Developers can't win. if they change a sequel too much everyone complains

Developers can't win.

if they change a sequel too much everyone complains that they've ruined the franchise

but if they don't change enough everyone complains that there is a lack of innovation and its just a rehash or a 1.5

is there a happy medium?

You are right. But I think some changes can be too drastic and some too little. I think the key is to ADD not CHANGE/REMOVE. So for instance, some of the best sequels this gen (MGS4, GoW3, Halo 3, Gears 2, UC2) kept the same basic gameplay but added improvements and features. Games usually get a lot of backlash when they change the formula up too much, add very little to the game, or take the story in a stupid nonsensical direction.II_Seraphim_II

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]You are right. But I think some changes can be too drastic and some too little. I think the key is to ADD not CHANGE/REMOVE. So for instance, some of the best sequels this gen (MGS4, GoW3, Halo 3, Gears 2, UC2) kept the same basic gameplay but added improvements and features. Games usually get a lot of backlash when they change the formula up too much, add very little to the game, or take the story in a stupid nonsensical direction.abdu4

Developers can't win.

if they change a sequel too much everyone complains that they've ruined the franchise

but if they don't change enough everyone complains that there is a lack of innovation and its just a rehash or a 1.5

is there a happy medium?

Developers can't win.

if they change a sequel too much everyone complains that they've ruined the franchise

but if they don't change enough everyone complains that there is a lack of innovation and its just a rehash or a 1.5

is there a happy medium?

dog_dirt

Sequels should ba based on originals. When people buy a sequel they expect continutation of what they like, if you throw everything away and start from scratch it's like cheating, it's like a dev has an idea for a brand new IP , but he's scared that his game won't make it on it's own, so he tries to sneak this new IP in old's IPs clothes, essentialy tricking the customer into buying the game

A good sequel takes what made it's predecesor great and builds on that foundation, improving, expanding, introducing fresh ideas

Good sequel is evolution.

Developers can't win.

if they change a sequel too much everyone complains that they've ruined the franchise

but if they don't change enough everyone complains that there is a lack of innovation and its just a rehash or a 1.5

is there a happy medium?

Screw them. What do they expect these days; sequels are launched every 2 years for pretty much every game that makes sucess, if they want to make a different stuff or gameplay they might as well do another IP instead.

Changes from RE 1,2,3 ==> RE 4 = win. But of course, you will always get people that complainssalxis

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]You are right. But I think some changes can be too drastic and some too little. I think the key is to ADD not CHANGE/REMOVE. So for instance, some of the best sequels this gen (MGS4, GoW3, Halo 3, Gears 2, UC2) kept the same basic gameplay but added improvements and features. Games usually get a lot of backlash when they change the formula up too much, add very little to the game, or take the story in a stupid nonsensical direction.abdu4

I remember everyone complaining about FFXII because it was so different. Now FFXIII comes out and is very similar to FFX, and we have people complaining again. I guess Square should have merged the openness of FFXII with the battle system in FFXIII and they may have had a winner. Or maybe thats what vsXIII will be.Anjunaddict

[QUOTE="salxis"]Changes from RE 1,2,3 ==> RE 4 = win. But of course, you will always get people that complainsAnjunaddict

Starcraft 2 is another example. While I personally think it's and will be a great game, a number of people have been reacting quite negatively to SC2's relative lack of change.GhoX

[QUOTE="GhoX"]Starcraft 2 is another example. While I personally think it's and will be a great game, a number of people have been reacting quite negatively to SC2's relative lack of change.markop2003

Changes from RE 1,2,3 ==> RE 4 = win. But of course, you will always get people that complainssalxis

I hope you arent serious about this....

Because if you are , then you never played RE1 or 2 or better resident evil remake /CV/zero...before and if you were , obviously you didnt play em when they first release..... Otherwise you wouldnt say 4 >> every other RE game....!!

[QUOTE="salxis"]Changes from RE 1,2,3 ==> RE 4 = win. But of course, you will always get people that complainsAzatiS

I hope you arent serious about this....

Because if you are , then you never played RE1 or 2 or better resident evil remake /CV/zero...before and if you were , obviously you didnt play em when they first release..... Otherwise you wouldnt say 4 >> every other RE game....!!

I agree with Adrian Werner. A sequel should be an evolution of the original idea, and not a complete change of gameplay. Most of the sequels released this generation was disappointing because of the developers changed everything but the game title. To name a few, Resident Evil, Doom, Alone in the Dark, Command & Conquer, Turok, Divinity, Rainbow Six, The Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Deus Ex, Splinter Cell, and many more. I prefer all the same again like what happens to Pokemon games than complete changes.

Changes from RE 1,2,3 ==> RE 4 = win. But of course, you will always get people that complainssalxis

I hope you arent serious about this....

Because if you are , then you never played RE1 or 2 or better resident evil remake /CV/zero...before and if you were , obviously you didnt play em when they first release..... Otherwise you wouldnt say 4 >> every other RE game....!!

I agree with Adrian Werner. A sequel should be an evolution of the original idea, and not a complete change of gameplay. Most of the sequels released this generation was disappointing because of the developers changed everything but the game title. To name a few, Resident Evil, Doom, Alone in the Dark, Command & Conquer, Turok, Divinity, Rainbow Six, The Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Deus Ex, Splinter Cell, and many more. I prefer all the same again like what happens to Pokemon games than complete changes.

RyuRanVII

The biggest culprit I think is Legend of Zelda the fans complaign after every game I hate this game it is nothing like OoT. Then the next game comes out they say I loved the last game and I hate this game cause it is too much like OoT.

The fans hate the latest console release in the series then when the next one comes out they loved the one that they hated.

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="AzatiS"]

I hope you arent serious about this....

Because if you are , then you never played RE1 or 2 or better resident evil remake /CV/zero...before and if you were , obviously you didnt play em when they first release..... Otherwise you wouldnt say 4 >> every other RE game....!!

AzatiS

[QUOTE="AzatiS"][QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"] I think it all depends on how you rate these games. If we are talking objectively, taking all the games right now at this very moment and rating them, then yes, RE4 is probably the best one. Now, if we are too rate each game at the time it came out, RE1 or RE2 are probably the best. It's sort of unfair to rate all the games right now since RE4 builds on all the innovations and ideas of the previous games.locopatho

i could swaer TC's talking about GOW3 in particular in which case i agree with his point ............ dev. are in a very bad situations when doing sequels ........... reviewers aren't fair either .......... U2 added too little to the formula and it got 9.5, GOW3 imo is a greater step forward but it scored lower than its predecessors. I can't really understand what is going on !!!!!!!!

not to mention Halo games, most FPS sequels ...... etc

[QUOTE="Anjunaddict"][QUOTE="salxis"]Changes from RE 1,2,3 ==> RE 4 = win. But of course, you will always get people that complainssalxis

I kinda like the change from Kingdom Hearts 1 to 2.

Settlers From the 4th part this game went seriously down hill. Where 3 was great fun for me the 4th part removed the random map option witch i always liked :(. Part 5 was nothing like this, it was feeling like a normal RTS with heroes. rumors go the latest installment will bring the old feeling back. Thats not surprising me because the game does not attract casual gamers so they want there old fan base back. madmenno

With Settlers I disagree actualy. yes, I hated S5, because it turned the IP into pure RTS with some economic elements, but then Ubi did something great. Settlers VI went back to economic-centric gameplay, but its gameplay, while similiar in principles, is still vastly different from Settlers 1-3, I've played Settlers7 and it's once again deep economic game, but it';s also different from S1-3. But what's beautiful is that Ubi decided to satisfy all fans. While the main series is a place where Blue Byte experiments with economic gameplay types, Ubi also made a spin-off series, that sticks to old formula. That;'s what Settlers II: next gen and it's add-ons were. And last year they released Settlers: Traditions Edition, which is bassicaly what Settlers 3 would be if it was designed today.

it's just a damn shame Traditions never was released in english afaik

I kinda like the change from Kingdom Hearts 1 to 2.

LegatoSkyheart

You are right. But I think some changes can be too drastic and some too little. I think the key is to ADD not CHANGE/REMOVE. So for instance, some of the best sequels this gen (MGS4, GoW3, Halo 3, Gears 2, UC2) kept the same basic gameplay but added improvements and features. Games usually get a lot of backlash when they change the formula up too much, add very little to the game, or take the story in a stupid nonsensical direction.II_Seraphim_II

Agree

But the question is, how much more can you add to a game like Uncharted 3. Maybe the devs have created something we never could've imagined and that is perfect, but what if they are out of ideas. Then, if you ask me, just let it play out exactly as UC2 but with a new story, couple of new characters, level design etc. Please don't make "tweaks" to the gameplay, like changing the control scheme just for the sake of change, stuff like that are very disturbing to me. I don't get it why does it have to feel new all the time. Like, make pokemon SS/HG, without adding the pokewalker just as a compensation because there is not much 'new' in that game, or other unnecessary functions. Same with CoD:MW2. I haven't played it alot so I'm not really sure, but I hear alot of complaints about that game: "the first was better, why did they change it"... stop this please!

There is a real easy way for developers to win...it's called end the game with the credits and make a new one not make a damn sequel just for the $$.

RE4 was one of the greatest games ever made, but there was still a small select few diehard RE fans who complained about it. Luckily no one paid any attention to them.

Zelda 2. Nuff said.

Changes from RE 1,2,3 ==> RE 4 = win. But of course, you will always get people that complainssalxis

Genre swapping = win?

Perfect examples for both scenarios was released this month, FF13 and GOW3.

i think splinter cell and god of war are good examples of both. SC is said to of changed too much and GoW not enough

Developers can't win.

if they change a sequel too much everyone complains that they've ruined the franchise

but if they don't change enough everyone complains that there is a lack of innovation and its just a rehash or a 1.5

is there a happy medium?

dog_dirt

imo can developer change how many they want. I rather have two different games than 2 same ones, see SC2.

Sequels can work in mysterious ways. I think people simply have to do this: if a game continues an ongoing story, it should try to improve the formula while retaining what made it good in the first place. If it's an independant story, I'd much rather they change the formula and explore new frontiers. Star Ocean and FF are great examples of that.

Developers should be able to change THEIR games how they want to. Gamers should keep an open mind and be able to accept changes, and purely judge a game on it's quality. This would force developers to actually focus on making good games, nothing else. I have been a big fan of Splinter Cell and Final Fantasy for a long time, and came into both with an open mind. I really enjoyed the gameplay of the Splinter Cell demo, even though it is very different from the originals, but I didn't like Final Fantasy.

Dawn of war to dawn of war 2 was a massive change. It went from rts to a rtt. The reviews from both sides fans on amazon.com show what they thought about that. (1 staring it)