This past week the gaming world was rocked by the announcement of Irrational’s BioShock Infinite. I was fortunate enough to be on-hand for the event and lemme tell ya, it was a grand unveiling. The tone of every person behind the project, the venue, and of course the game itself seemed to suggest that while BioShock fans will feel a sense of familiarity, Infinite is vastly different in almost every way. We discuss the announcement on the most recent Skirmish of EpicBattleCry and dive into a conversation about developers playing it save with proven formulas or going out on a limp to experiment with new ideas, locations, characters, etc. We know how we feel about the matter, but this week on the ‘Axe we’re opening up the floor to get YOUR input pertaining to what you like to see in sequels. So, It’s with these thoughts in mind that we post the following Member BattleCry Topic Starter question to you:
WHEN IT COMES TO SEQUELS, DO YOU PREFER ORIGINALITY OR STICKING WITH WHAT WORKS?
Sure, it’s a tough question, but we want you to think about games/franchises that you love and evaluate those that have mostly remained the same (like Zelda for instance) or those that have mixed it up…With BioShock Infinite‘s setting and characters vastly different from its predecessors, do you think Irrational is making a decision fans will be excited about or are they risking too much in reinventing Rapture? As always, we hope you participate in a constructive conversation on the topic this week. Don’t bash anyone else’s opinions and please feel free to make your own known. We’ll be selecting the Member BattleCry of the Week to be featured on the next skirmish of EpicBattleCry so be on the lookout for that!
Also, we’ve set up a poll for to gather your feedback on the the BioShock Infinite announcement, so be sure and take a moment to cast your vote as we collectively Cry Havoc and Let Our Voices Be Heard!!!
Cheers,
DK
Whats up Axe heads?!
my take on sequels is pretty simple, if it works keep doing it. I enjoyed Bio Shock one, but wanst very fond of the second one. Even though they made a cool engine and atmosphere it didn’t work the second time around for me. I like how they are switching from the bottom of the sea to the clouds in the sky, almost like a heaven and hell vibe. The game looks alot brighter! I wonder if they can make it scary like their previous dark submerged prequels?
So to sound off, its cool if you make a sequel and change the whole setting and mood, but if they change too much like controls and game play is it really a sequel?
P.S cant wait for EPC!!!!
DK, you are spot on with this being a tough question because there really is no one answer. However, that being said, my battle cry has to go out to sequels that improve, if not perfect, the formula, examples being many and various, such as Assassin’s Creed II, Uncharted 2, Mass Effect 2, and Half-Life 2. Now to explain: as much as I (and obviously many others) like new IPs, I gotta say that sometimes a sequel is the best case scenario. New IPs that are good usually are brilliant in their own ways, but they can sometimes leave us feeling a little disappointed. Not to say they suck by any means; on the contrary, they leave us wanting more. In other words, it’s extremely rare that an original IP can get EVERYTHING right on the first try. There is no other way to meet this challenge other than to craft a sequel that improves everything about an already great game. Sometimes this can backfire to a degree since, like the old maxim states, “why fix what isn’t broken?” (like the case of BioShock 2, for example). But sometimes an original IP has a lot that can be added to it, to improve it, and, like I said, to perfect it. Which brings me back to my example of Uncharted 2: Among Thieves. This is a sterling example of a sequel that took everything the original did right and took it to stratospheric quality. This could not have been achieved if it weren’t for the original laying the ground-work with an established story, characters, gameplay mechanic, game engine, stellar visuals, etc so that Naughty Dog could run with it and create the masterpiece that we all know and (hopefully, if you have any taste in games) love.
Love the podcast guys, it’s nice to be a part of a community that doesn’t call me a homo because I don’t like game X over game Y. As far as sequels go I am more in favor of a blend of the two. Innovation is great but there is always that fear of going too far at which point the game can feel more like a spin-off instead of a true sequel. Likewise however, a lack of originality can be detrimental to the franchise and lead to a more 1.5 feel instead of a 2.
a new BattleCry topic alread? The skirmish isn’t even posted yet…
Seeing as this topic is reacting to the Bioshock news, I’ll address it from that angle.
Honestly, if your game is a sequel in name only, I find it stupid. The game could be great, but it’s obvious that it’s been titled that way simply for recognition by the masses and easier marketing (see Far Cry 2). If it’s really THAT different from its predecessors and doesn’t continue their story or characters at all, then it should get a new name. So far this just looks like Rapture: IN DA SKY, so maybe it will be pretty similar. I’m hoping it wont be, because Rapture and Bioshock are DONE. Any more of it would be boring.
In my mind, the only legitimate reason for a sequel is to continue telling a story that, at the close of the first installment, still needs to be told. Other than that, it’s just marketing.
This isn’t to say that sequels can’t be good or fun if they don’t feel like a natural progression of the first game, but generally, if the story in them feels too contrived, it will be suffering.
Of course, this only applies to games with fleshed-out stories and characters. For things like Mario, I’m not going to bitch that a sequel is unnecessary because the story was adequately wrapped up in the first game. In games like that, sequels are usually based on improved technology and gameplay mechanics.
Whats up my Kommanders of killing? My brohem’s or bloodshedding? How art thou?
Fellow Axeheads.
I for one love originality in sequels. Take the recent example of Infamous 2. A huge portion of the community got up in arms about changing Cole’s look… This kind of upset me. The game plays out like a comic book and if you go into a comic book store you will find about 30 different looks to Spiderman, Batman, Superman, Deadpool or Wolverine. Each story has a different vibe and source. For the most part they are all great and let the artists flex their artistic skills. Why can’t the same apply to video games? Why does a huge portion of the community want the same looking guy and not a different take… Kinda upsets me. I hope they leave the option in the game to play as Cole the way they intended.
Don’t get me wrong I don’t want them to make it a puzzle game out of infamous and go that far off the mark but a re imagining can be very good from time to time when it comes to great artistic creativity.
As far as Infinite goes I believe Ken Levine is a freaking genius in the games industry as well as the rest of his team. This game has a sort of steam punk fantasy vibe mixed with all kinds of wonder that I can’t wait to try it. Rapture had it’s time and instead of milking it for all it’s worth they are letting it rest a classic unlike a number of franchises anymore. It’s awesome to see their creativity and I bet the story will be just as amazing as Bioshock was.
Bring on the change and variety in gaming. It’s what keeps the industry fun and innovative. In my opinion seeing sequel after sequel pumped out almost annually as cash is keeping this industry from moving forward as fast as it could. It’s great seeing Companies like 2K, Media Molecule(LBP), Rockstar(Red Dead), Team Ico, Atlus(Demons souls, 3D Dot game heroes), Quantic Dream(Heavy Rain), Rocksteady(BatmanAA) and many others trying something new and succeeding where others haven’t before in creating new and creative worlds/stories/characters/beauty/art and making it fun. I applaud change not only in sequels but in the industry as a whole.
Whats up my hows of art thou, my… wait I did something wrong. Anyway
My take on this depends on the franchise. Some games demand new content in every sequel, and some just have to be improved.
Lets take Assassin’s Creed for example where UBI had a great base (some might say half a game but frak them) all they needed was polish it (put the other half there…) and they did just that with the second game. Or Starcraft which was awesome first time around, so awesome in fact, all Blizzard had to do is tweak a few parts, give it better graphics, and an overhaul the online playground.
On the other had there is the GTA franchise which is also a good and a bad example. After a big leap forward (GTA II to III) Rockstar emerged from the swamps of being a second rate developer selling games with blood, to an A list star (selling games with blood and sex!). And then the series stayed basically the same over the years, with a lot of episodes over a lot of platforms implementing only a little change…
Unlike the Call of Duty series who pioneers new features, creativity, and user support. Or I might remember incorrectly, and they just rip us off year by year now…
I guess it all comes down to “keep, stop, start” methodology. Developers should evaluate their big (or small for that matter) games, based on sales, reviews, and consumer feedback (not necessarily in that order) and decide weather:
-Is it time for a new episode?
-Do they need to change things dramatically?
-What parts of the game should they improve on, what should we get rid of?
A good sequel might be anything along the line of a completely new perspective on an old story, or just more of the same. In the end, all that matters is it to be a fraking good game.
Each title is a separate case, if you think in games like super mario and zelda, this titles need new things because they life spam is so long, that doing the same thing again and again would destroy theyr franchises.
Now, if look in games like Mass Effect and Assassin Creed, they were good games , that need a bit more of work to get the audience, you can just improve the formula, but you cant do it again and again, theres a limit to it, before it gets boring.
So as Rapture alread had 2 goods titles, its good have a fresh air on the franchise, but if sega would release a sequel to Alpha Protocol, i would prefer a good improvement on the fighting mechanics ^^.
How art thou fellow Axeheads?
When it comes to sequels, I prefer them sticking to there roots, whether they change the gaming mechanics to be better (Assassins Creed Series), keep the same game formula but add little things here and there (Halo Series) or the very least continue the story formula (Fable Series), even if that means creating a new gaming mechanics. Overall I believe that sequels should keep true the the original game build or story structure. I just ablsolutely hate it when they just slap on a well known franchise name to a totally new game based on the same universe, such as Halo ODST or Halo Wars, but plays like a different IP. The only industry who I think has not done this is the comic industry. They keep everything in the same “Universe” but seperate each comic serious based on the Hero of interest. To get to the point, sequels should be about expanding the current story, whether it differs by a couple days (Halo), or even a couple of years (Fable), but the second they start a parallel story that leads to new gaming mechanics, such as Metal Gear Rising and Halo ODST, put a new fricking label on it.
And please try to put the Skirmish on BEFORE the member battle cry…
I don’t see why sequels need to choose between being original and sticking with what works. Bioshock Infinite itself is an example: though the setting and the characters and the vibe are all different, I’ve read articles about the gameplay of Bioshock Infinite, and seems to me like the game feels a lot like the original Bioshock: the plasmids, the guns, the Big Daddy fights, and everything that made Bioshock’s gameplay stand out are still in Bioshock Infinite. Other examples of sequels that went for originality and sticking with what worked: Thief 2, Assassin’s Creed 2, Baldur’s Gate 2, Fallout 2, Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind (though it really isn’t hard to make a game better than Daggerfall). Though a lot of you may say these games aren’t original, they follow the same pattern as Bioshock Infinite: the gameplay is roughly the same, but the setting, characters, story, and the vibe are a lot different.
On the case of Bioshock and Irrational Games respectively, I completely agree with what they did. They’re giving you an universe to explore not hindering themselves with a city in the bottom of the sea. Instead, saying let’s explore different time periods and different art styles; Bioshock 1 (Art deco, 1940′s) Bishock Infinite (Art Nouveau, 1910′s).
Why is it that people want to explore the same environments over and over again? What’s this fixation with falling in love with the same scenario and plot? Having to hear the COMPLETE end of a story! What happened to modernist stories? wtf?! Instead why don’t we let the Developers do whatever they want?
Look at Bungie, it has to suck having to go to work and having to regurgitate the same bullshit over and over again, yet we’re satisfied because of a new fucking gun and a new fucking vehicle to ride.
Cut thru the bullshit people, Cry Havok, don’t take the same plate of shit over and over… ask for more(maybe some sprinkles, wait… that would be the guns and vehicles).
I applaud Irrational Games, in how they can keep the overall idea (that we fell in love with) and of the Bioshock universe yet just flip it on it’s heels.
This is really tough question…
I can’t give an exact answer how it should be, but I’ll provide examples for when it works and when it doesn’t.
1) XCom – this is originality over the top. Only thing that connects upcoming XCom title to the original franchise is the name and “alien invasion”. Nothing else. Now, why is this originality bad? Because X-Com was famous for its excellent turn-based tactical gameplay (in some cases real-time) mixed with real-time strategy. I’m not saying XCom is bad or will be (though X-Com: Enforcer’s influence is strong on me), I don’t know that. But what I do know is that the game represented something, something that pretty much doesn’t exist in todays gaming industry. A turn-based tactical genre.
2) Splinter Cell: Conviction – first of all, I dislike the game, but I will try to give objective views. The game strayed from hard sneaking into an actiony title like pretty much anything else these days. But unlike XCom it didn’t turn the whole game into a shooter. Sneaking part was expanded and streamlined making the game accessible to gamers that can’t overcome challenges of previous titles or simply the style of gameplay doesn’t suit them. Overall the game was a success. (But I do miss games in vein of original Splinter Cell or Thief … they are nowhere to be found anymore).
In the end, originality is good. It brings refreshment to (long) franchises but it must be treated with care. The game needs to retain core gameplay and spice it up with new setting, mechanics etc.
Fine example here is Bioshock. When you see it, you know what to expect: FPS in a ‘whacky’ place with strong atmosphere and that’s why people love it. Not because it carries the name Bioshock (although that did influence sales and reviews a bit).
When you see X-Com you know you will get excellent turn based play and that is why you play the game.
P.S. Sorry for bad english.
P.P.S. I’m really taking it on 2kGames and XCOm … (the first X-Com was and is my favourite game of all times)
P.P.S. This is probably too long for a member battle cry and I didn’t give the solid answer, but what the heck!
it all depends on the franchise for me – some games are simply unappealing to me (like bioshock (looked bad, played poorly and the story didn’t capture me a bit so i just stopped playing ~2 hours in) and assassins creed (oh god… worst controls i’ve tried to play with in a game since.. the NES era)) while i just bought uncharted 1 yesterday (because i bought the second one a couple of weeks ago and enjoyed it so much i just played through it 3 times and *had to* get the predecessor) – i was kinda suprised how its pretty much exactly the same with a different story – thats not a complaint – it works, looks great and in the end its the story I’m playing it for
on other games i get the feeling that some sequels should’ve been DLC (and since i’m coming from the PC section: I FUCKING HATE the approach of charging for DLC – especially for small updates like new multiplayer maps and the like.. stuff that used to be free since the dawn of time and now goes for 15€ – yeah, i’m looking at you assholes, activision)
back to sequels before i get raged any further and stick my keyboard through my monitor…
final fantasy works for me – they are all RPGs but have vastly different stories and battle systems – sure it seens to come down to “keep what works” but the differences are huge imo
for some reason i can’t think of a single franchise that got a “reboot” and became a completely different game… they’re pretty much all “more of the same” even when they went on to new dimensions (mario, GTA, street fighter and a lot more)
anyway just my 2p
..back to uncharted
My battlecry goes out to sequels made in the vein of Final Fantasy IX, because sometimes a good mix of classic mechanics, character types, and story tropes peppered with nostalgic nods to prior games in the series is all that anyone really needs. When crafted with these ideals in mind, I find that a sequel can completely immerse players and at the same time remind them of why they love a franchise so much in the first place!
To all the connoiseurs of creativity and the Axelords of the EBA community:
I think it’s important to bear in mind that video game franchises, unlike movies and literature, are recognized for their gameplay/structure just as much as story (if not more in most cases). Therefore you could say the sequels of video games have more opportunities/ways to evolve or change. However the multi-facaded nature of video games can also makes it harder for sequels to be perceived as original.
Bioshock Infinite is a great example of this; here the developers have made an effort to make a game with a new setting, characters, story and feel yet it’s still a sequel. Because despite all the grand changes already revealed and possibly more to come, gamers will still feel familiar with it as DK put it, even likely label it “Bioshock 3″ despite what the developers chose to market it as, just based on gameplay. Put Bioshock in Heaven, it’s still the same thing; put Lord of the Rings in space and you get Star Wars… well not really but you get the point.
Longer running franchises, I’ll use Zelda as example, have long sinced started to suffer the consequences of a similar dilemma. The series has had a core gameplay, structure and backstory pretty much since the original game and whatever changes or additions are made, people familiar to the franchise will still recognize and judge it as “another Zelda game”. It could play out in 2D or 3D – on sea or land – in time-loops or different dimentions – presented in cell shading – controlled by stylus or motion sensors: it doesn’t matter.
I think that being orgininal is never the ultimate goal when creating a sequel. Instead what I expect is that developers take a close look at the franchise and ask themselves; how do we make this a new and exciting experience for our consumers today?
I myself prefer originality in sequels, and here’s why. We all know of the little to no changes done to sequels like Madden for example. Changes that may warrant a $10 DLC but nothing remotely worth the $60 that we keep getting charged every year. Then again, some sequels such as God of War 3 or Uncharted 2 do well to stick with the same formula, although massively enhanced. Where as sequels from series’ like Final Fantasy or GTA remain original with every new title. They may keep a few features the same in the series, but mostly change the characters, settings, stories, and even gameplay in some instances making it feel like a completely new game. Sequels that stick with originality over being safe tend to be a hit or miss with most. Ask Lionhead Studios. I’m all for creativity and trying new things. Bottom line is, we as a society of gamers can’t expect to progress any if we continue to stay safe the rest of our lives. Innovation is the key to progression. Sometimes it’s better to step outside the box. Look at Hollywood for example. They haven’t done much of anything original in decades. Which is why we get most of the crap we have now.
Agreed. Well said.
What’s up
The poll doesn’t really include my opinion at all.
I like the new setting much much better than rapture but I’m still not convinced they can pull off another great game like Bioshock 1 since I was immensely disapointed with it’s sequel.
If it’s a sequel they just get a stick with what works and improve it, like AC2 did…but in the case of Bioshock Infinite, i think they are using the name of a established franchise to create what should be a new IP.
So what you want is new IP’s…because otherwise you would be going against the definition of a sequel
First off, Brent: Tasseographers of Torment, Prestidigitators of Pestilence.
My battlecry goes to, and always will go to developers pushing the envelope. “Sequels should be more of the same” is the ethos that led to the 16-bit collapse of the 90′s, and we’re still seeing the effects of such a concept in today’s games. Look at the jump from RE3 to RE4, and then from RE4 to RE5. The former is an example of a major push on the boundaries of the IP, and the latter shows the “more of the same” theory, and just how easily it can turn a gameplay innovation into mediocrity.
If we’re going to start referring to video games as an art form, we need a LOT more originality in our sequels. Developers should see a successful first game as a jumping-off point, not as an ever-emptying well of ideas.
It’s good they are changing things up to keep it fresh. However I think it takes more than a good location to make a good game.
I personally feel that “playing it SAVE” is virtually the same as “going out on a LIMP”.
But, seriously folks, this is a double edged sword which could cut either way depending on your own perspective. Take HALO for example: I can’t tell you how many comments I’ve read that fall on either side of this issue when it comes to that game. On the one hand you have people saying “same old crap, meh” while on the other you have fans who are all about “I can’t wait for ANYTHING related to this game”.
I guess maybe it’s just a fine balance of pushing the envelop of what people might expect by adding some new elements, while not straying too far from what the hardcore fans can’t wait to see. Too much playing it safe can make a game stagnate in the players eyes, but going too far out on that limb could be a set up for a disastrous fall.
Really though, who wants to play the exact same game in a different location? That’s called a Map-Pack DLC, right? Until next time, Rockers of Rampage, Hellions of Headbanging.
A sequel should stay true to the SPIRIT of the game not to the mechanics. The spirit of a game is timeless. Exploring Hyrule and saving the princess looks just as good on the NES as it does on the N64 or Wii. But gameplay mechanics, like graphics, can become outdated and show their age. They don’t have to change every time a new game comes out, but developers should realize when they need to move forward with the series. When you play a Metal Gear game from NES to the PS3 there is still a familiarity and connection to the world of Metal Gear no matter what it looks and plays like. But the series should also embrace and utilize the new technology to keep it fresh and exciting in a fast moving industry with such high standards and a critical audience. When a game releases a title every year with few improvements to the mechanics (cough* Madden, COD), despite staying true to same spirit and feel to the game, the recycled mechanics will make a game feel dated and more like an expansion.
To drive my point home, I feel that many people were underwhelmed by Resident Evil 5′s release because despite it being a great game it failed to capture the spirit of the series’ signature horror feel. When you play a RE game or Zelda game you know what type of feel you get from it. But I wouldn’t necessarily discourage such risks if it seems like the best direction to take a franchise. Case in point, Bioshock was about exploring a unique, mysterious, and exotic world, not about being underwater. Bioshock Infinite seems like a natural progression to keep the series exciting and fresh. If they kept Resident Evil in the mansion all these years it would have gotten old quick.
What’s up, my disciples of domination, my minions of malice, how art thou.
Sequels will never live up to the expectations, we the fans, create. As gamers we will always see a sequel as an improvement on the first title, but in keeping the the general play style, story line etc. What makes a sequel bad is us. We create so much hype for ourselves, always thinking and saying that the next title is going to be amazing, really shadowing the first. Even ignoring the time between the developer first releasing a teaser trailer and the eventual launch, even if prolonged, we can create enough hype from say one game play video. If you look back at blockbuster titles, like halo, gears of war and fable, you will nearly always be disappointed with it. From simply wanting too much. As it is bringing a game out will always be a strain on a developer, no matter how large, there is always a edit between trying to put only the best content in, and before the launch they initially say, which should, as mentioned by the guys, not be announced until it is definite. I feel with any game the fundamentals should always be kept the same with a sequel, such as the way it plays, the style, the characters fitting into the world around them. What makes a good sequel great is the stretch in content without over killing the title, what i mean to say is that give the fans what they want, then maybe a couple things they weren’t expecting. When a developer tries to stretch a title to its limits, putting as much content in as possible, the overall game will ‘come apart at the seams’.
I think you guys need to define “originality” when it comes to sequels, that’s kind of an oxy moron. I think Bioshock Infinite’s new setting and story do a lot to make it feel new and exciting again, but I have a feeling it will play the same (plus obvious small improvements that come with time in development). I feel like XCOM has the same problem, how any 50s style sci fi FPSs with RPG elements are 2K going to pump out.
But enough rambling about games that will probably kick ass regardless, I want to talk about Splinter Cell Conviction for my Battlecry. At the start of development it looked to be a completely different Splinter Cell experience, then it changed again to something that feels more like a Splinter Cell setting, but without the Splinter Cell gameplay. Sam Fisher played more like a ninja, and it didn’t really fit him as well as it fit the co-op characters in the side campaign.
I was actually really hoping that homeless Sam Fisher design would work out. Some of the early things they showed like fist fighting was terrible, but the concept was beautiful. Urban stealth, hiding in plain sight, once an agent now borderline terrorist, and most importantly Sam Fisher is old. Being a homeless old man, with only one mission left, and being with him as he faces his own limits would have been bad ass. The only thing I can relate it to is the scene from MGS4 when old Snake gets severely burned. By trying to be too different, they ended up scrapping the concept altogether. It series should have evolved with the Sam Fisher story, then be redesigned (because SC:C was still a great game). We all know daytime stealth was never a strong spot in the franchise, Splinter Cell Conviction could have played runaway from the law during the day, and secret agent at night. I don’t think they will get that chance again, unless they create a totally different stealth franchise, or somehow recreate the story elements from Splinter Cell that made Sam want to leave the agency.
My assassins of assassination my killers of killing… wait maybe that’s a little redundant… how art thou?
This is an extremely difficult topic as I really want both originality and sameness at the same time. I tend to view each series differently.
From my Blizzard titles I want more sameness than I want originality. Starcraft 2 is not too much different than Starcraft 1. None of the WoW expansions have really done anything new besides add a new place/race/class yet all the sequels and expansion are very worthwhile.
But on the other side of the same coin I love the Final Fantasy series and its originality that comes in every new game. Every FF game is drastically different from the one before it (usually enough to piss off most of the Fanboys).
So I guess what I’m trying to get across is more change than what’s shown in most sports titles from one year to the next but less change than say, from Front Mission 4 to Front Mission Evolved.
im not sure if anyone has said it yet, but personally its a balancing act. its just that some companies have a much better time with it then others.
i know someone is going to gripe but the best example is square enix. by keeping the core of their games rather untouched for nearly 50 titles now, they have firmly established a large audience that allows them to take risks. they have traversed though rpgs ( do i really need to name them?) trekked through action games ( the world ends with you, kingdom hearts series,and dissidia) and have even managed to do the ever so daunting rts(revenant wings).
whether or not you love em or hate them they have set themselves in such a way that no matter what type of game or genre they try to do next, we’ll most likely be their to buy it and give it a try. very rarely do you hear that about game companies right now.
but theirs also a catch. if a company suddenly decides to change their formula (in a big way) because their competition do things differently, it can have a backlash ( poor final fantasy 13).the interface was one of the best things i have ever seen, but the rest was just so fucking terrible.
but whats even more sad is that the company must have known somewhere deep inside that this might happen. the world ends with you(an earlier square enix title) preached the idea that conformity is not an ideal answer. the world is a diverse and wonderful place and so should you. so i think all companies need to at least keep this idea in mind while they move forward. it good to have an awesome flow going, you just should keep the flow going by adding something new to the pot.
side rant :
how in the world did square screw up so bad? their a freaking multimedia conglomerate! half of the stuff multimedia wise that is made in japan , they have their hands and money wrapped in it. so if they have such a strong footing and grasp of the market….how in the world could they flaunt so badly?
kudos to irrational for taking the highroad and to dk for all the puns……their alot of funssss.
I think that a true sequel should continue or add to the story arc of the original release, but improve on (not totally change) the gameplay mechanics of the original. To me, the setting can be as different as it needs to be, as long as the original title(s) still have a fair bit of relevance to the new game.
What’s up, my colossi of collateral damage, my dark templars of demolition? How art thou?
First of all: yeah, i love Starcraft 2. And it’s a very good example for a sequel that was just more of the same – which is great, because more of a good thing is never bad.
Another great example for this is the Grand Theft Auto Franchise. Except from moving from 2D into 3D, it hasn’t changed that much since the first game was originally released – except for the stories and characters, of course. And why should they change GTA? It’s awesome the way it is, and i couldn’t think of much that you should change.
On the other hand, I think it’s great that some game companies try taking their franchises into bold, new directions. It’s a good thing to try and innovate a bit, and if you’ve already got a big franchise running that you think a lot of people are interested in, it’s probably easier to introduce something new than if you start a whole new IP – sure, some people will be pissed about it initially, but if you can deliver the goods, the whining is gonna stop.
One great example and a game i wanted to give a shout-out for a long time anyway is GUILD WARS 2, an upcoming MMO.
The first Guild Wars was really awesome, PvP focused, but with a great story and a great gameplay system. It was, however, fully instanced, meaning outside of towns you got your “own” copy of the map that you were on with your party.
Now, in the second game, they’re going to give us a persistent world, they’re going to add 4 new races (you could only play as human in the first game), there’s going to be a whole new story etc. etc. They’re not only trying to evolve things from the first game, but they’re also trying to change the whole genre of MMO-gaming by introducing a personality system, dynamic events etc. etc.
And, as did Guild Wars before it, the game’s not gonna have monthly fees or some phoney ingame-shop!
So yeah, you can probably tell that i’m extremely hyped about it, and i think it’s a good idea for them to not stay with what they did in the first game, because i think that this might impact the overall genre.
What’s up, my Protoss of Purging, my Hidralisks of Horror, how art thou?
I applaud game developers who try to infuse some originality in a franchise. After the disaster that was Bioshock 2, I was growing tired of Rapture. I can’t wait to get my hands on Infinity. And let’s not forget, the first Bioshock is a spiritual successor to System Shock.
With that being said, changing a game’s winning formula can also lead to crap. A recent example is Splinter Cell Conviction, where Sam Fisher is basically Jack Bauer, and the gameplay was really dumbed down.
What is up, my superiors of strangling, my commanders of choking, how art thou?
Two words. Halo Wars. Epic Fail. RTS Halo? No thanks.
And when people try to innovate, what generally happens? People don’t trust it. For example, Xcom. As Brent, the god of thunder, doo doo doo doo, and rock and ro-oo-oll talked about, changin a RTS into a FPS seemed like a odd direction to go. They changed our minds at E3, but lets face it everyones initial reactions are dubious when a franchise we love changes.
So that’s why most game sequels stay the same, because of us. We don’t like change.
As I was typing this a friend on my steam list just popped up saying ‘this person is now playing XCOM-UFO defence force’. ‘Nuff said.
Whats up my guardians of gaming, my creators of chaos! How Art Thou?
I believe that game sequels should all be based around the original games audience and comments, its sad to think that game companies are moving away from listening to their target audience and moving more towards marketing. In a perfect world sequels would be made based on the audiences suggestions and improvements. But since that does not happen I think that if an original game has a great formula, the company should try and stick to that formula but mix it up a bit, like improve gameplay and most importantly try and tell a story in a new setting to stop the gamer getting bored with the same scenarios from the first game. A great example of how a company has made a much better game is Assassins Creed 2, they had a great formula and just made it better with improvements to the gameplay and an increase in pace throughout the game.
But a game like Batman Arkham Asylum already has a perfect gameplay mechanic so its the job of Rocksteady to understand this and focus more on the story telling of the game to make it different instead of the formula. Finally all I want to say is that originality can sometimes be to safe but changing a game so much from the first one can also be a massive risk.
By the way great show this week, great Puns DK and Viking Brent RULES!
WHATS UP MY CADRE OF CATACLYSM?! MY VETERANS OF VILLAINY?! HOW ART THOU?!
What do I like in my sequels? VALUE, QUALITY and REAL IMPROVEMENT. I want more game for my money, I want a stable and smooth-running game for my money, and I want the franchise to GROW and implement features that were not present in the original.
Personally I’d like to give an ultra-epic battlecry to the folks that work at Naughty Dog, specifically for the INCREDIBLE title that is Uncharted 2: Among Thieves. In terms of sheer improvement (within the same platform generation) Uncharted is bar-none the biggest success story when it comes to making a sequel that made the original look like a tech demo. The implementation of Multiplayer was flawless and it remains one of the most playable online titles for the PS3. The graphics were improved upon, making the setting and set-pieces of the game almost a character in their own right, with certain locations being so detailed that my eyes nearly bled. The story (albeit corny) was brilliantly voice-acted and heart-poundingly well paced, and you could easily get as much enjoyment playing the game as watching someone else play it.
You guys here at the Axe are doing a wonderful job letting the community of gamers speak their minds on topics that really matter. Believe it or not, for someone who likes games like me, your weekly PodCast is educational. There I said it. I find myself looking for more details on stories that you cover and learning more about what kinds of games I should look forward to and as always will continue to vote for them with my dollars.
Thanks guys, keep up the great work!
-Omegalegion.
A good example of a 1.5 leap was Street Fighter IV.
Capcom new fans didn’t care for the 3D push that seemed to be mandatory a few years back.
So they kept the SF brand and the base 2D gameplay then gave the game a new look. It worked out great.
Let’s assume they tried the 3D gameplay again, it could have been the end of Street Fighter as a mass appeal fighter all together.
It’s definitely a risk sometimes to deviate too far from what made the original game popular, but if you don’t keep growing and innovating, no doubt you’ll eventually wither out and disappear.
What´s up my postmen of goliath, my axeheads of Zeus!!!
My MBC goes out to all the devs that take all of the good stuff from a already established franchise and do everything else different….I think that´s the key to a perfect sequal. F. Ex. Red Dead Redempthion. The first Red Dead game was….not really a milestone (let`s be honest….It was bullshit exept of the multiplayer component) but the sequal was the best western-game the industry ever saw. I`m pretty hyped about BS:Infinite because it does this or will do it (hopfully).
I play videogames since I was a little boy and think the industry developed since then pretty much. The technology grew fast and so did the gameplay and everything, but thats one of the most important parts in a videogame and the one thing that never should change to drasticlly in a sequal, that had allready good gamplay. Hope the guys don`t screw up the gameplay from Bioshock.
Ps: Keep it up guys, it`s the best Podcast on the Web. Always remember, cry havok!!!!
Greetz from good old Germany.
Sup axelords!
Ive recently been brainstorming around this very question myself and been trying to figure out what other people are getting at when they are asked about games that change dramatically. Most gamers seem to like change and i thought i did too as a younger gamer but have found myself beign unpleasantly suprised playing some sequals, and missing the parts in the previous game taken out in the sequal. Games like Assassins Creed 2 which changed setting, character, way of telling story to surronding it around some italian jerk, and adding rpg elements. Or fable 2, mass effect 2 which lost some of its rpg feeling. I loved that mako!!!!(I do however love ME2 but ME was better)
At the end of the day developers cant please everyone which they might be trying by broadening the audience making it playable for everyone. Doing this however will make them loose entertainment value in the game for the fans of the franchise. Playing it safe but still giving some slight fresh new elements to the table is what i believe in. The halo franchise do this incredibly well. Improving the overall experience but not loosing what makes it special!
All the best from a true viking in scania, Sweden!
Hey there, Axe heads, long time viewer, first time poster. I’ve always wanted to try my hand at one of these Battle Cries and I thought why not, I’ll give it a shot.
There’s an old saying that goes something like this: “There’s nothing new under the sun.”
But, to be entirely honest, is that really a bad thing?
I think that as of late, there have been a lot of game developers (and even gamers) out there who have otherwise lost sight of what it means to truly make a successful series/sequel. When you hear about sequels to games now a days, you either hear about how it harkens back to the days of the original or how it otherwise changes everything for a completely new and different experience.
Since when was it a bad thing to create a happy medium between the two aspects? There’s a reason games like Uncharted, God of War and Modern Warfare play similarly to their predecessors: Because these formulas are tried and true and work incredibly well for the characters and the world in which they inhabit.
I don’t think game developers should see sequels as something that has to be all around ground breaking or innovative. When you have established a character that has found a strong foundation in it’s appreciative fan base, the last thing you want to do is completely change the character’s direction.
What if Kratos had all of the sudden thought that maybe it wasn’t in his best interest to see to it his revenge was had and instead found work as a local carpenter(or more than likely a butcher)? What if Mario finally thought it was high time that Peach stopped getting herself kidnapped and just didn’t want to save her anymore? What if Sonic just…stopped running?
When it comes to sequels to beloved games, gamers are there to play with their favorite characters and see them through another harrowing and exciting adventure. They want to see where the story takes people like Drake, Kratos or Soap MacTavish. They want to know just how far these characters are willing to go to make the means to an end. They want to explore new, lavish locales while at the same time experiencing them with the core gameplay mechanics that they found so exhilarating in the prior games and being with the characters that they have made an emotional bond with.
Build upon what is already there and you, my friend, may just have another hit on your hands
Sometimes, gamers just want more. More levels to grind, more loot to find, more areas to explore. If I wanted something different, I’d of asked for a new IP.
Hello fellow axeheads!
I’ve been following you for a long time, but only now decided to register and start contributing to the community!
So, my battlecry goes to the developers who actually have the guts to invest into a new idea and drive away from the safe route. Every year you see several IPs being “re-skinned” just for the sake of money, like CoD with its different settings and names but still the same old system and gameplay and also the example of Bioshock 2 (although i did enjoy it, just not as much as the first one).
However, there are still developers, like Irrational Games, who decide to keep it fresh, and actually invest into an almost completely new game.
Let’s face it, if a game is left with an unconclusive ending ( a la God of War 2 for example), then it has every right to follow a very similar route just to close it up with the next sequels. However, like in the case of bioshock 1, where you clearly had a conclusive ending, there’s no sense into basically copy pasting the same thing with small different aspects added. If you have nearly perfected a formula on the first try, why re-write it a second time?
Just makes so much more sense trying to invest into a new formula so that things are kept fresh and gaming just keeps evolving! If not, where would we be today?
P.S: Unfortunately, the big devs nowadays rarely do that sort of thing so were forced to look through the indie section where, i believe, there are true gems.
P.S.2: Sorry for any grammar mistakes, im Portuguese.
What’s up, my Wizards of War, my Mages of Massacre! How art thou?!
I’ve only been listening to your Podcast since about episode 60, so my apologies if that has already been spoken. Regardless, I’ve always had an ambiguous idea of what works best when it comes to sequels, but I was never sure of what sounded right. That is until I saw the Harmonix panel at GDC, there it was, the ideal quote. “Innovate, then perfect.” I could not agree more with this statement. The idea that you would create a new and interesting game, then listen to the players and respond to their feedback to perfect the second game seems to be the perfect plan.
Perhaps this exact model wasn’t used in some of the cases, but popular sequels seem to go along the same train of thought. Diablo 1 to Diablo 2, Rock Band 1 to Rock Band 2, I’m sure there are more but I’m trying to keep it short. Essentially, make Dead Space 1 (a great game in itself), then make Dead Space 2 what Dead Space 1 should’ve been. Then, in my opinion, just move on. We need more creativity in the gaming industry as opposed to the enormous amount of sequels there is.
Postscript: Speaking of sequels…Demon’s Souls 2 and Two Worlds 2, NOW!
For me, there is a time and place for revolution. With Bioshock, Rapture had become tired, dull and it needed replacing. With other series such as Halo however, I think a major shift would cause the opposite reaction, making huge changes to the formula would only alienate long term fans.
I’d also like to quickly mention how shitty Microsoft’s XBL sales policy is. I own both Halo 3 and Halo: Reach, which as many know, has all of the maps for Halo 3′s multiplayer. This evening I’ve clicked on a map pack which is included in Reach and spent 800MS points, once this is done, there is no returns policy. I can’t think of any other service that offers no returns! Android and iOS both offer this service. Get it together MS!
What’s up my masters of mayhem, editors of epic! How art thou?
I think that for the most part, sequels should be the realm of very conservative experimentation. When I buy a sequel of an established IP, it’s generally because there’s something about the original I want more of.
If it was story, I’d like more story. If it was a gameplay mechanic, I’d like to see that mechanic riffed off of. It the game needed a little more polish, I’d rather the dev polish the game before they go off experimenting.
A good example of this is the FEAR series. I thought FEAR was an alright game, but FEAR 2 blew me away! The first FEAR was plagued by repetitive game play. FEAR 2 is great because it took what was great about the original IP and perfected it by adding some real variety to the enemies. Now I’m stoked about FEAR 3 and I’m excited to find out how they’re riffing off the previous games.
However once their polished, I think that sequels are a great place for devs to experiment. Sequels have a lot of brand momentum that allows them to get more feedback for the things they try. That being said, whatever new ideas they implement in a sequel, it needs to be a fully-baked idea that fits within the IP!
Imagine if Halo 3 tried their hand at the VATS system!
My battle cry is going out to the guys behind Assassins Creed series, who seem to just grasp exactly what us, the gamers, loved from the original, and masterfully refined it in the sequel to come out with an end product that, still had the essence of the first one but with a complete overhaul, new paint job, new accessories, the whole ‘Sha-bang’ And now, if in Brotherhood they manage to execute the online multiplayer with as much class as the single player will undoubtedly have they will be nearing, quite simply the best that that game could be. This is why I really dont think that they should ever attempt a ‘Bioshock’ and release Assassins Creed 3 : Modern Grand theft Redemption Effect Unleashed Dog Days Company, as to be honest they just dont need to, if they wanted to try something new, they should just start a complete new IP which is why im giving another hats off to Rock Star. Who, instead of creating Ranch Theft Auto 5: Liberalizing Cities decided to just launch a new franchise which although feels and plays much like Gta has its own unique flavour to it.
First up, Whats up my goth-slayers of Gotham, my matadors of metropolis, how art thou
(if I’m repeating what someone all ready said I’m sorry it’s late and i don’t feel like reading all the comments) when it comes to sequel it all depends on the ip, for everyone says bioshock 2 didn’t live up to bioshock 1 for the fact it played it o safe and was the same as bioshock 1 and here is what think, bioshock 1 was not ment to have a sequel and bioshock 2 was gust tacked on (its like replaysing Christopher Nolan will Uwe Bolle. . . it gust wont end well), example why “playing it safe is not a bad thing”. . . God of War. . . must i really say more say more, but than what games deserve sequels, simple the one that has a continuing story, if there is nothing more to tell than there is nothing more to tell
my opinion of sequels to come first i want to say that the new bioshock is not a sequel but a “spiritual successor” there’s a difference, and that Batman arkham city will be better than arkham asylum with a few tweaks like make all boss battles have nothing to do with venom/titan (it was like fighting bane again and again) and (not that everyone will like this but i am passionate about this)and to put a heavy emphasis on the pairing that is catwoman and the batman (yes you guessed it im a batmanXcatwoman fan, and if are complaining think of it this way. . . comic books are a big soap opera)
PS. Brent you are awesome but i fear you cant come up with your own openings any more, and i would like to Lorrin and others to the show i think i speak for everyone that want to see (or hear) them on the show
What’s up, my mighty axe-wielders?
I think that the question of whether a sequel should be original or should stick with what it knows is purely subjective. In the case of trying something different, I would like everyone to look at Model #1: Devil May Cry 2. We all know how that one turned out. The game threw out everything that was loved about the original. Another case, however, is Model #2: Far Cry 2, which was both praised and attacked by critics and gamers alike.
I love originality, but I also love some familiarity once in a while. So long as the company isn’t milking the franchise (using a franchise name to boost sales [read: Medal of Honor]), I’m totally fine with either trying something new or sticking with what you know. It’s totally subjective, so I think developers should ask their communities what they think. Being in touch with their communities and finding out what they want out of sequels would only make everyone happy!
Thanks for the great show – I look forward to it every week and I look forward to seeing if my battle cry snuck its way onto the show.
All the best,
-Inresurrection
Bioshock infinite looks fucking great! I thought that it seemed only natural after the first bioshock to make a transition to the surface, a slow build towards the middle of the game where you could have some time out of water. So when the game did come out I was a little let down, because I think, yes, it did seem too redundant. So this new trailer taking a complete 180, and saying a big fuck you to the whole crawling to the surface, and going straight to the sky’s is a pleasant surprise.
One of the best examples of a company putting out the same game year after year(not talking about madden here), is dynasty warriors. Dynasty warriors 2 was the first one I played, and I bought 3,4,and 5, was there a 6? with every one, I was sure it would feel so fresh and new and updated, and more badass. But that never happened and with the last shit-fest they released that was the last draw. That genre has so much potential and could be so much more in my mind, and they waste it. Because they don’t care. They are making millions of dollars, by playing it safe and releasing an outdated game with every sequel.
So after that my thoughts are: Kudos to irrational. I have faith, I think the sky’s in this alternate world are every bit as intriguing as its oceans.
counterpoint! Def Jam Fight For New York, was a sweet game, awesome milestone for the brawler genre. Utilizing the game engine from WCW/WWF games from back in the day on N64! they made something so fun and viceral, badass face smashing, throwing sean paul in front of subway trains for hours! Not Danny Trejo! some of it was cheesey, but mostly it was fun. Then they tried to do something different, and I only played the demo, but I’m pretty sure It was a pile of dogshit that smelled like baby vomit and a pigs afterbirth. Bioshock has a lot more potential than their cast of rappers I guess. Lose the hip-hopsters, have someone else take the old fun game engine, make it better, keep the character creation. Is it that hard really?
You guys put on a great show keep it up. Now where’s my SAGOGA?
What is up axe-heads?
To be honest the question doesn’t have a correct answer. It all depends on the ip. People would not be half as excited about the new Bioshock if it was set back in Rapture and this time there is some big uncles for you to battle. Irrational have really stepped up to the mark and looks like they are gonna deliver on what made the first one great a fresh,interesting setting full of atmosphere which looks like what were getting again. (So is it original in that sense?)
But on the other hand you do have games that keep the same formula every iteration e.g. Final Fantasy. It is the same basic structure just with a new story and some new battle mechanics. But then on the third hand a game that really shakes things up with a sequel e.g. Fallout 3 work really well.
As for the name Bioshock infinite, people are saying that they are just cashing in on the name, they are in a sense but just from the name you know quality and surely that is a good thing. Cashing in from a recognised name is not something exclusive to the game industry, look at movies every trailer of a new movie lets you know what the director, producer and stage hand have worked on in the past. This sparks memories of those films and hopefully makes you more interested in the movie. It may not be as subtle in video games. But when was the game industry subtle?
i would like to see fewer sequels.
No im kidding. Sequels are great. But they do then to get really same-y?
Which is why, what i like is changes.
between mass effect and mass effect 2, so many things changed. You had to reload, no more elevator rides… almost no RP in RPG. They took what was a RPG and converted it into an Action adventure game with RP elements.
And we loved it!
Final Fantasy has changed with every iteration.. and not just some game mechanics, but the entire game world.
What i dont like however are sequels that play it too safe .. (BioShock 2, any EA Sports title and a little known indie game called Call of Duty)
Before closing, i’d like to point out..
At the end of the day, the game has to stand on its own merits. Change everything, or change nothing. If the gameplay is decent.. people will support you(like starcraft). what developers need to remember is THE GAME is more important than the name. If you have a completely different type of game.. dont use the name. I refer to FarCry 2 and some of the Ghost recon titles. Just create a new ip!
BioShock Infinite is in my opinion a good idea with a bad title. It should have been called AeroShock.. oh i dont know, System Shock came before BioShock and us gamers knew where the ideas are coming from is all im saying.
And thats what i have to say about that.
Fellow Axeheads!
1st time commenter so be easy on me, I would just like to say big fan of the pod cast,in my view on sequels of games is that they are to further improve the basics of the original game an example of this is assassin’s creed which had a good solid base of story and also game play but received criticism for being repetitive which was well founded however the sequel built on the foundations, set by the 1st game and this is what a sequel should be, another upcoming example is Dead Space 2, which looks to using the foundations of the 1st to give you a better experience in the 2nd game.
Also for Bioshock Infinite i agree with Rahul M (Above) that it should of differentiated itself more with no bioshock in the name because when it comes out the review and peoples opinions on the game will be comparing to bioshock 1/2 and not on its on merits.
Hopefully this was a good 1st post for me. Thanks for letting my voice be heard and CRY HAVOC!!
Whats up my aggravators of annihilation? My extirpators of extermination? How art thou?!
I think this could be perfect use for DLC/expansion packs. In the case of Bioshock, we could have downloadable level to connect to the new story-line. It’s win/win!
I also think that a game shouldn’t have story-lines it can’t deliver on. I think most Bioshock fans probably would have liked Bioshock 2 to take place right before and during when Rapture went to hell. That was a strong event in the Rapture world that would have made the sequel relevant.
hello my EPIC brothers in gaming how are thow my battle cry goes out to what works because like any game you dont want to play the first get hyped up for the sequel and then find out its in the exact same place i like to explore new places for example like in call of duty its always a different place and a different storyline but for a game like as previously mentioned bioshock it goes back to the same place its not as exciting or fun to explore.
Just in case: the name is pronounced french. Anyway:
Hey guys,
personally I would definitely go with “sticking with what works”. Originality is extremely important and it is actually that what I’m looking for the most in a new franchise. However, for sequels it’s very important to build upon what makes the IP great. Think of C&C for example – the last game just did incredibly wrong with trying to innovate (it was ok, but not great – and it wasn’t a true C&C game).
On the other side Blizzard games show how much you can perfect the idea of taking what’s good and elaborating on it to create an awesome experience. They never stand out as groundbreakingly innovative titles, but they always succeed in completely nailing the fan’s expectations. And I think that’s what makes a good sequel basically.
kkthxbye,
Engloutie
P.S. Obviously loving your show, keep up the fantastic work! And Daniel: puns are awesome, seek well for new ones, I’m in! no, wait…
(I’ve just hurt myself)
Greatings from tiny Denmark! (had a swede last week for member battlecry, would only be fitting with a dane now)
Anyways, if BioShock Infinite, is as good as the first BioShock, then that series will easily be one of my favorites.
The best sequels, are keeping the core things that made the first game great, gameplay/strong story or a superb atmosphere and from the looks of it, BioShock Infinite has huge potential to be one of the best sequels ever.
The atmosphere of going around Rapture, was one of its strongest plusses with the first BioShock. The new location in infinite looks to be just as strong.
More of the same is good too, when core mechanics are improved, but then the biggest thrill of the first game, might be a little stale in the second. (bioshock 2)
And a little off-note here…
If Jim Sterling was a game, he then went on EBC to learn about how he can improve his game…
And what does he do? He launches out at another critical game reviewer, which scored the latest K&L 2 game a 9/10,(jim gave it 1/10 btw)
Now, that other site had given valid reasons to why they gave it a 9. And yet, Jim goes after them, even if he had learned how to interact with other opinions now.
So, if you gotta improve a/your game, don’t do it the Jim Sterling way.
PS: EBC is great, it just needs a few game-babes in your shows to be perfect!
My battle cry goes to Spiritual Successors. Though there have been some awesome sequels in the past, having a game branded with a particular title usually leads to high expectations, which in many cases are not met. Spiritual Successors maintain the hype associated with the game they are succeeding, but the developers have the freedom to experiment with drastic alterations in game play, setting, etc.
I can give two particular examples, the first being Fable 3. It bears the name of the Fable franchise, so people expect something particular about the game. However, Peter Molyneux has stated it may be drastically different than it’s predecessors, which has led many people to become rather skeptical of the final product.
The second example is Retro City Rampage, a game produced my VBlank Studios and releasing later this year. It’s a spiritual successor to GTA, but because it’s not a branded sequel to any particular game, the developer has had a lot of room to experiment with varying game play, and in general has had the opportunity to improve that particular style of game in many ways, making a far superior game overall. But, being a spiritual successor, it still tingles your nostalgia taste buds.
I prefer sticking to what works with a dash of originality and a twist of innovation. One of the reasons that the Super Mario franchise has been so successful is because Nintendo essentially keeps releases the same games over and over with just enough modifications to keep us interested. It’s foolish to abandon the elements that work in a game, but in such a rapidly changing industry such as video gaming, it is equally foolish to stagnate.
If I had to choose one over the other, I’d definitely choose to sticking what works because, well, it works.
Franchises that do this include The Legend of Zelda and Super Smash Bros that have their mechanics down to an art. Indeed, many old school franchises that have been suffering are going back to what works, like Mortal Kombat and Sonic. Franchises that I believe strayed from the formula and failed are Command and Conquer (RA3 and C&C4), Burnout (Paradise), Unreal Tournament (Epic denies UT2003 ever existed) as well as said MK and Sonic.
Now, this doesn’t mean that sequels should be essentially the same game just continuing the story i.e. Madden. What I want from a sequel is more of the same plus other features that fit well with it. This is what LoZ, SSB did. To give another example, GTA III had everything GTA II did and in turn GTA IV had everything GTA San Andreas had (well…) but added much more. This might be the reason Bioshock 2 suffered but not adding enough.
In the gaming industry, originality is good but if a game changes a lot of the franchise’s concepts, it should not be a direct sequel but be a new IP or a sub-franchise, like Command and Conquer: Red Alert and Generals, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Red Dead Redemption (as opposed to GTA: Wild West) and what I feel is happening with Bioshock Infinite.
In short, from a new IP, I expect originality, but from a sequel, I expect more of the same but better.
well, my battlecry was easily the best this week, so give me some sweet ass GOG action.
Just kidding.
But seriously i want that gog action dammit.
Look it’s even got a thumbs up!
(which i totally didn’t just give myself.)
(enter fancy sounding intro)
I like it when a company sticks with what works. And by that I mean, they keep doing what they’ve done before. Now sticking to what works, and playing it safe aren’t exactly the same thing. As many of you may remember system shock. It was more or less BIoshock, in space, but way more squarer. But the point is, they did stay with what worked between System Shock and Bioshock. Both had a “magic power”, that being the Psionic powers, or plasmids. They each used Audio Dairies, used the outing “everyones dead” as an excuse not to add real voice to the person you played, mostly everyone wanted you dead, you could see ghostys, both has light RPG elements, and they each had sequels that were more or less the exact same game, and they were heavily based off atmosphere.
So now that I’ve rambled about how they did really, go with what works. They didn’t just rehash the same game again. It was the exact same base, but it was clearly different. It used everything we knew and loved, and changed on a few things.
And hey, don’t blame people for having bad grammar/spelling. Some of us really can’t help it. Some of us can’t help being dyslexic! That and some people just can’t spell check… But I can at least say, I can’t help it.
(Enter Punchline Here)
wooooo first battle cry, lets give this a go.
my gamers of gynotikolobomassophilia,
my criers of incendivity how art thou.
(pssst brent if you want this, go to this site it’ll tell you the definition and how to pronounce it. http://www.yawiktionary.com/g/1148371665936.html)
i shall answer your questionable question with a questionable question of my own, do you like a bag of stale crisps (chips depending on your location)? you don’t want your games to get stale, they get boring and repetative I’M LOOKING AT YOU, GAME I CAN’T THINK OF RIGHT NOW BUT WILL STILL REFER TO. yet you don’t stop liking that brand of crisps or chips depending on your location. i will share with you my view on one of my favourite games, dead space, im looking forward to dead space 2 whilst cutting myself of from it’s media. you know what doesn’t help though daniel, putting up stupid spoiler adverts on your damn gametrailers videos COME ON MAN im tryin hard here. anyway back to my point dead space had great scares and great moments and really i dont think i’d change a thing on it, except one thing. later in dead space scare tactics got used to many times and it lost its suprise now my view is for the sequel you want to keep the game and its feel but you also need originalty, those scare you used arn’t gona work again and they arn’t gona work again later in the same game, each scare needs to be orignal even if it shares traits with other ones. so my cry is what worked before wont always work again.
thanks guys great show, and bring back lorin he was good whats wrong with a four man team. NOTHIN THATS WHAT.
What’s up my Illustrators of Innovation?! My Trend-setters of Tradition!? How art thou?!!!!?!?!
First off, I want to say how hilarious Lorin was on the last EBC. I hope he will be on more shows to come.
Now down to business. I think that when it comes time for the developers to create a sequel for an IP, whether or not to change the mechanics/ambiance of a game(like what the Bioshock franchise is doing with Infinite) or to stick with what works, it really DEPENDS ON THE GAME. If the focus of a game is largely story-driven(like Uncharted 2, Heavy Rain, Alan Wake, or even Bioshock) then innovation is key to keep the players buying these games. Take the Assassin’s Creed Franchise for example. Though it had ground-breaking mechanics(the whole free running shtick) and was a great game, it still had flaws that some people found to break the game. Do you think these people would play AC2 if it was the same game, especially since it was a single player experience? Hell fucking no. Fortunately, the guys(and Jade Raymond) at Ubisoft Montreal took the suggestions from the gamers out there who had something to say and they made AC2 an even more amazing game than its predecessor.
On the other hand, what if the game is multiplayer(and most likely a first-person shooter)? If someone is playing Modern Warfare, Halo 3, or Counter Strike, they aren’t looking for a mind-fucking movie experience like Mass Effect or Heavy Rain. They just want to prove their skills to the world one killstreak and one headshot at a time. I believe that for multiplayer games innovation is welcome, but not necessary. Sure the aforementioned games made a few changes in each of their sequels, like patches and updates, but the way people played those games didn’t change, which shows a lack of innovation don’t you think? And this of course is fine! I mean a new sports game and guitar hero come out every year. Modern Warfare and Halo are still selling strong with their shoot first, ask questions later during a cutscene, and then shoot again later formula, right?
The point is that different games are better at improving and innovating, while other games are just as fun by sticking with what works, with a few tweaks here and there. When Bioshock 2 got a lower review than the original, what was the reason again? Oh yeah, it felt the same as the first!! The reason Bioshock 1 was amazing was that it was a new IP that brought something new to the table. BS2 however failed to bring the same feeling of astonishment, and therefore it was not as well received. Of course reviews mean very little to me, but I digress. I think the team at Irrational Games knows what they did “wrong” for BS2, and they are remedying the situation by exploring new worlds for Bioshock Infinite, literally. I myself am not a Bioshock fan, but I can only applaud at the way the team at Irrational are trying to make BS a better game, in this case by shaking things up.
Thanks for reading my EPIC BATTLE CRY this week, and I hope I put some things in perspective.
P.S.: this goes out to DK! I couldn’t fit these games into the argument but Dragon Age and Red Dead Redemption are the shit!!!!!!!!!!!
What’s up?! My Shoe salesmen on main street, My crack dealers on broadway!!! How art thou? (Okay so I need more work on that… Don’t hurt me!!! *Dodges Axe Swings*)
When it comes to sequels, I believe Originality is what developers should aim towards their sequels. Playing it safe and using a style of if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it will leads the on going sequels into a state of stale bread. For example, I’m a huge Tomb Raider fan playing it when it first came onto the playstation and after a few sequels where the controls for Lara Croft was as bad as trying to parallel park a cement truck while having a ferret gouging your eyes out, the games and their sequel sort of died out. It wasn’t until a few years later when Tomb Raider Legends came out, with all new controls and a certain feel to the game without sacrificing too much of Lara Croft that it revitalized the series. Just look at how they built the game Lara Croft and The Guardian of Light, that game was fun and amazing at the same time and I highly recommend it (totally not bias). If more proof is need, take the Resident Evil Series as well, The originality spurred into RE4 was so amazing that many industries tried to mimic the 3rd person over the shoulder gameplay of Leon S. Kennedy. Lastly I want to bring out Fallout, the jump from tactical strategy RPG to FPS RPG was immense and Bethseda did a wonderful job at keeping the Fallout universe alive so I can keep chuggin’ on that Nuka Cola till either my teeth fell out or the radiation from it killed me. What I’m trying to get at is that these games were good because they took the chance to be original in their sequels and I know Bioshock Infinite will just be as good! Keep on gaming axe heads!
Hello to my fellow lovers of games.
I believe the true successful sequels are not the ones who are most original or most striking its the ones that can retain specific ideas from the first at its core.
The idea has to be so strong it is forever tied to that franchise forever. Let me give you a few examples of ideas that just by their names alone can be enough to remind you of the title they came from and what they stand for in the game.
vampire killer
Moogle
Chocobo
piranha plant
morph ball
little sister
master sword
robot masters
It is certain ideas that retain its meaning even though everything else changes around it. I believe bioshock infinite can capture its fans as long as it retains certain aspects from the games it is trying to succeed. I put my trust in ken.
In the case of the first bioshock succeeding systemshock it was the plasmids, the nameless hero, and wrench. The reason why bio has garnered such high esteem was the fact that they added to the lore they added to the current ideas making it its own. the big daddy, the little sister, rapture, and adam.
I am by no means stating that storyline is not important. What im saying is for the sequel to even be considered they need to ask themselves what ideas are strong enough to remain but change everything else even the characters. If there aren’t enough strong ideas than the project should be scraped. Though sometimes all a sequel needs are the characters. Notable characters are duke nukem, link, and mario.
PS all though DK makes such amazing puns they would no where be as funny if it weren’t for the disheartened verbal/emotional response of brent.
Hey axeheads! So, this is a subject I’ve heard lots of discussion over. And I think everyone is right. As gamers, we’re always looking for something new, something to crave our hunger for innovation and creativity. Look at Limbo. For months I was stuck playing FPS’s, when out of the blue, BAM, we get Limbo. A dark, disturbingly funny, and creepy game that woke me up from a world of boring cash-ins. Of course, without sequels and AAA titles, developers would be forced to continue to innovate, and we’d see fewer games. And hey, some of those sequels are actually pretty fun. Look at Gears 2 or AC 2.
This brings me to my main topic. Why not combine big name developers with Indie developers? I watched a video recently discussing the pros and cons of maintream and Indie developers. It goes on to discuss the possibility of these two mediums joining together. The video link is at the bottom of this post. Basically, why don’t developers of all kinds of games try working together? With the budget from mainstream developers, Indie devs would have less constraints to work under. And with the innovative game ideas from Indie devs, mainstream games would actually be more creative and worth while making. As gamers we need to set aside our differences and work together for a brighter, more entertaining future!
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1923-Innovation
For me sequels are either something that continues the greatness of the original game but adds to the winning formula, or a second chance, something that corrects and makes the original game into what it deserved to be by fixing the issues that people had with the first one.
I’m a big fan of single player so I like sequels to be a means of carrying on the story while giving me more of the enjoyment that had graced the prior game. I know this could be given to me with DLC, but with a full game they can pack more new and interesting things into it. This is a more favourable option for me because I like to have a physical copy, not just something that has been downloaded onto the hardrive.
So in my personal conclusion it’s either a corrective process, or just a way of giving the consumer more of the enjoyment that was given from the first… while at the same time making some tasty income.
Great show as always and keep up the good work!
What’s up my protagonists of procrastination! My antagonists of aggravation!? How art thou!?
I believe a mix of both is needed. If a good game is made, a sequel should be considered but it shouldn’t be made for sequel’s sake. If there are genuine new features go ahead by all means but don’t churn the same game out all the time. Call of Duty for example, it has been almost the same game for 3 titles now but with only minor tweaks and improvements. It’s only really there to fuel Bobby Kotick’s presumably extensive range of cars. Games like Halo and Civilization (I believe) on the other hand have genuine advancement in the way of features and improvements to the overall experience; if you play each game in sequence you can see them evolve into something better.
Obviously I love new titles such as Batman Arkham Asylum and Rage as well. As long as they don’t become effective sequels themselves by copying other games *cough* Medal of Honor *cough*.
We out, AYE!!!
My personal opinion on this is really simple:
If it works, use it, but DON’T MILK it!
Now in my opinion a perfect example of this is how Relic Entertainment creates their Warhammer franchise. They have made 2 Warhammer 40.000 games, but they have made two expansions with each game. (Warhammer Dawn of War II has the second expansion in the making). Now those expansions are stand-alone games, but they aren’t really milking the franchise, since it always feels new with all the new content they bring out (for full price however) But they have now started working on a Third Person Shooter instead of an RTS game, to stop making it feel like they are making the same game over and over again.
You either improve and expand the formula of the gameplay or you try your luck with something completely different in the sequel, just like Warhammer 40.000 did, First Dawn of War was a typical base builder but with a unique resource gathering system, whereas the sequel removed the base building in it’s entirety, and paved the way for many other RTS games that took the same path. It’s too bad that not many people seem to notice that this is exactly what Call of Duty does. Make some new weapons, add some new perks, new maps, and player skins and you’re good to go with a sequel, sure it might feel like the same game, but THAT is when you need a new IP or some originality. Yes I liked Modern Warfare 2 because I liked Call of Duty 4, And it did what a sequel is supposed to do. Expand and improve the gameplay and in my opinion it did. I acknowledge Infinity Ward as good developers, and blame Activision for the failure of the insanely overpriced DLC. (Yet people buy it anyway) But that is also what Bioshock is doing, taking the working mechanics of the first game, tries to improve them and expand as much as possible. Now people didn’t like Bioshock 2 as much, so they decided to just start an entire new story (I guess) which keeps me interested in how the game is going to turn out
And then when they know they can’t squeeze out more content to fit in an entire new game that people are probably getting tired of anyways, they should start working on a new fresh IP.
I think a great sequel requires a mixture of the following.
1. Adequately fixing the previous games’ flaws. Let’s face it, most first games in a franchise have their flaws. A good sequel must address these flaws that fix the problem in a satisfying manner. Example: StarCraft II allowing you to select more than 12 units at one time improved gameplay.
2. Updating the graphics. Anywhere else, I’d ask you not to flame me, but here at the ol’ EBA, I’m confident you’ll hear me out. Remember that this is a list about sequels, not expansion packs. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the graphics have to be more realistic, but they should have some stark aesthetics that are reminiscent of the original, yet fresh in some way or another. Example: Halo 2′s redesign gave the player a sense of newness, yet still similar to Halo: CE’s look.
3. Bring unique features and facets to the game. Any memorable sequel should bring something new to the table. Whether it be new enemies, classes, conflicts, subplots, characters, weapons, strategies, WHATEVER. This one’s pretty obvious, but it’s surprising how many devs forget this. EXAMPLE: Half-Life 2′s gravity gun gave players a plethora of possiblities and strategies that weren’t possible in its predecessor.
I’m sure there are things that don’t fit in these three things, but I hope that covers most of them!
As always, havoc has been cried, Purkinje out!
what’s up, my conquistadores of clevage, my minions of mass (effect? NO, DK!) destruction.
The last couple of years there have been too much sequels for my taste and I find it hard to be excited for them.
Of course after finishing a great game such as fable, bioshock or GOW, but when the sequel comes out it just doesn’t live up to the previous one and it’s always a sort of a letdown.
I’m more excited about games that reinterpret (is that correct English?) old franchises, such as bioshock did for systemshock, COD4 did for the millitary FPS, etc.
Now bioshock infinite is doing it again for the bioshock franchise, so i’m looking forward to see how that turns out. And that’s what makes a good sequel: to improve on the original concept and try to surpass it in recreating the wow-effect which was felt when playing the original.
That’s also the reason why I look forward to the halo sequels (although many might disagree with me) I feel that they tried to improve the formula everytime they made a new game and succeeded in doing so. In the gameplay area they kept things fresh and innovative, in the story area not so much, but yeah, how much worldsaving can a faceless übermensch called master chief do.
peace out my fellow brethren,
Joren,
greeting you all the way from Belgium
Sequels, like bioshock, should first and foremost be about continuing the story. Bioshock has always been about the atmosphere, and the story so thats what is most important to me. Personally with a game like Bioshock you could throw me into it with all the same gameplay mechangics as before and I’ll be happy, as long as you hook me into the experience. Which is why I might be a little biased on the bioshock subject. Obviously Irrational games will be changing things up, making new plasmids, new guns, new ways to do old things. And for some that is enough of a change to warrant the 60 dollar price tag. But for other games like Call of Duty, where the story is almost nonexistent anymore, new guns, new maps, and new perks does not hook me. You need to introduce more to a franchise then just a few new gadgets in my opinion. And most franchises haven’t been changing it up enough. Like the jump from bioshock to bioshock 2, or the jump from MW1 to MW2. They are sticking to the formula and playing it safe. After so many games you can’t do that anymore and the franchise usually dies on a low note, instead of going out in a blaze of glory. In the situation of Bioshock Infinite I am excited, I am optimistic, and I am intrigued. I just don’t want it to be Bioshock 2 in the air.
wassup my minotaurs of massacre, my ogres of obliteration; How art thou, LOL. awesome episode as always keep up the good work guys. I am glad to see developers taking a chance on their proven franchises Bioshock for example, even though it has never really appealed to me as a gamer, I’m glad to see them take the chance and expand on the mythos of the universe to keep their IP fresh for the followers of the game, more developers and publishers should be looking into this, instead of coming out with the same thing year after year. So long as they don’t stray too far from the original idea and stories. The same goes with older games like Tomb Raider, Castlevania, Fallout, and X-com with developers keeping them up to date and breathing new life into them it only expands on the existing fan base that the original games have created. Can’t wait for the next episode guys keep up the good work.
My battlecry this week goes out to the GC demo of The Witcher 2. I’ll admit it, I never played the Witcher do to the fact that my PC is old and shitty. But I did admire it from afar. I praised it to all my friends even though I have only played it for about an hour. Now that I see The Witcher 2 in action, I’m sure that this sequel will not only improve upon its predecesor but bring also innovate on the RPG formula with how much weight its putting on choice. in the first part of the GC demo, the Witcher 2 team showed a chart of all the branching paths in the game. I can’t even begin to explain how many different paths there are. you have to watch it for yourself. but lets just say that there are 16 different endings. now im just hoping that there will be a console version…
Yo,
So i was trying to work out why valve doest like PS3… i think the reason is not PS3 being hard to develop… its just the game engine.
The ‘Source’ engine is direct-x based… all the resources of their games are written for Source… now since source doesnt have OPEN-GL, it would probably require a lot of time to develop.
PC and Xbox share the game engine and so it works. If PS4 suddenly supports DX11… im sure Valve will port the game.
Which i think is dumb.
Both are awesome. Originality can take a lot of balls because so much can go wrong. But I generally prefer games that bring me something new, because as a consumer I’m getting something an experience unlike any other. However, expanding and improving on something that works is also good, because there is nothing wrong with games getting better. The Force Unleashed is a good example where improving the original concept is forming something that is looking to be absolutely stunning. But there is only so much you can expand or improve a game, and eventually a developer can end up producing something which is just really generic, or trying to mend what isn’t broken and ruining a series. The former is what I think is happening with first-person shooters, and why – in my opinion – they are becoming quite boring. An example of trying to fix was isn’t broken is with the Spider-Man movie games, when Spider-Man 2 was awesome, but they decided to change the controls completely in Spider-Man 3 and totally ruined the experience.
Overall, originality wins for me.
When it comes to sequels i feel that taking a risk is more interesting because you don’t exploit a formula that you know it works (like the zelda games which are very much the same) trying something new to keep players in the edge is the way to my opinion, that being said if a formula works you can mix it up a bit, like some mario games, they are all about the platforming but they always add something new to the mix.
personally y loved bioshock 2 but it did felt like the same game (only a different story)
kicking ass with a Big Daddy was awesome!!
Im sure someone has mentioned this in one of the above comments, but just in case i thought i would add that this is more like the 3rd incarnation of this franchise when you include the awesome ‘System Shock’ games to the table.
And if you’ve never heard of system shock or SS2 and you also a fan of dead space then you need to play them people.
this was one of the best FPS RPG scifi thriller games and easily has one of the creepiest sound tracks ever