Topic: What a sequel should be...

[RCmodeler]

Innovation and completely different from the original game?  Like Mario Sunshine?

NO.

A sequel should be more of the same goodness that made the original game so much fun.  Same play, same goals, but new missions.  Soul Calibur 2 should be the same as Soul Calibur 1, but polished to perfection.  Metroid Prime should preserve the same puzzle-solving exploration as the lovely Super Metroid.  MP2 should be exactly like MP1, but with a new world to explore and cleaner control.

You get the idea.

Thoughts?  Opinions?

[Bill Aurion]

I want my innovation...This kind of attitude leads to series like Tomb Raider and Driver! >=(

[Flames_of_chaos]

I rather have innovation that a sequel like the doom series since doom 2 and doom 3 just re-tell the first d*mn game exept for some minor changes with new bells and wistles with a disguise of a good FPS.  This is why I hate developers that make essentially the same game with similar goals with a similar game engine and slap it on as a  new game.  

[RCmodeler]

Innovation?  You mean like having to constantly eat in GT: Sin City -or- else die? Is that the kind of innovation you have in mind?

I call that stupid and ruining what used to be a good concept.

.

Or if you think eating is a good idea, I'm sure you can think of a game that WAS ruined by innovation.  Like Final Fantasy 8 or 2.  FF8 & FF2-Japan were extremely difficult (and not fun) to play, because Square ruined the battle engine.  IMHO, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  Don't mess with the success.  

[DrZoidberg]

I'm actually looking forward to rolling through town as a fatty gangsta yo

A sequel should be what any other game should be, fun.

[S-U-P-E-R]

Quote
with new bells and wistles with a disguise of a good FPS.

Have you actually played doom 3?

[odifiend]

Quote
Originally posted by: RCmodeler
Innovation and completely different from the original game?  Like Mario Sunshine?

NO.

A sequel should be more of the same goodness that made the original game so much fun.  Same play, same goals, but new missions.  Soul Calibur 2 should be the same as Soul Calibur 1, but polished to perfection.  Metroid Prime should preserve the same puzzle-solving exploration as the lovely Super Metroid.  MP2 should be exactly like MP1, but with a new world to explore and cleaner control.

So where would that leave soul calibur 3?  My point is if you keep the same play, same goals, but new missions eventually the upgrades will be minor and won't be worth the price of admission.  lol in fact the sequels you are describing are kind of like madden but without the new rosters.  Also how was Mario Sunshine completely different from the original game.  Instead of collecting stars you collect yellow stars, i mean suns, i mean shines.  It was pretty similar to 64 except that it didn't blow our mind compared to the last game of the franchise.
There is nothing at all wrong with innovation.  In fact it really is necessary if you plan to continue a franchise otherwise the franchise will stagnate.  No offense but I'm glad you're not running the industry.  

[Infernal Monkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: RCmodeler
Innovation?  You mean like having to constantly eat in GT: Sin City -or- else die? Is that the kind of innovation you have in mind?

I call that stupid and ruining what used to be a good concept.

Can I borrow your copy of GTA: SA, then? You seem to know all!
"At least I'll be the fattest guy on the street with a boat"
"Hey hey hey, I'm gunna get me a boat!"

[RCmodeler]

Quote
Originally posted by: odifiend

Quote
Originally posted by: RCmodelerA sequel should be more of the same goodness that made the original game so much fun. Same play, same goals, but new missions. Soul Calibur 2 should be the same as Soul Calibur 1, but polished to perfection.

So where would that leave soul calibur 3?  My point is if you keep the same play, same goals, but new missions eventually the upgrades will be minor and won't be worth the price of admission.

Soul Calibur 3 will be like SC2, but with PS3-level graphics/sound and new characters.  Perhaps a new side game like Virtua Fighter has (challenege the arcade players).

In contrast, if SC3 was.... say, set on a volleyball court where the goal was to try on different swimsuits... that's *too much* innovation.  It would alienate the fans.  That's what needs to be avoided.

.

The reason I think Sunshine is different from Mario 64 is because now Mario is flying around on a water jet (instead of his usual jumping).  In a different world.  With unfamiliar characters.  I played it, but I didn't like it.  It didn't feel like a Mario game to me.  (Same applies to Starfox Adventures... that had virtually no connection to the real starfox series.)  

You can say that Sunshine & Starfox Adventures were "innovative" but I think they were "alienating".... and left many fans disappointed.  It sucks when you have a favorite series (Star Wars Original Trilogy) and the creators decide to destroy the sequels with idiotic ideas (Star Wars New Trilogy).  Creators should stick to the formula.  Keep the fans happy.
 

[Bill Aurion]

"The reason I think Sunshine is different from Mario 64 is because now Mario is flying around on a water jet (instead of his usual jumping). In a different world."

You jump just as much as use your jetpack...Not to mention the "Secret of" levels...

[RCmodeler]

Were those the levels with *no* jet pack?  If yes, then those were the only part of the game I liked.  It was the only part that felt like a Mario game.

Also, I think you missed my MAIN point.  Allow me to repeat it: In contrast, if SC3 was.... say, set on a volleyball court where the goal was to try on different swimsuits... that's *too much* innovation. It would alienate the fans. That's what needs to be avoided.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Quote
Originally posted by: RCmodeler

In contrast, if SC3 was.... say, set on a volleyball court where the goal was to try on different swimsuits... that's *too much* innovation.  It would alienate the fans.  That's what needs to be avoided.

Thats not how you innovate a game, thats would be how you would deviate a game.  To take a fighting game such as 'SC3' and make it not about fighting but about trying on swim suits is more a using a franchise to sell asomething complete different and unrelated (ala Mario Party, Mario Tennis, Mario Golf, etc. etc.).

To innovate a game like SC2 would be, to be able to steal the weapon from an opponent(MK5), take the fight in to into a different area(DOA), to have finishing moves(MK), to have giant rumbles(SSB),  Character transformations(Bloody Roar), or use your environment as a weapon/shield(SSB:M).  

[Chongman]

Quote
In contrast, if SC3 was.... say, set on a volleyball court where the goal was to try on different swimsuits... that's *too much* innovation. It would alienate the fans. That's what needs to be avoided

I'm sorry if this sounds like flaming (cuz it kinda is) but apparently you've been taught an inadequate interpretation on what it is to innovate. What you're talking about now is complete silly talk.

Having to EAT in a game like GTA to survive is an added innovation...good or bad, that's not my call. But THAT'S innovation, something that impacts the game enough that you can tell and feel how it's different from its predecessors in an original way but doesn't change the format of the game. What you're suggesting is ludicrus!Does GTA suddenly become revolved around EATING? NO!! Of course not! But that's the way you're looking at it according to you flawed deffinition.

Don't like innovation? Then where would the zelda series be? Remember Z-targeting??? That's not the classic formula bud, that's completely different than any other zelda component in the past. But it made the game better. Heck, where would fighting games be?? You put SC2 as an example, but hey, street fighter 2 is the epiphany of what fighting games are. I mean, at least it was back in the day. But why change it? Why innovate at all if the formula worked SO WELL the first time? Why don't we have fighters that are all simple SF2 rehashes with tons of ryu clones and better graphics? We don't, it doesn't work. The mere fact that you stated SC2, an awesome game that's completely and utterly different than it's highly praised original grandaddy (SF2), is quite ironic.

What you're saying, put in a little extras, amp the graphics, maybe some fan service, that kind of junk may work for maybe...oh...ONE SEQUEL, and then your done. Look at the mario party games...do you remember when everyone thought they were SO DANG FUN? I do...and nintendo does too probably. They DIDN'T really innovate, but simply did what you're suggesting, and now look at how stagnant the series has become. Do you want a zillion of those? I didn't think so.

So all in all, I disagree whole heartedly. While the type of sequel you're suggesting may work occasionally, but in the long run they can never fly. The army man games is a good example, along with Tomb Raider, Spyro, Crash, Madden, Dynasty Warriors (actually, DW4 is pretty awesome, but 2 & 3 were carbon copies), and the previously stated Mario Parties. Is THAT what you really want to be playing?

[Syl]

Tis a difference between EXPANSION PACKS and Sequels.
You seem to favor expansion packs.

I don't necessarily mind what they do in a sequel, as long as its still fun.  If they don't change things around, then it will get repetive and boring.  Mario Party is a good example, hudson  ran out of idea's around the 3rd go, so why did they keep making more?

[Flames_of_chaos]

i agree about the mario party series is stagnant. Well now most party games like mario party and fusion frenzy are kinda the same their good on the first go but get lame and lame and lame if nothing is changed, that was always my stance on sports games its the same damn thing just the graphics get prettier, roster update small tweaking the controls every year.  And now theres too many sports games and some people are getting sick of them.  

And my complaint on doom 3 was it was offering the same type of gameplay with a nice graphical touch and the only thing new is it gives a better ambiance with the darkness and you need your flashlight and everything.  But that gameplay can hamper it and make it dare I say boring. Look at other PC FPSs such as notibly Far Cry it gives you more freedom than doom 3 and gives you a bigger area to explore and mow down enemies at the same time. And lets not forget that loveable game that rose from the very overcrowded WWII shooter genre we all love to hate now, Call of Duty made people say wow and gave them a good game experiance other than other WWII shooter *cough cough MOH cough cough* but well that just me.  I expect some rants on my views but that acceptable since I like to read the fellow forum users and moderators on what they think.  

[odifiend]

Quote
Originally posted by: RCmodeler
Soul Calibur 3 will be like SC2, but with PS3-level graphics/sound and new characters.  Perhaps a new side game like Virtua Fighter has (challenege the arcade players).

In contrast, if SC3 was.... say, set on a volleyball court where the goal was to try on different swimsuits... that's *too much* innovation.  It would alienate the fans.  That's what needs to be avoided.


The reason I think Sunshine is different from Mario 64 is because now Mario is flying around on a water jet (instead of his usual jumping).  In a different world.  With unfamiliar characters.  I played it, but I didn't like it.  It didn't feel like a Mario game to me.  (Same applies to Starfox Adventures... that had virtually no connection to the real starfox series.)  

You can say that Sunshine & Starfox Adventures were "innovative" but I think they were "alienating".... and left many fans disappointed.  It sucks when you have a favorite series (Star Wars Original Trilogy) and the creators decide to destroy the sequels with idiotic ideas (Star Wars New Trilogy).  Creators should stick to the formula.  Keep the fans happy.

RCmodeler: Do you remember Mortal Kombat? Specifically do you remember MK3?  MK3 gets released and it was relatively innovative contrasted with MK2. Fine, then Midway releases Ultimate MK and MK trilogy, etc..  These incarnations added a few new characters but pretty much did the same thing as MK3.  Why then don't MK fans go around praising UMK and MKT?  Because compared to MK3, the upgrades were minor (Who the fudge wants brutalities?) and damn useless (win one round, lose one, do a mercy, then we'll let you animality).  Is that what you want in a sequel?

On Sunshine: To me, Sunshine felt very much like 64.  I really did miss the hat powerups of the previous game because they were just much more satisfying to use.  (Though the turbo water head, kick much ass.)  And all mario characters, except for luigi >:!, make cameos so I don't know what you are talking about there...

On SFA: The storyline did actually mesh with the starfox series, but whatever ...  The problem with SFA "innovation" was that it was a cheap, unchallenging, Zelda clone.  WW is easy but at least enemies don't wait their turn to fight you.  SFA has my contempt.  It was so damn linear: No sidequests (maybe that's why they were over done in WW?) and no alternate paths (like in other SFs) made it the worst SF game ever created.  Heh. what a rant- the point is SFA wasn't innovative and Rare pretty much copied the gameplay of Zelda, which does incredibly well- a half sequel if you will much like Goldeneye and PD.  

[RCmodeler]

Quote
Originally posted by: BlackNMild2k1Thats not how you innovate a game, thats would be how you would deviate a game.  To take a fighting game such as 'SC3' and make it not about fighting but about trying on swim suits

That's what I meant in my original post.  The sequel should not deviate from the formula that fans loved in the past.  Soul Calibur in a volleyball court with swimsuits would be trash.  Starfox Adventures was trash.  Final Fantasy 8's f'ed-up battle engine was trash.

Quote
Originally posted by: ChongmanI'm sorry if this sounds like flaming (cuz it kinda is) but apparently you've been taught an inadequate interpretation on what it is to innovate. What you're talking about now is complete silly talk.   --------   Having to EAT in a game like GTA to survive is an added innovation...good or bad, that's not my call. But THAT'S innovation.

(1) It's not "silly talk".  Dead or Alive fighters were re-cast into a volleyball game trying on different swimsuits.  What cave have you been living in?  (And yes, it sucked... the fans wanted another fighter... not girly dress-up)

(2) Eating in Grand Theft Auto Sin City is b-o-r-i-n-g.  It will interfere with the main goal of the game (steal & kill & drive fast), and destroy the fun.  If that's "innovation" I don't want it.  I want more of the same FUN I had in GT1/2/3/4, not a sh___ty sequel filled with b-o-r-i-n-g visits to the restaurant.

(3) Z-targeting in Zelda 64 is what an innovation should be.  It's a SMALL adjustment, a minor tweaking that is almost trivial, not something that destroys the overall fun of the game.

(4) Another Example: Ms.Pac-Man and Jr. Pac-Man and Pac-Mania.  These sequels added innovations like changing mazes, scrolling mazes, 3D mazes, smart ghosts, moving fruit, but they kept the CORE formula of the original Pac-Man (eat dots, run from ghosts).




BOTTOM LINE: Innovations should be minor adjustments, not wholesale destruction of what made the previous game a hit.  Re-read my original message, and you'll see that's exactly what I said.


 

[Chongman]

Quote
(1) It's not "silly talk". Dead or Alive fighters were re-cast into a volleyball game trying on different swimsuits. What cave have you been living in? (And yes, it sucked... the fans wanted another fighter... not girly dress-up)

DOA and the DOA Volleyball games are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GAMES. Get that through you head. It's like saying mario kart is a sequel to the original mario games. That's why it's silly talk. I haven't been living in a cave but perhaps YOU have if you cant realize these two games are seperate

.

Quote
(2) Eating in Grand Theft Auto Sin City is b-o-r-i-n-g. It will interfere with the main goal of the game (steal & kill & drive fast), and destroy the fun. If that's "innovation" I don't want it. I want more of the same FUN I had in GT1/2/3/4, not a sh___ty sequel filled with b-o-r-i-n-g visits to the restaurant.

Read more better, foo. I never said it was a good innovation, nor a bad one. Yes, there are cases where innovation is bad. Virtual Boy anyone?

Quote
(3) Z-targeting in Zelda 64 is what an innovation should be. It's a SMALL adjustment, a minor tweaking that is almost trivial, not something that destroys the overall fun of the game.

Z-targeting wasn't a small adjustment. You used it every single time you fought and there's absolutely nothing like it in past zelda games. It totall changed how the game was played. Instead if walking up to an enemy, avoiding a projectile or something, and slashing. WIth Z-targeting you could target, strafe, flip, shoot arrows, dodge differently, block, and all the other goodies while being locked on. Try playing and beating the game WITHOUT the Z-targeting system. Minor innovation? I think not. It's anything but trivial.


BOTTOM LINE: You have no idea what is meant by the word innovation and you viewpoints are skewed because of it. Innovation is not a bad thing all the time.

[S-U-P-E-R]

Quote
And my complaint on doom 3

You still haven't said if you've actually played it yet

Quote
(1) It's not "silly talk". Dead or Alive fighters were re-cast into a volleyball game trying on different swimsuits. What cave have you been living in? (And yes, it sucked... the fans wanted another fighter... not girly dress-up)

More like it rocked more than the fighting games ever did

Quote
(2) Eating in Grand Theft Auto Sin City is b-o-r-i-n-g. It will interfere with the main goal of the game (steal & kill & drive fast), and destroy the fun. If that's "innovation" I don't want it. I want more of the same FUN I had in GT1/2/3/4, not a sh___ty sequel filled with b-o-r-i-n-g visits to the restaurant.

PROTIP: It's not out yet

[RCmodeler]

Quote
Originally posted by: ChongmanDOA and the DOA Volleyball games are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GAMES. Get that through you head. .....Try playing and beating the game WITHOUT the Z-targeting system. .

(1) The Soul Calibur 3 = volleyball and swimsuit was meant as an EXAMPLE of what creators should avoid in sequels.  You call it "silly" but I've seen far stupider in my 25 years of gaming.  (Like Beat 'Em and Eat 'Em (masturbation) -or- Custer's Last Lay (rape).)

(2) To repeat: It was example.  So was Starfox Adventures.  Just illustrating my point about what a "poor sequel" is.

(3) I did.  I played almost the entire game of Zelda without Z-targeting.  That's because I found it more flexible to fight "free style" like the 2D games.

(4) Z-targeting didn't change the CORE of the game.  It was still about dungeon crawling & solving puzzles.  That's my key point.

[GoldShadow1]

DISCLAIMER:  I have not read this entire thread, so if someone stated this opinion before me, I apologize.

This is stupid.  Innovation can be either good or bad.  Good innovation is good.  Bad innovation is bad.  The question isn't whether they should innovate, it's HOW.  Listing all sequels that "innovated" in a way that displeased you isn't an argument, it's just mindless bitching.

[RCmodeler]

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldShadow1Good innovation is good.  Bad innovation is bad.  The question isn't whether they should innovate, it's HOW.

AT LAST.  Someone intelligent enough to understand my point.  Yes, a good innovation is one the preserves the core purpose of the game & the fun.  A bad innovation is one that destroys it and ruins the fun.

[KDR_11k]

In your original post, however, you stated that sequels should not innovate. If you had said that sequels need innovation while preserving what made the first game great there'd be no discussion, but you said that sequels DON'T need innovation and should deliver more of the same.

[Chongman]

I still maintain that you're confused over the deffinition of innovation, let alone good and bad cases. But hey, that's just my opinion...

[GoldShadow1]

Quote
AT LAST. Someone intelligent enough to understand my point. Yes, a good innovation is one the preserves the core purpose of the game & the fun. A bad innovation is one that destroys it and ruins the fun.

Nope, I think you misunderstood me entirely.  As KDR mentioned, your original post implied that just about any fundamental change to the original gameplay is poor design - that a sequel should be "more of the same".  You defined "bad" innovation as "completely different from the original game", using Mario Sunshine as an example - a game which many complained was *too* much like the original.  Thus, just about any significant change in a sequel is bad.  The above statement contradicts this sentiment, leaving me to what infinitesimal enhancements you consider to be "good innovation".

Quote
MP2 should be exactly like MP1, but with a new world to explore and cleaner control.

I disagree.  There should always be a *reason* for a sequel - some kind of genuine enhancement.  I'm not saying this has to be a huge change, but if MP2's only improvement was "cleaner control", I would not be interested at all.  I already have Metroid Prime, why would I want another?  Now, don't get me wrong;  changes can be a bad thing.  A good example, IMO, is WarCraft III - I just wasn't all that interested in levelling up heroes, as far as multiplayer was concerned.  Yet to list that as some sort of evidence that games should not innovate - except very slightly - is completely asinine.