Sequels in 2011. Disappointing or are we expecting too much?

I suppose my real question is, should we be expecting sequels this late in the gen to reinvent themselves, or should we be okay if they are merely incremental upgrades over the original?

Let me start off by saying that MOST, if not all sequels I've played this year have been great games. Games that would've blown me away a couple of years ago. They have their moments of brilliance... moments where they surprise us, but most of them have felt all too familiar. With perhaps the exception of Crysis 2, games like LBP2, Gears 3, KZ3, Portal 2, Resistance 3, Infamous 2, Battlefield 3 are all inarguably better games than their predecessors. Yet I feel there is something missing. Something that makes great games masterpieces. Epic moments that make you go 'How the f*** did they do that?!' Or even small gameplay moments that you dont expect developers would throw your way.... like playing catch with Alex's robot in Half Life 2 or The End sniper battle in MGS3.

Perhaps my biggest Holy S*** moment of last gen

Take Infamous 2 for example, great game. Tons of new superpowers, huge graphical upgrade, big bosses, controls and plays better than the original yet it's all too familiar. The story like most video game stories is disappointing, sure, but there is very little done in the gameplay arena to make it stand out more. Same with KZ3 and Gears 3. KZ3 controls and plays better, looks better, has more variety and is more epic than the original but it clings to FPS formula so much that you are left wondering if there is any originality left in this world. Same with Gears 3. While the new Horde and Beast modes are as inventive as they come, the SP campaign is perhaps even more formulaic than KZ3 and Infamous.

Sometimes innovation/brilliance can be as simple as getting fatter the more you eat

Is it wrong for me to expect developers to reshuffle the gameplay formula like Kojima did with MGS3? Or to expect a huge jump like AC1 to AC2, Uncharted 1 to Uncharted 2 with each iteration of a franchise? 6 years ago, this late into the gen, we were getting sequels and masterpieces like GTA San Andreas, Shadow of the Colossus, RE4 and God of War 2. Nothing I've played this year has blown me away like those games above. With the exeption of LBP2 and perhaps Motorstorm Apocalypse, nothing so far this year has made my imagination go wild. Everything I've seen of Uncharted 3, Modern Warfare 3, Battlefield 3, AC Revelations screams more of the same. And while they all might be great games packed with content that is sure to force us to hand out 9/10s, I can't help but wonder if we will get another true masterpiece this year. A game that we will look back upon and say it defined this generation.

It's fitting .... I suppose.... that our only hope left is Batman. :P

I don't think I invested as much stock in this being a banner year for gaming as others did, thus I've been pretty okay with how it's turned out so far. I also think it's possible for games to become better mechanically, but inferior compared to their predecessors. Gears 3 is a good example. Everything is fine-tuned, but they made the campaign feel like it was made for four-player co-op, which is somewhat at odds with the typical single-player campaign in Gears, where the player is rewarded for taking his time and looking for things and enjoying all the gorgeous scenery. As such, it was an inferior experience to the previous two games, but still a marvel technically, if that makes any sense.

See also: Metal Gear Solid 4, a game that destroys its predecessors visually and mechanically, but is a vastly inferior experience in story.

There are some series that I'm just done with, like MW3. I'm just sick of the formula, and it's just shown all of its cards and shown up way too often this generation (seriously, 6 console COD games in as many years is a bit extreme, you know?). In the case of COD, I've felt that each iteration (and I only played up to MW2) got worse, not better. So I just ignore the franchise now and might check back in five or six years down the line to see if it's advanced any, sort of like Madden.

I guess it just comes down to managed expectations. Skyrim is the next and last game I plan on playing this year besides Forza 4. I'll be disappointed if it isn't any good, but as long as it's still got the best parts of Oblivion, I'll be happy. I think people who were expecting a repeat of 1998 and wanted like 20 epic games shoved on them in the second half of the year were kind of asking to be let down, to be honest.

I'm with Shame on this one.

To be honest, I never expected much from this generation just as I did with the last. When it comes to shooters, I like to see a new one every year with something amazing to redesign it (such as Halo: Combat Evolved to Halo 2) and not the same thing I bought the year before. Certain genres need to take a distance approach when it comes to releasing a new game and stop following the MLB, NHL, NBA.ETC market. Eventually the series will burn out and the studios behind them will either move on to burn out another series or close it's door indefinitely.

What I want to see is a console with several good games to pick from and that one final blast when it's first party developers move on to the next. God of War II was a beautiful game and it was solid mechanically just as much as it was visually with epic boss battles from a horsemen in the bog to a speedy gonzales in a bath with water rippling at his footsteps as you slowly rip apart his invisiblity. That's what I call a successful run, not a roster of award winning titles being thrown at me around the holiday season forcing me to ponder, because trust me. I've had times where I would stand in the game isle at the store just browsing over a small selection of games that I really wanted before finally saying "screw it! I'LL JUST TAKE THIS ONE HOME AND NOT REGRET IT!" and that is pretty much my summary of it.

I'm just so tired of sequels. I like new experiences, and playing a slightly better version of a game I've already played before - well I've already played it before for chrissakes :roll:

There just aren't enough new IP's these days to keep me interested. The whole market seems centered around people who just want to play one shooter after another, with nearly identical controls and gameplay mechanics, but just slightly different scenery. For the first time in a long time I find myself losing interest in gaming.

I guess it just comes down to managed expectations. Skyrim is the next and last game I plan on playing this year besides Forza 4. I'll be disappointed if it isn't any good, but as long as it's still got the best parts of Oblivion, I'll be happy. I think people who were expecting a repeat of 1998 and wanted like 20 epic games shoved on them in the second half of the year were kind of asking to be let down, to be honest.

Shame-usBlackley

I think that's what it is, Im not ashamed to admit it... I bought into the whole 2011 Best Year in Gaming hype, was looking for masterpieces but all I got were safe sequels.

I didn't really read the whole entire QQ rant...I mean post, If you can't find gems this gen which there is a lot of then I suggest stop gaming, if you think every game should be a 10/10 or aka masterpiece, stop gaming, in fact there is no such thing as a 10/10 game or a masterpiece game unless it's a personal opinion on what a game is to you. Gaming isn't about playing the holy grail of games, it's something to do for fun and I can list a dozen games I've had fun playing so far this year and that to me is what playing games is about, yes there will be that game that has more "flare" than the avg game and will stand out, even then if every game had that flare even those so called gems would lose their uniqueness.Ballroompirate

All these games are made by AAA developers, and as industry leaders, they have the responsiblity to push the industry forward. I'm not expecting EVERY game to be a masterpiece, but I'm also not okay with developers getting complacent and settling for safe sequels. As AAA developers, they have the responsibility to push the envelope. Imagine if Steven Spielberg said f*** it, I will just make sequels for the next six years or so. Imagine if all we got from him the last few years were entertainig but safe sequels of Indiana Jones. If you had read my entire post, you wouldve seen that i did enjoy all these games, but what's so wrong with expecting a 'Slumdog MIllionare' or 'Inception' every year?

As AAA developers, they have the responsibility to push the envelope. Imagine if Steven Spielberg said f*** it, I will just make sequels for the next six years or so.S0lidSnake

For me this year has been completely unremarkable from start to finish. The main reason is definitely that my preferences are changing, but I do feel like there's a lack of games that impress as much as, say, Half Life 2 did in 2004. This console generation needs to end.

I suppose.... that our only hope left is Batman. :P

S0lidSnake

I think that's what it is, Im not ashamed to admit it... I bought into the whole 2011 Best Year in Gaming hype, was looking for masterpieces but all I got were safe sequels.

S0lidSnake

I'm just so tired of sequels. I like new experiences, and playing a slightly better version of a game I've already played before - well I've already played it before for chrissakes :roll:

There just aren't enough new IP's these days to keep me interested. The whole market seems centered around people who just want to play one shooter after another, with nearly identical controls and gameplay mechanics, but just slightly different scenery. For the first time in a long time I find myself losing interest in gaming.

Jackc8

New games please.

I think it's a combination of sky-high expectations (sequels being released to what most consider landmark games) and developers more or less playing it a little too safe. Stakes for game companies are higher than ever, and if there's a way to gaurantee success (MW3) instead of innovate, that's what you're going to see. I agree Gears 3's single-player campaign didn't have the raw impact of Gears 2, but I don't think it tried to. I think it wanted to be the most complete and playable package possible, and I think Epic accomplished that. They made a choice to expand the social aspects of their game, as Gears 2 did, but to a whole other level. We need to face the fact that %90 of the public doesn't buy a AAA Blockbuster shooter for the "Single Player". But when you compare Gears 3 to a game like Resistance 3, which had a decent, but FAR from great campaign and trash multiplayer, Gears 3 shines pretty brightly above any other shooter this year.

Well personally I think this has been a fantastic year and an excellent generation in gaming all around. I've been extremely happy with the vast number of sequels and think Gears of War 3 is indeed a masterpiece.Archangel3371

Yes, yes and yes again.

Games evolve at a slow pace. People are expecting too much. Its a long, trial & error process. Sequels are about making a better version of the previous game. Expectations are just too high & very unrealistic.

One thing I learned after many years of gaming is to STOP BUYING INTO THE HYPE. After GTAIV I stopped getting to excited for a games I wanted. You set your expectations to high, letting your imagination run a muck and then get sent back to reality once the game is released and you feel like it let you down. My advice is to stay away from any news regarding a game you want to buy, this way everything is fresh and new once the game is released. Zach_HD

Agreed. Buying into the hype for anything is always a bad idea. You're only setting yourself up for disappointment by doing so.

This whole gen is the gen of sequels, remakes, and rehashes.

Granted some of my favorites are series over an individual game, but I would much sooner buy something new over something that has been done before.

Guess original thought is a premium these days and the publishers gotta milk what they know will sell instead.

I think this year will end up being great with one game, Skyrim. Also, Dark Souls and Deus Ex really surprised me and I'll definitely remember them as elite games of this gen. Next year we have the new Bioshock, which will most likely be full of awesome wtf moments. I do agree that BF3 won't do anything revolutionary, but judging from the beta it seems like it'll offer a lot of neat additions to the genre, and will offer a pretty great mp experience.

Though, you are right about San Andreas, all we have close to that now is saints row 3, which does look rather awesome. GTA IV was a big letdown, and its only redeeming factor was the sort of fun online mode.

I think we'll get some surprises this year and next year.

Sequels are generally going to extrapolate upon the previous game and you can't necessarily expect otherwise. I actually think some of the sequels this generation have given us some amazing leaps in quality (Uncharted ->Uncharted 2, Assassin's Creed -> Assassin's Creed 2) so I have no real complaints. When you buy a sequel you are purchasing a game you know will be very similar to the original but (hopefully) with the requisite tweaks and improvements to make it both fresh and innovative while preserving the components that made the previous game(s) so good.

However, sequels are not generally the place you will find mind-blowing innovation. Sequels tend to employ evolution and fine-tuning more than stark divergences or radical paradigm shifts. A game like Batman: Arkham City is going to look, feel and play very much like the first game with a host of improvements and expansions to the core experience that will make it something spectacular and probably superior to Arkham Asylum. However, what it won't possess is that initial "wow" factor that Arkham Asylum elicited because back when the first game was released, nobody had even come close to delivering a Batman game of that caliber.

Sequels are by their very nature rooted in redundancy, even when the improvements are vast. The irony is that when a developer makes a serious and profound change to the core of an established franchise, the backlash from the community can be quite severe, as evidenced by the hate directed towards Splinter Cell: Conviction.

Games evolve at a slow pace. People are expecting too much. Its a long, trial & error process. Sequels are about making a better version of the previous game. Expectations are just too high & very unrealistic.

brucecambell

I thought Splinter Cell Conviction was one of the better games this whole generation too. It was almost damn perfect. I thought it brought stealth gaming perfectly into the modern era. Between that and Deus Ex me wants more.GodModeEnabled

The problem with SC: Conviction is that many people based their assessment of the game on the story mode and didn't bother to play Deniable Ops, which is one of the best stealth experiences ever created.

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]I thought Splinter Cell Conviction was one of the better games this whole generation too. It was almost damn perfect. I thought it brought stealth gaming perfectly into the modern era. Between that and Deus Ex me wants more.Grammaton-Cleric

The problem with SC: Conviction is that many people based their assessment of the game on the story mode and didn't bother to play Deniable Ops, which is one of the best stealth experiences ever created.

People's high expectations are unjustified. I feel like some developers have done a pretty great job at improving games with their sequels like the jump from AC1 to AC2, and even ACB which I consider to be a masterpiece. I liked ACB more than AC1 and AC2 combined. Dragon Age 2 which received A LOT of hate, I felt was a rock solid game. I enjoyed the faster, visceral combat, although the recycled environments were a major turn-off. I did like the whole templars vs mages premise which was interesting. For the most part, sequels have been really good in terms of small to great improvements. Dead Space 2, I felt, was better than Dead Space 1 in every area except maybe building the tension and suspense.. although it nailed gameplay, fixed the sluggish movements for smoother, tighter controls. The story was much better and it delve more into Isaac Clark's internal struggle.

The Witcher 2 was a surprise upset for me.. I still prefer The Witcher 1 for it's dark atmosphere and storytelling. The Witcher 2 was missing something that TW1 had in the above mentioned. Although combat was a lot better and graphics was a major step up with a new engine. See, sequels are not all that bad if they bring a whole lot to the table.

One game that takes the crown this year would have to be Deus Ex Human Revolution. A brilliant game. But one thing is for sure, I've strayed off from games majorly. Probably due to real life, more responsibilities, and less free time in general.. but i haven't been really awed like I was in Ocarina of Time.. or had so much fun in Halo 3 multiplayer.. or was blown away by a new IP like Gears of War 1 when it first came out. And none this has really reached the pinnacle that of Red Dead Redemption except for Deus Ex HR (maybe).

Gears of War 3 was a disappointment. Nothing major with graphics improvements but more of an art style change up just a tad bit. The game was incredibly short and it should have been longer than Gears 1 and 2 for the sake of ending the franchise at 3. The story felt rushed and wasn't fleshed out enough to call it an ending. But more like an ending to a trilogy. I bet Gears of War 4 will come out next-gen. It's quite obvious where Epic is taking it.. but in the mean time they will probably make another game.

The only sequel in 2011 I've played so far has been Crysis 2, and I liked that alot. So, I haven't been disappointed so far. The remaining sequels I'm looking forward to are Battlefield 3 and MW3.

Every year is supposed to be the "greatest year in gaming." I'll remember the past two years of gaming as cold reminders of why I would rarely ever pay full price for a game. Other than Catherine, no game has really been worth paying $60 for, nothing else I can think of.

This year will only be disappointing if Batman really drops the ball and somehow ends up worse than AA. It's the only game that I'm really interested in, all others are just time wasters. From the early reviews though (one 10/10, another 92%, yes I know how unreliable early reviews are). Still hopeful. This is going to be a looooooong week.

Do you think there is any chance Uncharted 3 will be as good as the second game, i dont think so. I think it will be fantastic but it wont be that incredible feeling we had playing the second game and seeing what a big improvement it was. Skyrim, I hope its a big improvement but we shall see. Batman has a big chance to be that killer sequel as it seems to be a big leap and its only the second game. The one I am most sure that it will be a masterpiece is of course Zelda as it so different than any Zelda, and more different than most sequels were this year. dvader654

TBH, I made the thread after watching the Uncharted 3 Gametrailers Bonus Round. It looks like they are not adding any new elements in U3 and are basically refining what they already had in U2. That's probably good enough for most people, inlcuding myself, but at the same time it's disappointing to see a talented studio giving us more of the same instead of taking actual risks. I was expecting U3 to have some adventure elements (it's an action adventure game after all) but looks like they are focusing on Action only. I will still enjoy it if they dont go the Gears 3 route (light on setpieces, heavy on shooting segments) but it would be hard not to be disappointed at the lack of adventure elements and mindnumbingly easy puzzles.

And of course I totally forgot about Zelda. :P I guess this could be the masterpiece we are all waiting for this year.

Now if I only gave two s***s about Zelda. ;p

Great read, and I completely agree. I'm a very content gamer, having grown up playing a Super Nintendo and N64 till about 2003, whenI got a Ps2 for Christmas from my old man. Ps2 was full of games that made my jaw drop(Mostnotably FFX, and MGS3)cause I was so used to playing sprite based games on SNES and playing mainly Mario, Zelda, and Ogre Battle on N64. Ever since about 2007it seems games try to be less and less like "Slumdog Millionaire", like you mentioned, and more focused on being the next Michael Bay film. By no meansdo I mean I don't like this gen, it's incredible and I love almost every game I play, the things developers anddesigners are able to do these days with tech is just incredible and mind blowing to me.But notsince my first Xbox 360 RPG,Oblivion, has my jaw dropped andI said: "How in the world did a group of people do this? This is incredible, I've never seen anything like it.."

I freakin love gaming, but I hate movies these days. Remake after remake after remake! My goodness! Only movies I pay to see anymore are ones that my lady friends like to see with me, or personally I go shell out cash immediately when Dreamworks, or Pixar released another gem. And it seems to me gaming is turning into the movie industry, churning out the sequels to make guaranteed money. Do I bash them? No, they put hard work into what they do and they have bills to pay just like us.

But are they really to blame for churning out money makers? Or have we the consumers made it an all too risky endeavor to develop a new project entering uncertain waters? I find it a little of column A and B. I guess I can go on for a while and further reinforce what I'm trying to get across, but that would make this a wall of text and unappeasing to read.

Bottom line is, I haven't felt the magic this gen. Games have become like robots, flashy on the outside, made of incredible technology, can do amazing things, but have no soul. It may seem harsh to say that since developers put their heart and sweat into making their dreams come alive, but in most cases (IMO) I find this to be the case. I long for the days of SNES, which in my opinion is the golden age of gaming, almost every game I had on that console was a complete gem that made me go "Wow, can it get any better than this!?" Gaming has come very far and has become incredibly popular, but it still has a long ways to go. I think we are just in a creative hiccup right now, full of nervous developers afraid to get those doors closed in these tough times.

There are games out there that are truly gems, games that should be played by everyone. But in the end, most of them become justanother purchase, to be traded in for future games. Besides Oblivion, I don't have a single game of my original Xbox library, yet I still retain most of my Ps2 games and a crateful of SNES and N64 games. Maybe our standards are too high? It could be any number of things. But whatever it is, I hope it gets resolved soon.

I suppose my real question is, should we be expecting sequels this late in the gen to reinvent themselves, or should we be okay if they are merely incremental upgrades over the original?

Let me start off by saying that MOST, if not all sequels I've played this year have been great games. Games that would've blown me away a couple of years ago. They have their moments of brilliance... moments where they surprise us, but most of them have felt all too familiar. With perhaps the exception of Crysis 2, games like LBP2, Gears 3, KZ3, Portal 2, Resistance 3, Infamous 2, Battlefield 3 are all inarguably better games than their predecessors. Yet I feel there is something missing. Something that makes great games masterpieces. Epic moments that make you go 'How the f*** did they do that?!' Or even small gameplay moments that you dont expect developers would throw your way.... like playing catch with Alex's robot in Half Life 2 or The End sniper battle in MGS3.

Perhaps my biggest Holy S*** moment of last gen

Take Infamous 2 for example, great game. Tons of new superpowers, huge graphical upgrade, big bosses, controls and plays better than the original yet it's all too familiar. The story like most video game stories is disappointing, sure, but there is very little done in the gameplay arena to make it stand out more. Same with KZ3 and Gears 3. KZ3 controls and plays better, looks better, has more variety and is more epic than the original but it clings to FPS formula so much that you are left wondering if there is any originality left in this world. Same with Gears 3. While the new Horde and Beast modes are as inventive as they come, the SP campaign is perhaps even more formulaic than KZ3 and Infamous.

Sometimes innovation/brilliance can be as simple as getting fatter the more you eat

Is it wrong for me to expect developers to reshuffle the gameplay formula like Kojima did with MGS3? Or to expect a huge jump like AC1 to AC2, Uncharted 1 to Uncharted 2 with each iteration of a franchise? 6 years ago, this late into the gen, we were getting sequels and masterpieces like GTA San Andreas, Shadow of the Colossus, RE4 and God of War 2. Nothing I've played this year has blown me away like those games above. With the exeption of LBP2 and perhaps Motorstorm Apocalypse, nothing so far this year has made my imagination go wild. Everything I've seen of Uncharted 3, Modern Warfare 3, Battlefield 3, AC Revelations screams more of the same. And while they all might be great games packed with content that is sure to force us to hand out 9/10s, I can't help but wonder if we will get another true masterpiece this year. A game that we will look back upon and say it defined this generation.

It's fitting .... I suppose.... that our only hope left is Batman. :P

S0lidSnake

First, I don't think its realistic or fair to expect every sequel to reinvent the wheel. Second, evolutionary change is harder and rarer than you seem to believe.

Where to begin? The primary case of a lackluster sequel that I've played is Dead Space 2. Aside from the pack hunters, the developers literally had no new ideas for monsters (including bosses), weapons or level design and the last third of the game completely collapsed (marked by endlessly respawning monsters who sometimes attacked from offscreen, a joke of a final boss and a weak ending). Clearly the game wasn't made because the team was enthusiastic and had a bunch of ideas about where they could take the franchise, clearly it was just made because so many people loved the original.

And KZ3 was nearly as disappointing for different reasons. A lot of changes were made, but many were changes demanded by people who didn't like KZ2, which alienated people who did.In KZ2 your soldier wearing heavy body armor moved like a guy in heavy body armor, but in KZ3 he flit about like a fairy and has suddenly developed the strength to effortlessly carry outsized cannons (and don't even get me started on the absence of recoil). Also, KZ2 was about fighting humanoids with razor sharp AI, but KZ3 was filled with vehicle segments and even a stealth bit. Most of those segments were fine (though the less said of the spaceship battle the better) but they prevented KZ3 from establishing the bleak mood the original did (speaking of which, KZ3 was a lot more colorful). As a result KZ3 sank into a sea of similar shooters without making much of a ripple, let alone a wave, because it no longer had anything to differentiate it. I think the franchise should just be abandoned and I hope that Guerillahas a lesson about trusting its instincts instead of just trying to pander to everybody.

Infamous 2 didn't reinvent the wheel, but it did pretty much everything I hoped it would do (new powers, superpowered enemies who could fight the player on his own level, much more destructible environment, vastly improve audiovisuals) and even one thing I wasn't expected (giving users the power to create missions).

And LBP2 is as ambitious a sequel as the industry has seen. To quote MM, it was no longer just a platform game, but a platform for games. Which isn't to say the platforming was neglected (sackbots, the creatinator, the grappling hook, the power gloves and the bouncepads were created to enhance platforming) but MM also created crazy stuff like pool games and space shooters and really unique puzzle games. And the create tools became vastly more powerful, flexible and easy to use (creating a flying vehicle was something only one or two creators accomplished in LBP1 and must have taken days, but in LBP2 my kids can make a ship in a couple minutes just because its so much easier).

To sum up, I think the for one or two sequels, linear improvement is enough. If a developer is releasing three games with no change in the formula, that's a problem, but that isn't the case with any of the games you have complained about.

[QUOTE="dvader654"] Do you think there is any chance Uncharted 3 will be as good as the second game, i dont think so. I think it will be fantastic but it wont be that incredible feeling we had playing the second game and seeing what a big improvement it was. Skyrim, I hope its a big improvement but we shall see. Batman has a big chance to be that killer sequel as it seems to be a big leap and its only the second game. The one I am most sure that it will be a masterpiece is of course Zelda as it so different than any Zelda, and more different than most sequels were this year. S0lidSnake

TBH, I made the thread after watching the Uncharted 3 Gametrailers Bonus Round. It looks like they are not adding any new elements in U3 and are basically refining what they already had in U2. That's probably good enough for most people, inlcuding myself, but at the same time it's disappointing to see a talented studio giving us more of the same instead of taking actual risks. I was expecting U3 to have some adventure elements (it's an action adventure game after all) but looks like they are focusing on Action only. I will still enjoy it if they dont go the Gears 3 route (light on setpieces, heavy on shooting segments) but it would be hard not to be disappointed at the lack of adventure elements and mindnumbingly easy puzzles.

And of course I totally forgot about Zelda. :P I guess this could be the masterpiece we are all waiting for this year.

Now if I only gave two s***s about Zelda. ;p

Uncharted is primarily an action game that uses non-action sequences to give players a breather and set up the next action scene. By most accounts, the next TR reboot won't suck and isn't far off, so if you want a TR like experience, why not just skip U3 and by TR rather than demanding that U3 ape TR?

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"] Do you think there is any chance Uncharted 3 will be as good as the second game, i dont think so. I think it will be fantastic but it wont be that incredible feeling we had playing the second game and seeing what a big improvement it was. Skyrim, I hope its a big improvement but we shall see. Batman has a big chance to be that killer sequel as it seems to be a big leap and its only the second game. The one I am most sure that it will be a masterpiece is of course Zelda as it so different than any Zelda, and more different than most sequels were this year. CarnageHeart

TBH, I made the thread after watching the Uncharted 3 Gametrailers Bonus Round. It looks like they are not adding any new elements in U3 and are basically refining what they already had in U2. That's probably good enough for most people, inlcuding myself, but at the same time it's disappointing to see a talented studio giving us more of the same instead of taking actual risks. I was expecting U3 to have some adventure elements (it's an action adventure game after all) but looks like they are focusing on Action only. I will still enjoy it if they dont go the Gears 3 route (light on setpieces, heavy on shooting segments) but it would be hard not to be disappointed at the lack of adventure elements and mindnumbingly easy puzzles.

And of course I totally forgot about Zelda. :P I guess this could be the masterpiece we are all waiting for this year.

Now if I only gave two s***s about Zelda. ;p

Uncharted is primarily an action game that uses non-action sequences to give players a breather and set up the next action scene. By most accounts, the next TR reboot won't suck and isn't far off, so if you want a TR like experience, why not just skip U3 and by TR rather than demanding that U3 ape TR?

But if those non-action sequences aren't particularly entertaining (or engaging) then you've got 40% of the game that is just fluff. I liked the platforming sections in U2 as much as the next guy, but no multiple playthoughs they kinda fell apart because there was nothing to do except for jumping and climbing ledges. A game like Castlevania: Lords of Shadow got more and more exciting on subsequent playthroughs because there was always something new to do. The hidden items and upgrades were actually hidden and required thinking unlike U2 where all you had to do was look at where the camera doesn't want you to look at. Same with Batman AA, the world is rich and fun to explore. U2 just looks pretty but there isnt much to do except for climbing ledges every now and then and shooting dudes in the face.

First, I don't think its realistic or fair to expect every sequel to reinvent the wheel. Second, evolutionary change is harder and rarer than you seem to believe.

Where to begin? The primary case of a lackluster sequel that I've played is Dead Space 2. Aside from the pack hunters, the developers literally had no new ideas for monsters (including bosses), weapons or level design and the last third of the game completely collapsed (marked by endlessly respawning monsters who sometimes attacked from offscreen, a joke of a final boss and a weak ending). Clearly the game wasn't made because the team was enthusiastic and had a bunch of ideas about where they could take the franchise, clearly it was just made because so many people loved the original.

And KZ3 was nearly as disappointing for different reasons. A lot of changes were made, but many were changes demanded by people who didn't like KZ2, which alienated people who did.In KZ2 your soldier wearing heavy body armor moved like a guy in heavy body armor, but in KZ3 he flit about like a fairy and has suddenly developed the strength to effortlessly carry outsized cannons (and don't even get me started on the absence of recoil). Also, KZ2 was about fighting humanoids with razor sharp AI, but KZ3 was filled with vehicle segments and even a stealth bit. Most of those segments were fine (though the less said of the spaceship battle the better) but they prevented KZ3 from establishing the bleak mood the original did (speaking of which, KZ3 was a lot more colorful). As a result KZ3 sank into a sea of similar shooters without making much of a ripple, let alone a wave, because it no longer had anything to differentiate it. I think the franchise should just be abandoned and I hope that Guerillahas a lesson about trusting its instincts instead of just trying to pander to everybody.

Infamous 2 didn't reinvent the wheel, but it did pretty much everything I hoped it would do (new powers, superpowered enemies who could fight the player on his own level, much more destructible environment, vastly improve audiovisuals) and even one thing I wasn't expected (giving users the power to create missions).

And LBP2 is as ambitious a sequel as the industry has seen. To quote MM, it was no longer just a platform game, but a platform for games. Which isn't to say the platforming was neglected (sackbots, the creatinator, the grappling hook, the power gloves and the bouncepads were created to enhance platforming) but MM also created crazy stuff like pool games and space shooters and really unique puzzle games. And the create tools became vastly more powerful, flexible and easy to use (creating a flying vehicle was something only one or two creators accomplished in LBP1 and must have taken days, but in LBP2 my kids can make a ship in a couple minutes just because its so much easier).

To sum up, I think the for one or two sequels, linear improvement is enough. If a developer is releasing three games with no change in the formula, that's a problem, but that isn't the case with any of the games you have complained about.

CarnageHeart

I completely agree with LBP2, i thought it was fantastic and far exceeded my hopes. Have you played Motorstorm Apocalypse yet? It's another game where the developers werent afraid to take risks and created something drastically different than its predecessors instead of opting for a safe sequel.

Infamous 2 is a great game, but there is just something missing. The story isnt nearly as satisfying or well handled, it just didn't make an impact on me and I know i wasnt the only one.

Couldnt agree more with KZ3. The lack of recoil is ridiculous. I dont understand why thye couldn't implement it on harder difficulty levels. Funny thing is that even after all their pandering to appeal to the casuals, it sold less than KZ2. Again, i liked it a lot but some of the design decisions simply didn't need to be made.

Gears 3, Resistance 3, KZ3, and the upcoming BF3, Uncharted 3, MW3 are all examples of the third game sticking very close to the sereies' formula, how are those not valid examples?

Great read, and I completely agree. I'm a very content gamer, having grown up playing a Super Nintendo and N64 till about 2003, whenI got a Ps2 for Christmas from my old man. Ps2 was full of games that made my jaw drop(Mostnotably FFX, and MGS3)cause I was so used to playing sprite based games on SNES and playing mainly Mario, Zelda, and Ogre Battle on N64. Ever since about 2007it seems games try to be less and less like "Slumdog Millionaire", like you mentioned, and more focused on being the next Michael Bay film. By no meansdo I mean I don't like this gen, it's incredible and I love almost every game I play, the things developers anddesigners are able to do these days with tech is just incredible and mind blowing to me.But notsince my first Xbox 360 RPG,Oblivion, has my jaw dropped andI said: "How in the world did a group of people do this? This is incredible, I've never seen anything like it.."

I freakin love gaming, but I hate movies these days. Remake after remake after remake! My goodness! Only movies I pay to see anymore are ones that my lady friends like to see with me, or personally I go shell out cash immediately when Dreamworks, or Pixar released another gem. And it seems to me gaming is turning into the movie industry, churning out the sequels to make guaranteed money. Do I bash them? No, they put hard work into what they do and they have bills to pay just like us.

But are they really to blame for churning out money makers? Or have we the consumers made it an all too risky endeavor to develop a new project entering uncertain waters? I find it a little of column A and B. I guess I can go on for a while and further reinforce what I'm trying to get across, but that would make this a wall of text and unappeasing to read.

Bottom line is, I haven't felt the magic this gen. Games have become like robots, flashy on the outside, made of incredible technology, can do amazing things, but have no soul. It may seem harsh to say that since developers put their heart and sweat into making their dreams come alive, but in most cases (IMO) I find this to be the case. I long for the days of SNES, which in my opinion is the golden age of gaming, almost every game I had on that console was a complete gem that made me go "Wow, can it get any better than this!?" Gaming has come very far and has become incredibly popular, but it still has a long ways to go. I think we are just in a creative hiccup right now, full of nervous developers afraid to get those doors closed in these tough times.

There are games out there that are truly gems, games that should be played by everyone. But in the end, most of them become justanother purchase, to be traded in for future games. Besides Oblivion, I don't have a single game of my original Xbox library, yet I still retain most of my Ps2 games and a crateful of SNES and N64 games. Maybe our standards are too high? It could be any number of things. But whatever it is, I hope it gets resolved soon.

MLBknights58

Yup, well said. I feel bad making this thread because by no means, I hate the games I'm playing nowadays. in fact, game's have been the most polished they've ever been. I understand all the hard work developers put in to perfect their games... I just wish they spent some of that time trying to reinvent the genres.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

TBH, I made the thread after watching the Uncharted 3 Gametrailers Bonus Round. It looks like they are not adding any new elements in U3 and are basically refining what they already had in U2. That's probably good enough for most people, inlcuding myself, but at the same time it's disappointing to see a talented studio giving us more of the same instead of taking actual risks. I was expecting U3 to have some adventure elements (it's an action adventure game after all) but looks like they are focusing on Action only. I will still enjoy it if they dont go the Gears 3 route (light on setpieces, heavy on shooting segments) but it would be hard not to be disappointed at the lack of adventure elements and mindnumbingly easy puzzles.

And of course I totally forgot about Zelda. :P I guess this could be the masterpiece we are all waiting for this year.

Now if I only gave two s***s about Zelda. ;p

S0lidSnake

Uncharted is primarily an action game that uses non-action sequences to give players a breather and set up the next action scene. By most accounts, the next TR reboot won't suck and isn't far off, so if you want a TR like experience, why not just skip U3 and by TR rather than demanding that U3 ape TR?

But if those non-action sequences aren't particularly entertaining (or engaging) then you've got 40% of the game that is just fluff. I liked the platforming sections in U2 as much as the next guy, but no multiple playthoughs they kinda fell apart because there was nothing to do except for jumping and climbing ledges. A game like Castlevania: Lords of Shadow got more and more exciting on subsequent playthroughs because there was always something new to do. The hidden items and upgrades were actually hidden and required thinking unlike U2 where all you had to do was look at where the camera doesn't want you to look at. Same with Batman AA, the world is rich and fun to explore. U2 just looks pretty but there isnt much to do except for climbing ledges every now and then and shooting dudes in the face.

Part of the brilliance of Uncharted 2 (and hopefully 3) is its pacing. It feels like (outside of the combat) the developers planned out every moment. I loved bits where one climbs a tall building to get a spectacular view or strolls through a village, petting the animals and playing with the kids. Uncharted is an action game which appreciates that action can be enhanced by setting it up and establishing charactersand not smothering the player inwave after wave after wave offoes, but it is at its core an action game and I would be disappointed if it were otherwise. I like exploration and detailed character interaction, but there are other games I go to when I want to scratch those itches.

Combat in Uncharted 2 is great because it breaks the old game's pattern of climbing to a place, then getting into a shootout in a conventional area. In U2 often one was climbing, jumping and shooting at the same time. I expect U3 will do just as good a job of setting battles in interesting places (ships in the middle of a storm, planes going down and what have you) though honestly, I haven't played the campaign yet, so singing its praises is a bit dangerous.

I'll take your word about Castlevania and Batman AA being fun to explore since both those games had issues which killed them for me (which I see no point in going into here).

As for your last point, I've never been a big'find the hidden widgets' type of guy. I do it in some games in order to power up the character (nods towards Infamous) but while exploration for the sake of exploration of seeing what is there can be fun, I findlooking inevery nook and cranny in order to find 'widget X' tedious.

As for your last point, I've never been a big'find the hidden widgets' type of guy. I do it in some games in order to power up the character (nods towards Infamous) but while exploration for the sake of exploration of seeing what is there can be fun, I findlooking inevery nook and cranny in order to find 'widget X' tedious.

CarnageHeart

Exactly. Exploration for the sake of exploration is tedious, but when you reward the player for finding hidden objects by allowing them to experience the resolution of two subplots (Riddler and the Warden) or in Castlevania's case, upgrading your abilities/armor all the while making finding each of these hidden items a puzzle in itself, it becomes fun, meaningful and part of the game.

The treasures in Uncharted are just there to be collected, they provide absolutely no value to the SP campaign. I dont see why Naughty Dog couldn't add a bunch of optional puzzles or optional locations that hold these treasures. They say it's for the sake of pacing (same reasoning they give for Drake blurting out the answer to the puzzles after 10 seconds, even with hints off) but then why not make it optional? I mean these are the guys behind Jak & Dexter games, if anyone can do it, it's them.

I had tons of issues with Castlevania, but one thing they did right was adding replayability and depth to their single player campaign.

I think all games should just go back to Sprite based graphics and text based story with no VA, and that would make everything just dandy again. :P A man can dream can't he?

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

First, I don't think its realistic or fair to expect every sequel to reinvent the wheel. Second, evolutionary change is harder and rarer than you seem to believe.

Where to begin? The primary case of a lackluster sequel that I've played is Dead Space 2. Aside from the pack hunters, the developers literally had no new ideas for monsters (including bosses), weapons or level design and the last third of the game completely collapsed (marked by endlessly respawning monsters who sometimes attacked from offscreen, a joke of a final boss and a weak ending). Clearly the game wasn't made because the team was enthusiastic and had a bunch of ideas about where they could take the franchise, clearly it was just made because so many people loved the original.

And KZ3 was nearly as disappointing for different reasons. A lot of changes were made, but many were changes demanded by people who didn't like KZ2, which alienated people who did.In KZ2 your soldier wearing heavy body armor moved like a guy in heavy body armor, but in KZ3 he flit about like a fairy and has suddenly developed the strength to effortlessly carry outsized cannons (and don't even get me started on the absence of recoil). Also, KZ2 was about fighting humanoids with razor sharp AI, but KZ3 was filled with vehicle segments and even a stealth bit. Most of those segments were fine (though the less said of the spaceship battle the better) but they prevented KZ3 from establishing the bleak mood the original did (speaking of which, KZ3 was a lot more colorful). As a result KZ3 sank into a sea of similar shooters without making much of a ripple, let alone a wave, because it no longer had anything to differentiate it. I think the franchise should just be abandoned and I hope that Guerillahas a lesson about trusting its instincts instead of just trying to pander to everybody.

Infamous 2 didn't reinvent the wheel, but it did pretty much everything I hoped it would do (new powers, superpowered enemies who could fight the player on his own level, much more destructible environment, vastly improve audiovisuals) and even one thing I wasn't expected (giving users the power to create missions).

And LBP2 is as ambitious a sequel as the industry has seen. To quote MM, it was no longer just a platform game, but a platform for games. Which isn't to say the platforming was neglected (sackbots, the creatinator, the grappling hook, the power gloves and the bouncepads were created to enhance platforming) but MM also created crazy stuff like pool games and space shooters and really unique puzzle games. And the create tools became vastly more powerful, flexible and easy to use (creating a flying vehicle was something only one or two creators accomplished in LBP1 and must have taken days, but in LBP2 my kids can make a ship in a couple minutes just because its so much easier).

To sum up, I think the for one or two sequels, linear improvement is enough. If a developer is releasing three games with no change in the formula, that's a problem, but that isn't the case with any of the games you have complained about.

S0lidSnake

Gears 3, Resistance 3, KZ3, and the upcoming BF3, Uncharted 3, MW3 are all examples of the third game sticking very close to the sereies' formula, how are those not valid examples?

My point is that I have no problem with sequels which improve upon their predecessors no matter if the improvement is iterative or radical. A lot of sequels, radical and conservative, are worse games than their predecessors. Radical sequels which failed to impress many fans include the last Splinter Cell, Tomb Raider Dark Angel, Final Fantasy 13, Silent Hill 4 and even GTA4) and conservative sequels which failed to impress include Resistance 2, Dead Space 2 and Bioshock 2. I personally enjoyed some of the radical sequels I named, but not all of their changes were for the better.