Why Were Many Sequels Radically Different From Thier Predecessors on the NES?

I've noticed that many NES sequels are totally different from the first game in the series, even when the first game was critically acclaimed. Games like Mario 2, Adventure of Link, Simon's Quest, etc. tried something new and different. I think it's interesting because it seems every sequel today is just a copy of the original with maybe prettier graphics and a few tweaks. Maybe developers were more experimental because of the new-ness of the NES and console gaming.

Thoughts?

i think its because there weren't 10 different companies involved in each game, a lot of them saying "it needs to be this and this and this". someone had a vision for a game even if it was different than it originally was and they followed that vision and made a stellar game. simons quest is a good example, the adventures of link is a pretty decent example (not the best though) super mario 2 in the US was actually a japanese game called 'doki doki panic' HOWEVER super mario 3 was drastically different than super mario 1. and if you ever played smb3 how can you deny the creator knew exactly what he was doing to make an excellent game. now whenever a game comes out and the main innovater behind it has virtually complete control over the game you KNOW they didn't let someone over their head come in and try to tell them how to make a good game. unfortunately this doesn't happen very often.

Maybe developers were more experimental because of the new-ness of the NES and console gaming.

Fick1122

There's that, and also the fact that video games back then didn't cost millions of dollars to make. Back then, a single game could be made by a small team of just 10 people. By contrast, today's games require several dozens of people to create; anything from concept artists, environmental artists, programmers, level designers, composers, etc. Since games weren't as costly to create years ago, people took bigger risks with their game designs (like in some sequels as you bring up) since a single game failing wasn't a huge financial risk where you'd lose millions. Nowadays because of rising costs of development, companies are less willing to take those chances and would rather rely on proven selling games/designs.

Because times are changing, better graphics, everythings 3D, and because veriety is the spice of life.machod_19

no offense but with 100 different fps', recycling RPG's and fighting games and just adding stuff from one iteration to the next, i don't think currently we have much variety. right now there are about 6 or 7 different games and a mixture of those 6 or 7 in each game.

[QUOTE="machod_19"]Because times are changing, better graphics, everythings 3D, and because veriety is the spice of life.z4twenny

no offense but with 100 different fps', recycling RPG's and fighting games and just adding stuff from one iteration to the next, i don't think currently we have much variety. right now there are about 6 or 7 different games and a mixture of those 6 or 7 in each game.

theres more variety now than there was on the nes.

The video game crash still had them spooked. Not only did you have hyped games fall completely flat, but people were also tired of sequels that were essentially "more of the same." The real Super Mario Bros. 2 expands on the orignial and is much harder, but Nintendo wanted something else to be SMB2 in the US to show that they wouldn't make sequels that look and play too much like the originals. Same thing with Final Fantasy... FFII and III never were brought to the US mainly because they looked too much like FFI.MAILER_DAEMON

Yeah after atari, the public would have a spat if they just had sequels that played the same

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]The video game crash still had them spooked. Not only did you have hyped games fall completely flat, but people were also tired of sequels that were essentially "more of the same." The real Super Mario Bros. 2 expands on the orignial and is much harder, but Nintendo wanted something else to be SMB2 in the US to show that they wouldn't make sequels that look and play too much like the originals. Same thing with Final Fantasy... FFII and III never were brought to the US mainly because they looked too much like FFI.metalisticpain

Yeah after atari, the public would have a spat if they just had sequels that played the same

Which is an even more interesting contrast to gamers now.