What a sequel should be...
Innovative and quite different from the original game? Like Mario Sunshine? Or Dig Dug 2?
NO.
A sequel should be more of the same goodness that made the original game so much fun. Same play, same goals, but new missions. Soul Calibur 2 should be the same as Soul Calibur 1, but polished to perfection. Metroid Prime should preserve the same puzzle-solving exploration as the lovely Super Metroid. MP2 should be like MP1, but with a new world to explore.
You get the idea.
Thoughts? Opinions?
Re: What a sequel should be...
That's right!Originally Posted by musical
And women shouldn't be allowed to vote!
My main beef with sequels is that so many are just more of the same with ZERO risks taken.
You absolutely gotta preserve the feel of the previous titles, but there is tons of room for innovation. I personally wouldn't give a crap about the Star Ocean series if each didn't offer something new.
Incidentally, I like both Mario Sunshine and Dig Dug 2. :P
Dig Dug 2 ROCKS.
Selling collection, Atari through XBox. Send a PM with whatever games you're looking for.
You mean like having to constantly eat in GT: Sin City -or- else die? Is that the kind of innovation you have in mind?
I call that stupid and ruining what used to be a good concept.
I'm shure it doesn't take too long to eat. Might be an interesting concept say if you over weight it would be hard to run or bike away, less stamina. I think sequals need something innovative, rather then just be a simple expantion.
(Oo (xxx) oO) (Oo (xxx) oO)
.o xxxxxxxx o . o xxxxxxxx o
Hmmm.... well okay, if you think eating is a good idea, I'm sure you can think of a game that WAS ruined by innovation. Like Final Fantasy 8 or 2. FF8 & FF2-Japan were extremely difficult (and not fun) to play, because Square ruined the battle engine. IMHO, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Don't mess with the success.
Ahem: The Grand Theft Auto series blows your theory out the door.
GTA I - Simplistic top-down driving game.
GTA II - More of the same.
GTA III - Cutting edge 3D gameplay. Open-ended. A "real world" for you to interact with an explore. A cutting-edge trendsetter. The game that launched a million sold copies - and a million "copycats."
By you reckonning, GTA III should've been yet another "Super-Sprint"-like top-down racer.
Still Around...Still Gamin'...
I'll mostly agree that a sequel should stay true to the original and maybe add some things to make it better.
Although sometimes sequels that are completely different from the original can be alright like with Zelda 2. More times than not you'll end up with a FF2.
I liked ff8 much more then ff7. *hides behind chair* Battle system made more sence IMO specially the limit breaks, better to have em when your almost dead then randomly.Hmmm.... well okay, if you think eating is a good idea, I'm sure you can think of a game that WAS ruined by innovation. Like Final Fantasy 8 or 2. FF8 & FF2-Japan were extremely difficult (and not fun) to play, because Square ruined the battle engine. IMHO, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Don't mess with the success.
(Oo (xxx) oO) (Oo (xxx) oO)
.o xxxxxxxx o . o xxxxxxxx o
Yes, but no it doesn't blow my theory. The 3D preserved the same "feel" as the original 2D game. Just as Zelda 64 preserved the "feel" of the 2D Zeldas. They changed the perspective of the game, but still kept everything else the same.
Also, I'm surprised to see someone actually *likes* FF8 and FF2-Japan. All I ever hear is how "crap" these games are with "ruined battle engines" due to Square innovations.
(shrug)
Oh well.
It may feel the same but never the less they were very different.
(Oo (xxx) oO) (Oo (xxx) oO)
.o xxxxxxxx o . o xxxxxxxx o
It depends, if the original game rocked the gaming world, why change it? whats not broken doesnt need to be fixed, make the sequal with the same idea in mind but a fresh new strory, and some new added elements
if the game was lame in the least, fix the problems with the first one, and rectify the mistakes with a sequal, even if its completely re-doing the basic idea of the first one
Perhaps playing the games for yourself would be a better way to go about deciding. Personally, I loved FF8. The battle system wasn't the best, but I hated FF7 so no biggie. Plus, keep in mind that some of us are at a higher skill level, enjoy a challenge, and think a higher difficulty is a PLUS not a MINUS.
Also, your Grand Theft Auto rationalization is complete and total bullshit. Simply put, the point you're trying to make falls before Sniderman's argument. GTA 3 is QUITE different from the original GTA games, not just a little. If you've played them all, believe me, there's more than a difference is perspective and style. The "feel" as you put it, is definitely different.
Futhermore, since "the feel" is relative to everyone, it's difficult to say what preserves it. For instance, while a decent game, I didn't think Metroid Prime "felt" like a Metroid game at all. Instead of having a large open world to explore, for instance, you were lead around by hints that told you where to go. I'd rather they do almost anything else with the sequel than make it more of the same, but, unfortunately, it sold well so more of the same is what we're getting. Since it didn't "feel" like Metroid to me, and it did to you, how does that fit in with your philosophy.
Furthermore, if all game companies followed your plan, some of what are considered the greatest games ever wouldn't even exist. Castlevania: SOTN, COTM, HOD, AOS, LOI, just for starters ..... these should have continued to be simple platformers with poor control, instead of the sprawling adventure games into which they evolved?
Just like I said before. You disagree. (shrug) Oh well. But if Soul Calibur 3 comes out, and it has.... say, a volleyball setting where you try on different swimsuits.... it will be crap IMHO. I'll be severely disappointed.
That's really all I meant by "don't break what works,"
In my opinion, sequels should expand upon what made the original great in the first place. Bar none. However that's done is a bit irrelevent, just so long as it's still fun (and not EXACTLY the same game). Like when they put the Zelda series in 3D, they kept it fun, and it still felt like Zelda. When Soul Caliber II was released, and didn't feel too different from the original, it still felt like Soul Caliber. And when GTA went into 3D, it still felt like GTA.
I hope that makes sense, I've stressed over just how to write it.
You make it sound like Soul Calibur was the first in the series.
I guess the real debate here is if the innovation made the game worse than it was a bad idea but if it made it better it was a good idea
Not intended, sorry. It's just that they're so easy to compare, but it was the first "Soul Caliber" title, but not the first in the series. But thanks for pointing that out, I forgot.You make it sound like Soul Calibur was the first in the series.
Yea Soul Edge was much better anyway.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
