chaosprism Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Me I dont like sequels, to me they're lazy. Dont get me wrong , a lot of sequels are good (whether they be movies/games/books), if they're part of a predifined sequence that was envisioned at the first one's inception they're good and necessary. Setting a game/movie/book in the same world as something else is good though.. from a new point of view with new locations, characters in that world with some things recognisable and some things not. It evokes a familiarity with a twist, and has been used by storytellers from the dawn of time probably. For example the myths of vampires, evil that wears your skin, to mix the familiar with the unfamiliar.. it has an impact. Stories of parallel dimension from our own history, stories set in our time with twists. Twilight zone type stories , they're all compelling because it asks the "what if" in our mind and takes our mind outside the box for a while. Maybe makes us look at ourselves from without and in a new way. Anyway sequels are just more of the same, continuation of something that works in their eyes. The continuation of the wrong things usually... understand that its the game iself that working.. the way its made, the story , graphics , sound.. without the need to continue with more of the exact same story. The way the baldur's gate name is tagged onto other things that are really quite different, dark alliance for one. Tools of marketing "genius", used by people who let fear rule them. If obsidian do make a game within a pre-existing franchise/world, which is a good thing I hope they make their own story and dont follow on exactly from whats been done before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankK Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Sequels are just like any other game, but with predefined expectations from the end-user. Sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. It's generally almost never because they are a sequel however. Publishers love sequels/licenses because it's very easy to justify making a sequel to a successful game or based off of a successful license. It is also easier for the average chump in the store to know what to expect. As a hardcore gamer, I can take or leave sequels. I've played some good original games over the last year and some bad ones--the same goes for sequels. I worry more about the game itself than the number of digits after the title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pawe Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 If you make a good sequel that has something that refers to the original game/movie etc. and it is done right, I have nothing against sequels. On the other hand, most of sequels nowaday are class B games/movies. So, obsidian folks, if you're making a sequel, make it right, we all know that you can do it. We trust in you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Nazzal Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 If you make a good sequel that has something that refers to the original game/movie etc. and it is done right, I have nothing against sequels. On the other hand, most of sequels nowaday are class B games/movies. So, obsidian folks, if you're making a sequel, make it right, we all know that you can do it. We trust in you. If Project X is a sequel of some game, it is most likely that I didn't play the first part(s) (all I've been playing in the last 5 years is Fallout and Starcraft), so I'll be able to judge the game objectively. Good luck Obsidian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankK Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 There's definately a thick black line between movies and games when it comes to sequels. A movie can basically REQUIRE the 'user' to rent or watch the previous movie because it's a 3 - 4 dollar expense at Blockbuster. A video game, in most cases is a much larger investment for the end user. So you have to assume the player might not have played the first game and make it accessible enough to them. I think Deus Ex 2, from a story perspective, did the 'recap' rather well. I'd forgotten most of the first game by the time I played the sequel and thought it worked out pretty well. The gameplay is another story =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 And no doubt, if Project X "is" KoTOR2... that fact will probably make it easier to get more sales for that all important initial game this company will be needing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ86 Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Sequels should at least add an improved engine as well as much improved gameplay. I would not label something done with the same engine as a sequel when it is more of an expansion pack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellester Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Sequels should at least add an improved engine as well as much improved gameplay. I would not label something done with the same engine as a sequel when it is more of an expansion pack. Improved tweaks to an engine are all I require. Like mentioned above if I'm playing a sequel then I expect some things, and one is similarity in the engine/interface/combat etc... Now, if a sequel is 5 years or more from an original then I would expect a new engine, but if it were only1 or 2 years, then I would probably just expect tweaks to the original engine. Life is like a clam. Years of filtering crap then some bastard cracks you open and scrapes you into its damned mouth, end of story. - Steven Erikson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 I don't even require tweaks. I just want more RPGs to play B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 FrankK: So you have to assume the player might not have played the first game and make it accessible enough to them. I think Deus Ex 2, from a story perspective, did the 'recap' rather well. I'd forgotten most of the first game by the time I played the sequel and thought it worked out pretty well. That is assuming the game is a direct sequel or one that is some how influneced by the first game. If, in a hypothetical world, Obsidian is working on a KOTOR2 that isn't furthering the events of the first game somehow, like if it uses all new characters and is set thousands of years before/after, than it doesn't really need to sum up KOTOR. Why would it? In that sense, it would be much more like the Final Fantasy games, than a "sequel". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Nazzal Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Sequels should at least add an improved engine as well as much improved gameplay. I would not label something done with the same engine as a sequel when it is more of an expansion pack. Improved tweaks to an engine are all I require. Like mentioned above if I'm playing a sequel then I expect some things, and one is similarity in the engine/interface/combat etc... Now, if a sequel is 5 years or more from an original then I would expect a new engine, but if it were only1 or 2 years, then I would probably just expect tweaks to the original engine. Well, if a fallout 3 would be made now from scratch, I'd be totally happy with the Fallout 1 & 2 engines (would be nice if they boosted up the resolution a bit, but it's not a must). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammael Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 A Fallout 3 made with the FO/FO2 engine would sell a grand total of about 29 copies. There are no doors in Jefferson that are "special game locked" doors. There are no characters in that game that you can kill that will result in the game ending prematurely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Nazzal Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 A Fallout 3 made with the FO/FO2 engine would sell a grand total of about 29 copies. I suppose so. Still this does not alter the fact that it is what I would personally like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammael Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 I would have enjoyed The Black Hound's sequels. Then again, I would have enjoyed The Black Hound. Feargus, how much money do you need to buy TBH off IPLY? There are no doors in Jefferson that are "special game locked" doors. There are no characters in that game that you can kill that will result in the game ending prematurely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atreides Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 ^Including use/rent of the engine? Spreading beauty with my katana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 A Fallout 3 made with the FO/FO2 engine would sell a grand total of about 29 copies. Maybe, maybe not. Jagged Alliance 2 is getting a new expansion, if that game sells (and it's old), then maybe this theory is flawed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Sammael, are you simply making up random numbers now? I think it's pretty obvious more than 29 people would surely buy FO3 on the ancient FO engine. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iolo Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Certainly in 1999, a year or less after Fallout 2 had come out, they would have. Later than that or additional sequels would have required new engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiliqua Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 I enjoyed IWD2 and BG2 and I'm sure I would have enjoyed BG3. Sure it's more of the same but if you really like the initial game, as long as the sequel incementally improves the game, or more to the point doesn't go backwards, then I say "bring them on". "The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing that is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkreku Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 I usually prefer sequels to the original game, myself. Like the example of Thief 2: Metal Age over Thief.. Or Daggerfall over Arena (but not Morrowind!).. Colin McRae 2 over Colin McRae.. GTA: Vice City over GTA3... and so on. Sequels are a way for intelligent and skillful developers to sort out the worst problems from the original and add more content and features, based on what the fans and community appreciated the most. An attentive developer could really benefit from a board like this, but it takes a lot of work to distill the good parts from all the trash that immediately fills any public board. Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 They are also a way to make things worse. MOO3 anyone? :ph34r: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Kitty Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Jagged Alliance 2 is getting a new expansion, if that game sells (and it's old), then maybe this theory is flawed? It's not actually an expansion, it's a mod they've decided to charge for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinbote Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 I agree with mkreku. Ideally, a video game should do nothing but improve on the original. Sequels don't often work in film, since the writers are usually required to tell the same story in a slightly different way--which results in a watered-down film. In games (especially crpgs), this is much less of a problem, because plots barely matter. Character starts as a weak unknown, ends as a powerful Chosen One. Its the same essential plot, over and over again, and what matters is that you add new areas, new characters, new Macguffins, better graphics, while retaining the "feel" of the first game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axelgreese Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 sequels (and licensed universes) suck the c*** off the balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Jagged Alliance 2 is getting a new expansion, if that game sells (and it's old), then maybe this theory is flawed? It's not actually an expansion, it's a mod they've decided to charge for. Oops... My bad :ph34r: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now