The Problem With Sequels

Is the problem with the gaming industry. Fear.
It seems that game producers only want to copy the most recent hit games, and are not willing to stick to the core of older franchises, or to try new things. Then when a game breaks the mold and does, it becomes the new hit and everyone takes to copying it.

Problem Case: Thief 3, Deus Ex 2-3.
The Thief and Deus Ex franchises both had their heydays in the wee years of computer gaming when there was a really negative stigma associated with gaming and only hardcore gamers played such computer games. Since then computer games have become something for the masses. Many recent games that have come out have tried to appeal more to the LCD of gaming, those who are not good at it, have no interest in becoming so, and have the attention span of gnats. These people want an impressive cinematic experience, and want to think that they are really cool. To this end, the player loses much control, and the program starts automatically doing things that normally would be up to the player (ie. the fab kill scenes of Assassin's Creed, auto-aim, 3rd person cover systems, etc), but which the LCD gamers out there could not do correctly and would not understand, and the player feels really bad@$$ because 'they' just did this really awesome move.
Such games play off of the ego and stupidity of those playing them, and require no real skill, knowledge, or technique. More importantly, rather than learning anything from them and coming away feeling enriched, you end up just as mud-dumb as before, but feeling really good about yourself.
These adolescent (usually), ignorant, easily entertained sheep are also impulse buyers, and therefore the gaming industry of the last decade has catered almost exclusively toward them. Everyone wants some of the cattle's money, and is not willing to risk catering to a different audience. I guess it has never occurred to game developers that the reason that such games dominate the industry is because they are all that is made, and that a lot of the people who buy and play them may long for a more enriching, real experience. Maybe they are not all such stupid sheep, but are only playing what is available.
Rather than tapping into the roots of Thief and DX, and having faith that what made them appeal to those hardcore gamers in the 90s would make them appeal a much larger audience today, they decided to simply make an imitation of the games that were popular at the time, and call them Thief and DX. I hate to clue the DX3 devs, but they will never do a better Assassin's Creed than the AC developers. They may take a little money from their audience, but they will never be able to seriously compete. They had a chance to carve out their own audience, who would be looking for a uniquely DX experience and could be quite profitable, but they were too afraid to take the risk, and instead hoped that DX's name would bring the DX fans, and that AC gameplay would bring the AC fans.
Guess what, even if games like that do not flop (like the disaster that is DX2...that they seem to have not learned from), they will never sell well. They will never be able to compete with other games.

Solution Case: Half-Life 2.
Here we had something done right. Valve, owned by the developers actually had faith in what makes their franchise unique, and rather than jumping on-board the disaster train that everyone else is, they decided to stick true to their franchise and hope that what made the first game appeal to its humble fan base would make the second game appeal to many more. They made a near clone of the first game, gameplay-wise, and added an exciting continuation of the storyline. Guess what? They now control a part of the market that no one can compete with them for. No one out there does a better Half-Life game than they do. Sure, they don't have the CoD fans, or the Kingdom Hearts fans, or the AC fans, but they have the Half-Life fans, and they are worth having.

The video game industry has to stop being afraid, and realize that there was something to those early games that made them appeal to human beings, and that will do so again. Stop trying to appeal to the fickled LCD out there! Have some faith in the franchises that you are making sequels for. If you do not, then step away and let someone who does have faith take it over. Go make your own game!

Didn't even read it because you think Thief2 is better than Thief1. Hope that they one day can help you, but it looks really bad

Quote:

---

These people want an impressive cinematic experience, and want to think that they are really cool. To this end, the player loses much control, and the program starts automatically doing things that normally would be up to the player (ie. the fab kill scenes of Assassin's Creed, auto-aim, 3rd person cover systems, etc), but which the LCD gamers out there could not do correctly and would not understand, and the player feels really bad@$$ because 'they' just did this really awesome move.

---

I have about as much interest in learning button combinations as dorans bull in the back field, I remember the old days of Amstrad gaming and there was plenty of rubbish games and cynical franchise games back then too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

I have about as much interest in learning button combinations as dorans bull in the back field, I remember the old days of Amstrad gaming and there was plenty of rubbish games and cynical franchise games back then too.

---

I am not talking about button combinations and added complexity. I am talking about giving you only the simplest, least complicated controls, and then letting you do anything you want with them. Just like in Thief and Deus Ex, there was not cover system. If you wanted cover, you crouched, or positioned yourself behind something manually. If gave you more freedom, and made the results of a fight depend more on your thinking and skill. If you are too stupid to use cover, then you will die. You won't have a program do it for you.

You are right, there were plenty of stupid franchises out there. I am not saying that they should not make stupid franchises such as AC (the sheep need to graze), I am talking about polluting GOOD franchises with the rubbish. PoP has its own charm, and some of them were pretty good games, but they were not the types of games I like. Could you imagine if I made the next PoP a FPS that played like DX or Thief? The PoP fans would be rightly angry at me for ruining their franchise. It is not ruining because there is something wrong with Thief or DX gameplay, but because I made a PoP game something that it was not. PoP fans want a PoP experience. Likewise, you should not be dumping the cinematic, console, BS into DX or Thief. They attract different types of people, and there are plenty of sheep out there to buy AC. Thief and DX should be made for the types of people who cherish a different type of gameplay. (as was done with HL2, and look how successful it was!)

Assassin's Creed was what you get when you mix Prince of Persia and Splinter Cell. The first one really controls a lot like Splinter Cell.

Issues with Sequels usually comes into two camps.

"It is too much like the first game! Nothings changed/improved except graphics! Its boring because I played it before."

"What is this?! it is nothing like the first game which is good, nothing is better than title 1!"


:shrug: In short, you can't please everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

You are right, there were plenty of stupid franchises out there. I am not saying that they should not make stupid franchises such as AC (the sheep need to graze), I am talking about polluting GOOD franchises with the rubbish. PoP has its own charm, and some of them were pretty good games, but they were not the types of games I like. Could you imagine if I made the next PoP a FPS that played like DX or Thief? The PoP fans would be rightly angry at me for ruining their franchise. It is not ruining because there is something wrong with Thief or DX gameplay, but because I made a PoP game something that it was not. PoP fans want a PoP experience. Likewise, you should not be dumping the cinematic, console, BS into DX or Thief. They attract different types of people, and there are plenty of sheep out there to buy AC. Thief and DX should be made for the types of people who cherish a different type of gameplay. (as was done with HL2, and look how successful it was!)

---

Assassin's Creed is a great series, and prime example of the sequels being better than the original games. If you are outright insulting it, you have no taste.

actually ac brotherhood wasnt too enjoyable in my opinion. and i dont really like ac its way too easy.

AC is one of those games driven more by the story and immersion than gameplay challenge.

I personally thought that ME2 was better than ME1.

And that the later versions of Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon were better than the earlier versions. Yes I truly believe that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

I personally thought that ME2 was better than ME1.

And that the later versions of Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon were better than the earlier versions. Yes I truly believe that.

---

Your not the only one Hooahguy I thought ME2 was on the whole way better than ME1, loads of people were annoyed at losing the heavier staples of RPGness but not me. I was just sucked in by the story of Mass Effect 1 so Mass Effect 2 with it's more cinematic story feel suited me and a lot more like me down to the ground.

One gripe though I personally didnt feel the Collector General was a big enough character unlike Saren in the first game, you need to have a baddie who you can yell boo at onscreen and it kinda affected the narrative a bit. Oh and the mining was a terrible idea, I want to explore the universe and save the girl not ensure my metal reserves are up to snuff for upgrading the staff toilets.

I totally agree with you, GC. The ME1 story was better but dragged down by awkward combat mechanics, repetitive side missions (wow its the exact same bunker/space ship again!) and very bad inventory system, not to mention the Mako was awful. Other than that it was awesome. When I spoke with Sovereign I literally felt a chill down my spine.

I wish that in ME2 we had more real interaction with the Collector General, and Harbinger as well.
I also didnt mind the "possessed" collectors that so many people hated. I mean yea, the lines were corny ('I know you feel this.") but the entrance of the possessed collectors into a battle made me change my tactics drastically.
And yea, I hated mining too.

The Mako was awesome. Reminded me of Tribes 2 - which is always a good thing. I didn't like the reloading and press x to go into cover system of ME2, but it was a lot easier to direct your teammates than in ME1. And while ME1's inventory system was not well organized, the answer was not to do away with inventory altogether as in ME2. And while I enjoyed ME2's story, most of it was spent gathering people, and less directly trying to hunt down the reapers as in ME1. Mining was a bore.

In general, it seems a lot of problems come from trying to appeal to larger amounts of people; which means the publisher thinks they have to get rid of unique ideas and gameplay because less people are used to that.

CR

Well also developers have to look at the money aspect of everything. If the original didnt sell very well, and a sequel is planned, the devs have to determine what people didnt like and change it so people will like it and it will sell.

Lets take the Mass Effect series, again, as an example.

It is a proven fact (I will try to find source, but there was a lengthy thread in the Bioware forums about this) that ME2 sold much better than ME1. ME2 got many awards and in comparison, ME1 got few. From a financial standpoint, ME2 was a million times better than ME1.
For a high-budget game like ME, you cant make your games for a small audience. Granted, that audience will be very happy, but your company will be in huge debt.

EDIT: CR, I would have liked the Mako a lot more if I didnt associate it with boring :censored: terrain over and over, not to mention the fact how it can drive nearly vertical. What a sham.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

AC is one of those games driven more by the story and immersion than gameplay challenge.

---

Story and Immersion are very important to me. If the story and immersion are good, you are just spam the same buttons for hours and not get bored. If it isn't there, it quickly gets boring.

I remember that the first Assassin's Creed was pretty tough, due to the clunkier combat mechanics and the fact that you'd rile the guards just by walking briskly in low profile; the sequels were toned down in these regards because that's what the market wanted... and now the market is saying it's too easy? xD

At the end of the day though, I don't particularly care if a game is too easy if I can get thirty hours out of it as I have AC:B's single player mode. :3

@Cr and Hooahguy

I found the Mako boring TBH in fact it was awful really, but then that could be because the places where you could drive it were basically cookie cutter style planets. If Bioware had put less planets in and populated the worlds with more stuff to do then maybe people might have a better recollection of the Mako.

I agree with Beskar story is paramount for me, even bad games can hold my attention if I get a bit hooked for eg I played Bayonetta straight though even though it's basically a button basher.

Secura makes a good point about the "oh it's too hard" or "oh it's too easy" rows that break out, I reckon sometimes the worst people to listen too are gamers especially ones who populate forums and have potential to nudge developers though online campaigns.

Bayonetta is a game that I have never fully understood the charm of and that, personally, I wouldn't want to even consider subjecting myself to again.

Sure, it's a new title rather than an already established series and the graphics are great; in the end though, it is a button-masher that doesn't feel all that different from it's predecessors like DMC... yet the way that the reviewers talk about it, it's the game of 2010!

I'd reserve that title for RDR or ME2, personally. :/

I'll add a +1 to that ME2>ME1 discussion. ME1 was interesting to me, but forgettable. ME2 solved all the problems of ME1, and then pumped up the action and movie-styling to maximum levels. Prior to ME2, I actively disliked non-sandbox RPGs and just played them when I had nothing else to do. ME2 made the main plotline just so damn 'cool' and streamlined, that its pure fun factor overrode my usual displeasure with a lack of options. I have not had many gameplay experiences that equaled the pure fun-factor of the final mission in ME2, from beginning to end (minus odd boss choice), with the cinematics and pumping music and whatnot. That game made me feel like I was playing a total badass in a way I hadn't felt since Sendai's lair in BG2: Throne of Bhaal. After ME1, I was ambivalent about ME2. After ME2, I am now really, really eager for both ME3 and DA2 (which looks like it's going to start a similar kind of story-driven series).

Plus, ME2 gave us this:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvbmKWMhjb0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Plus, ME2 gave us the Shepard-Garrus romance we always wanted.

---

Fixed that for ya! :3

My personal opinions on ME vs ME2 is probably best summed up by the fact I've completed the first one four or five times, yet I haven't felt the urge to play through the sequel a second time. Certainly ME2 does a lot of things better than the original, it just didn't feel like much of an RPG to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Secura

Fixed that for ya! :3

---

Plus it gave us Miranda.