (Foul, Actually) who guides Max on his quest to stop Skull Master (Voiced by Tim Curry, who also did KiloKhan in the Superhuman Samurai Cyber Squad TV show, which was a rip off of Power Rangers. I just love his voice as a villain..."meat thing") from obtaining a legendary book called the Lemurian Arkana. Now, if THAT was made into a saga for today's platform formats, I'd support it, so long as the developers know the story front to back. The story is excellent, by the way.

What are your thoughts on Sequels, Sagas, and your support? Let us know by posting here, please.
From a developer point of view sequels are the goal. They want that cash cow to build a franchise around. Game or movie wise. In a nutshell, if the gameplay is there, and story is actually good I say bring it on.

[Glockstar]

Yeah, hating on sequels, like You, Evolution, Massimodo and a couple other gimpy tagalongs ragging Mario Kart DD as "tired rehash" even though NO ONE rose to the challenge of listing any other racing sequel with more new and altered attributes.

Yeah and you know why mass and I ragged on Mario Kart, right? Because for every "new and altered attribute" in MK: DA there were two that were old and stale! The gameplay of MK: DA (that's Double Ass in case you don't remember :p ) is essentially no different from that of MK64.

And it's just... disgusting... to some of us that Nintendo has to put Mario in almost every single one of their games! We're tired of Mario. MARIO SUCKS! What Nintendo is doing with this... poster child for been-there-done-that-videogames... actually goes beyond sequelizing and rehashing. In fact, I think it's contemptable, what they're doing... which is nothing more than MILKING IT FOR ALL IT'S WORTH!

Now before you go accusing me of being hypocritical again, I'll have you know that I absolutely HATED Mario Kart 64!!! So naturally, MK: DA isn't going to appeal to me either, capeesh?

And by the way, you know which XBox racing sequel has "new and altered attributes". Well... okay... maybe you don't... but you would, if you were hooked up with XBox Live!

-

Some sequels suck--they add stuff that doesn't work and lose the stuff that did. But I agree with you glock, a lot of this "sequel" hating is just systems wars BS. And it started, if you've paid attention, from xbots--who, short on original exclusives once upon a time (aside from drek like Brute Force)--started resorting to calling all the money making sequels on PS2 and GC (Metal Gear, Mario, Final Fantasy, Zelda) tired, rehashed sequels. Yippee doo, ya'll but xbox is all about bein' fresh and orignal!!!

The xbox crowd here at systems wars has tried to make "sequel" a dirty word, unless that sequel happens to be precious Halo. So thanks xbot glock and evolution for finally admitting that sequels done well can be the finest of gaming experiences.

I don't think so! I think it was you kitties that you started it! (Although... I don't think you were known as "kitties" at the time.)

And if it wasn't you, then it was the coppertops!
But don't blame us. It wasn't us.

And another thing - just for the record - there is a pretty big difference between "a sequel" and a "tired rehash sequel". You need to get that right.

-

And no one does franchised sequels like Nintendo. Huah! :D

Well, that's because... THAT'S ALL THEY DO! Yeah! :p

[Brendon]

first, there was a mighty max game based around the cartoon released on the mega drive (zone 4 genesis) and the Amiga way back in late 95', consequently, it SUCKED. It's actually considered the worst platformer EVER in a few rankings I've read.

I don't really have any prolem with sequels, pretty much anything with Sonic, Mario or Link in it carries a guaranty of a damn good time unless you're just some miserable git who harps on about 'realism' , 'mature games' or something equally daft.

One serious problem a lot of people seem to have though is some wild assumption that the sequel to a groundbreaking game has to have just as much impact, which is daft, Nobody has a problem that pretty much every one on one fighting game uses the basic Street fighter mechanics, yet because SF2 was the first to show how great it could be, it's no longer enough that Capcom produce Kickass games to follow the series. I mean, SF3 refined the mechanics and balanced the system and physics to outright perfection, yet people simply reacted by saying it's not very different to SF2.

["The Game"Evolution]

first, there was a mighty max game based around the cartoon released on the mega drive (zone 4 genesis) and the Amiga way back in late 95', consequently, it SUCKED. It's actually considered the worst platformer EVER in a few rankings I've read.

I don't really have any prolem with sequels, pretty much anything with Sonic, Mario or Link in it carries a guaranty of a damn good time unless you're just some miserable git who harps on about 'realism' , 'mature games' or something equally daft.

One serious problem a lot of people seem to have though is some wild assumption that the sequel to a groundbreaking game has to have just as much impact, which is daft, Nobody has a problem that pretty much every one on one fighting game uses the basic Street fighter mechanics, yet because SF2 was the first to show how great it could be, it's no longer enough that Capcom produce Kickass games to follow the series. I mean, SF3 refined the mechanics and balanced the system and physics to outright perfection, yet people simply reacted by saying it's not very different to SF2.

Dynasty Warriors 4? Armor Core 3? Sonic Heroes? Gex 3:Deep Cover Gecko? Ace Combat 4? I could go on and on but the main thing I'm saying here is sometimes you have to know when to stop.Some on going series of games continue to get better as time goes on.While others simply get tiresome.Other than that Brendon I agree with what you are saying as well.