About sequels...

[kirbychu]

I don't often make threads, but I thought this would be an interesting discussion.

Lately I've seen a few people (here and elsewhere) saying that recent sequels to long-running series like Mario Kart and Zelda have been too similar to the older games, and that some kind of huge gameplay shakeup is in order. Here are my thoughts on it...

First off, in the case of Zelda, the thought is generally "Zelda hasn't changed since Ocarina of Time". That doesn't seem right to me, since Majora's Mask, Wind Waker and Twilight Princess all had game mechanics that separated them from OoT more than OoT separated itself from A Link to the Past. OoT is just ALttP with a third dimension. ALttP is just a more refined The Legend of Zelda. If Majora's Mask and Twilight Princess are not different enough, then the only Zelda games that really deviate from the gameplay of the original at all are Zelda II and Link's Crossbow Training.

But I'm not saying this is a bad thing. After all, this is a video game series. The gameplay is the most important thing. If you're going to make the gameplay significantly different, what's the sense in making it part of the series rather than a standalone game or part of a new series? The equivalent would be a new season of Friends with the same cast of characters, but instead of a sitcom it's now a gritty crime drama. It has the same title and characters, but is it still Friends?

When I play a sequel to a video game, it's generally for one of two reasons. 1. I enjoyed the last game and I want more of the same. 2. I thought the last game had potential but just fell short and am hoping it will be realised better this time around. That is, in my opinion, the point of video game sequels. To refine the gameplay of the original, and to add new features to compliment that gameplay. The only series I can think of that drastically changed its gameplay with any success is Sonic the Hedgehog (and, obviously, I'm using the term "success" loosely).

And speaking of Sonic the Hedgehog... when a game does try something very different, it is most often met with scorn from critics and fans. Any Star Fox game which lets you control your character outside of a vehicle is a good example. Star Fox Command was a horrible game, but almost every review gave it a great score along with a line like "Fox is finally back in the Arwing -- where he belongs". Sonic Generations looks set to be the most popular Sonic game of all time, based purely on the fact that it contains nothing we haven't seen before. Wind Waker got a lot of this type thing thing too, but mostly aimed at its graphics rather than its gameplay. People hate change.

...and I think that's all I have to say about it. Anybody who made it this far down, what do you think?

[Fryguy64]

You hit the nail on the head. People say they want something different, then they moan when they're given something different because they don't know what to do with it.

I see a big debate coming up with Super Mario 3D Land. On the one hand it throws away many of the traditions of the 3D Mario games in favour of adding a third dimension to the 2D Mario games. It disposes of one set of conventions while changing another, and whether it appeases everyone or no-one will be interesting.

Metroid: Other M essentially did this already. It disposed of the 3D game mechanics while mapping the 2D mechanics onto a 3D perspective (I wouldn't be surprised if this inspired Miyamoto to do the same with Mario, actually). It kinda works. Unfortunately, any meaningful discussion on the pros and cons of the mechanics were shrouded behind the complaints about Samus's big whiny mouth... So it's up to Mario to lead the way, I guess!

Zelda has changed bit by bit throughout the years - building and adding as it goes. I've said it before, but while Zelda 2: AoL looks like the odd-one-out in the series, it does work as a bridge between Zelda 1 and ALttP, and seems to have been used as a major source of inspiration for OoT. However, since OoT, the base template appears to have settled, allowing the developers to focus on new battles, new sidequests, new items, new one-off play mechanics and so on.

Majora's Mask changed the formula by giving a time limit, The Wind Waker had sailing, Twilight Princess had the wolf mechanic, and Skyward Sword promises new types of puzzle with its 1:1 swordplay. Essentially, in all these games, you're going from dungeon to dungeon fighting bosses and collecting items, then doing some sidequests when you fancy it. That's what Zelda is, and changing that would mean it's no longer Zelda and would not satisfy a fan of the Zelda series. If you don't want that, then play a different game.

[TV Eye]

A lot of times, when people say a series has become stale, they WILL try to make it different, and the fan reaction prompts them to revert back to their original formula. Star Fox Command was a good example, but so is a series like Mortal Kombat. While, the 3D games weren't hated, comparing them to the new one seems odd because MK9 is now being called one of the best Mortal Kombat's to ever be released...even if there are a lot of flaws (which there are, but people don't seem to notice them much with their nostalgia goggles on).

Pokemon is another series that people think it's cool to hate on the sequels. Rather than acknowledge that Black/White is a good game, people just bitch on the (awesome) Pokemon designs, saying that Red/Blue's (shitty) designs were superior because that's what they were exposed to as kids.

[Fryguy64]

Everybody has short-term memories. Everyone hated the designs in Gold/Silver when it came out, and then every generation since has been hated, then accepted, and eventually cherished.

Remember when the internet had a spaz attack when The Wind Waker was first revealed rather than the awesome realistic Link/Ganondorf from the earlier GameCube demo? Then remember when Twilight Princess came out and everyone moaned that it wasn't cell shaded? Then remember when Skyward Sword came out and made everyone shut the hell up?

I have been doing this for years, and I have a really good memory for this kind of thing. I remember in 1997 when everyone moaned that Star Fox 64 was too easy and too short. Then years later it was the "last time Star Fox was good". Now it's out again on 3DS, everyone's discovering it's too easy and too short. No shit, Sherlock!

People want the game they think they remember playing, but didn't actually play. A good sequel or remake can deliver that package by, as Kirbychu said, building on what has come before. If you go changing it up, the collective response will be: "Well, this is totally not what I think I remember playing, so it must suck! Nintendo lost the plot! They don't know how to make Star Fox games like they used to any more!" and so on...

My other favourite is the cycle of people saying "Nintendo always produces games for the same few franchises - change the bleedin' record Nintendo!" immediately followed by "OMG it's been x years since the last game in a series and I am angry Nintendo didn't announce it just now!"

People. Tsk.

[Da Robot]

I'm starting to think the only way a developer could make a sequel that everybody likes would be to release 9-10 years after the original. That way nostagia could kick in and no one could complain franchise oversaturation.

But of course that isn't finanically possible (or is it?)

[Shrikeswind]

This here is a question I feel demands asking, not to be answered without putting serious thought into it, though is rhetorical in this position. If you had bought the new game first, would you have liked it then? That's how much enjoyment the game has to offer.

[Fryguy64]

So your question is essentially:

If you played the sequel without playing any of the previous games, would you still enjoy it?

And I think this is a very valid, valuable question. It's the reason I like Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat and Star Fox Assault. Not because they kept alive the spirit of their predecessors (they didn't) but because in their own right they were enjoyable, entertaining and challenging.

However, and this is a big however, I'm unusual in this respects. I go in with certain expectations that it will be more of what came before with a few improvements, like everyone else. If it doesn't deliver this, but does deliver an entertaining experience, then I feel richer for it.

Many people don't share this view. If it fails to deliver what the predecessors did, they automatically write it off. And this is a big shame.

You could also see this as the reason why I don't like Star Fox Adventures and Super Paper Mario. I went in with the usual expectations and they didn't deliver those. Did they deliver an entertaining experience? From time to time. They both started well, at any rate. Then, around halfway through both games I had this nagging sensation that said "Would I put up with all this other bullshit if this wasn't a Star Fox / Mario game?" If the answer is no, the game is not good.

But I'm just one voice amongst many. And ideas spread and mutate across the internet. People think Zelda 2 is bad without having ever tried it, because the expectation that they're more of the same is broken before you even start. They're not perfect (80's games rarely are) and so the only criteria for sticking with it is to try and enjoy it on its own terms.

It's hard to do. But rewarding.

[kirbychu]

That's the way I come at sequels too, and I think it's the reason I'm one of the tiny minority of early-90's Sonic fans who's actually enjoyed most of the post-'94 games. XD

Nostalgia doesn't really come into new games for me. How can I feel nostalgic about a game I've never played before? I go in expecting it to be similar to the previous one, but I'm not going to toss it aside if I don't feel like I'm playing Sonic 1 all over again.

And, I think for the same reason, I'm probably the only person in my circle of friends who doesn't get upset when they add new characters to a series. I'm always hearing "they should've stopped adding new Pokémon after Gold & Silver!" What?! The franchise would be long dead by now if they'd done that!

[Fryguy64]

I wasn't a Sonic fan, so I joined the series quite late. I only very recently played through a load of them and enjoyed them. Then after I beat Sonic 1-3 & CD, I downloaded Sonic 4 Episode 1.

And it was good.

Why does everyone hate it? I can't get my head around it. It's the exact same kind of game as the originals, with a few enhancements thanks to the newer technology, which is exactly what everyone's been asking for for years... And yet everyone hates it! What's wrong with people!?

As for adding characters... My main problem here is that a character should only be added for gameplay reasons, and not shoehorned into future titles if they don't fit. In this area, I think Nintendo does a good job all round.

[kirbychu]

Sonic 4 actually is one of the few I really didn't like. You're right, it is exactly what the fans have been asking for... Which means there's nothing new in it. It's basically Sonic 2 with less well-programmed physics. If I wanted to play Sonic 2, I'd play it. It's not like it's not available eight thousand different ways. I wasn't a fan of the ugly prerendered sprites or the horrible synth instruments, either. I would've preferred regular 2D sprites (like HD versions of the gorgeous sprites the Advance games had).

Apparently Jun Senoue wanted to make the soundtrack on a real Mega Drive soundboard, but he couldn't find a working one, so he tried to replicate the sound... and I guess he didn't remember it very clearly. It's a shame, because somebody remade some of the songs using an emulator, and they sound amazing compared to the real versions.

Now I'm just rambling.

[Nester the Lark]

Wow. I've had this conversation about Sonic 4 with kirbychu like twice now.

But in the context of this particular topic, I think I'm like Fry, and I tend to view sequels as their own game rather than simply as extra levels from the previous game. And I think that's why I like Sonic 4.

And I don't want to put words in kirbychu's mouth, but even he said it was a fine game in its own right, but I think he views it more in the context of the previous games, and as such, I understand his points.

But aside from Sonic 4, viewing sequels as standalone games also means that I actually like it when they do something substantially different. That's why it frustrates me when sequels turn into a checklist of references to previous games. It's almost as if the developers are afraid that if they don't include cut-and-paste elements from previous games, players won't like it.

But here's the thing: the first game managed to be successful while being wholly original, and people still loved it! That's how it became a series in the first place. And that's the experience I look for, even in sequels. I liked the first game because it was fresh, and I want more fresh. I want new experiences in games; not old experiences slightly dressed up so that I can pretend I'm having them again for the first time.

I suppose that contradicts what I said about Sonic 4, but in that case, I think it's like what Fry said about Donkey Kong Country Returns: it acts as a re-introduction to the series, and provides a springboard for new directions in the future. And I think (hope) that's what Sonic 4: Episode II provides.

[Boo Destroyer]

Sept 28, 2011 17:59:27 GMT -5 Nester the Lark said:

But aside from Sonic 4, viewing sequels as standalone games also means that I actually like it when they do something substantially different. That's why it frustrates me when sequels turn into a checklist of references to previous games. It's almost as if the developers are afraid that if they don't include cut-and-paste elements from previous games, players won't like it.

But here's the thing: the first game managed to be successful while being wholly original, and people still loved it! That's how it became a series in the first place. And that's the experience I look for, even in sequels. I liked the first game because it was fresh, and I want more fresh. I want new experiences in games; not old experiences slightly dressed up so that I can pretend I'm having them again for the first time.

Nintendo in a nutshell.

[Koopaul]

Here's the thing its either one extreme or the other. Either they are making a game that's exactly like the ones before, or they try to completely reinvent it with nothing from the previous games (Jungle Beat)

Why can't their be a middle ground? I suppose there are middle grounds in many Nintendo games but it sure doesn't seem like it sometimes.

[Dances in Undergarments]

...and, with that, the thread has officially come full circle.

[kirbychu]

Sept 28, 2011 17:59:27 GMT -5 Nester the Lark said:

Wow. I've had this conversation about Sonic 4 with kirbychu like twice now.

Three times.

There's a fine line they're walking, I think. If a series I like does something drastically different, I generally give it a shot and more often than not I end up liking it, but feeling like it shouldn't be a part of this series. Most of the time when this happens, though, it's part of a new spin-off series featuring this gameplay, while the regular series continues developing the original gameplay.

I enjoyed Star Fox Adventures, but it doesn't feel like a Star Fox game at all to me. It feels like a Zelda game with Fox McCloud in it, only not as good. Star Fox Assault does feel like a Star Fox game, and although I hated it, so does Star Fox Command.

There are a lot of reasons I didn't like Sonic 4, so I thought I'd post some ones I haven't posted here before. But that game is at the opposite end of the spectrum from Star Fox Adventures. It takes the formula of the old games and adds nothing. Well, no, not entirely true. It gave the stages new names and music.