why dont devs take more chances with their sequels?

[SantaC]

A comon trend these days is that a sequel of a popular game is just an expansion pack kind of game. It is a fine as long as the game is good, but it once gets to a certain point it gets boring. For example Zelda, how many times havent we played the same shit now? Gone are the drastic changes that Zelda II, Majoras Mask and Wind Waker introduced. Now Nintendo refuse to try something interesting with their beloved series, and waggle does not count. Skyward sword looks like the same formula AGAIN. I couldn't be less excited.

Now Nintendo is hardly the only one guilty of this. I am not a halo fan, but how many times can you muster these games?! Atleast Square-Enix did make an interesting departure with the game mechanics in FFXII, but it seems they're back with shit again. (As evident by FFXIII)

Ugh there are too many examples, I guess gameplay creativity is bankrupt in gaming.

[Stoney Mason]

Simple solution. Don't buy them.

As far as addressing your actual question when devs actually do take chances the fans of the series often bitch about the changes. Such as Cell-da.  So its damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And FF13 is different for what its worth. Its shit imo but its different than what the series was before. As in no towns. So taking chances doesn't automatically mean those changes will be good.

[SantaC]

Simple solution. Don't buy them.

As far as addressing your actual question when devs actually do take chances the fans of the series often bitch about the changes. Such as Cell-da.  So its damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I dunno, most people seem to love Wind Waker, I dont think that's a good example. Going from Celda to Twilight Princess actually caused more backlash.

And FF13 is different for what its worth. Its shit imo but its different than what the series was before. As in no towns. So taking chances doesn't automatically mean those changes will be good.

There are no towns in FF13 because SE thought it was too time consuming to do this in HD, this difference does not count as a creative one. And the rest of the game certainly didn't introduce something mindblowing.

[Great Rumbler]

You already know the answer to the question, I think.

[archie4208]

Because games are now multimillion dollar projects and potentially alienating a consistent audience in the name of creative freedom wouldn't go over well with stockholders.

[Stoney Mason]

I dunno, most people seem to love Wind Waker, I dont think that's a good example. Going from Celda to Twilight Princess actually caused more backlash.

There was nothing but bitching about the look of Wind Waker for the longest time. Revisionism has people now looking back fondly on it. Especially with the weakened state of Wii graphics.

RE 5 is another. Lots of bitching and complaining. Because lots of people simply wanted RE 4 again. So not every change is guaranteed to be a hit with fans or more accurately message board types.

I'd much rather concern myself with overall quality rather than revolutionary gameplay. Because one is a lot harder than the other to produce. Take your revolutions where you can get them imo. Appreciate them for what they are. But its unrealistic to expect most games to be that way. Its a money making enterprise. And the more it costs, the less risk taking is generally done. It's easy to take risks when it doesn't cost much or the sales expectations aren't very great.

[Raban]

Because games are now multimillion dollar projects and potentially alienating a consistent audience in the name of creative freedom wouldn't go over well with stockholders.

Bingo.

[SantaC]

I dunno, most people seem to love Wind Waker, I dont think that's a good example. Going from Celda to Twilight Princess actually caused more backlash.

There was nothing but bitching about the look of Wind Waker for the longest time. Revisionism has people now looking back fondly on it. Especially with the weakened state of Wii graphics.

RE 5 is another. Lots of bitching and complaining. Because lots of people simply wanted RE 4 again. So not every change is guaranteed to be a hit with fans or more accurately message board types.

I'd much rather concern myself with overall quality rather than revolutionary gameplay. Because one is a lot harder than the other to produce. Take your revolutions where you can get them imo. Appreciate them for what they are. But its unrealistic to expect most games to be that way. Its a money making enterprise. And the more it costs, the less risk taking is generally done. It's easy to take risks when it doesn't cost much or the sales expectations aren't very great.

I understand what you are getting at, but on the issue with RE5, didn't people bitch because RE5 played EXACTLY as RE4, just that it wasn't as good game?

[Himu]

FF13 was "taking a chance". It's completely different in terms of flow than the rest of the series.

Also, making a sequel similar to the games before it is not new or a "trend".

[Great Rumbler]

Fans are contradictory in what they want. First they say that want something new and fresh, but then they get bent out of shape when a sequel "tosses the legacy of its predecessors".

[Himu]

Fans are contradictory in what they want. First they say that want something new and fresh, but then they get bent out of shape when a sequel "tosses the legacy of its predecessors".

Sometimes "new and fresh" does not equate to GOOD or BETTER.

I don't care whether something is new or fresh. I care about quality first and foremost.

[Stoney Mason]

I understand what you are getting at, but on the issue with RE5, didn't people bitch because RE5 played EXACTLY as RE4, just that it wasn't as good game?

When people don't like the changes they always take this argument. Not aimed at you but as a general assessment. The biggest complaint about RE 5 versus RE 4 boils down to it becoming an action game versus sort of straddling the line like RE 4 did.  Now I prefer RE 4 also even though I liked RE 5 but my criticism of RE 5 isn't that it didn't take chances. Because it did. What I'm more getting at is there are all kinds of audiences. Messageboard types. And regular consumers. And message board types aren't necessarily drawn to the same things as more casual consumers are. And Vice Versa.

I'm more saying if a person doesn't agree with the chances being taken, they won't look favorably on it. Look at Starcraft 2. From what i've heard it seems to essentially be a throwback game. It ignores most of the fundamental changes that have occurred in the RTS market. But the fans of the series like that. They don't want it to be different. They want an improved version of what they already like. Same with Street Fighter. Same with Halo. Same with Call of Duty. Etc.

[Himu]

RE4 is one of the most influential and innovative titles in gaming history. It has impacted the overall climate and direction of gaming in a lot of ways.

People who expected RE5 to be nearly on par are silly. RE5 isn't RE4, but it's still an excellent title. Probably my favorite game on hd consoles that's not Street Fighter IV or Dead Rising.

RE5's hate, especially on boards like gaf is 95% of the time completely unjustified.

[CajoleJuice]

I understand what you are getting at, but on the issue with RE5, didn't people bitch because RE5 played EXACTLY as RE4, just that it wasn't as good game?

I'm more saying if a person doesn't agree with the chances being taken, they won't look favorably on it. Look at Starcraft 2. From what i've heard it seems to essentially be a throwback game. It ignores most of the fundamental changes that have occurred in the RTS market. But the fans of the series like that. They don't want it to be different. They want an improved version of what they already like. Same with Street Fighter. Same with Halo. Same with Call of Duty. Etc.

Yeah, I thought this thread might be about SC2. But Blizzard gets away with that because hey, Starcraft came out TWELVE YEARS AGO. Sure, it has the same gameplay but holy fucking shit I've been waiting all this time so to get a graphical update with a great campaign and perfect multiplayer along the lines of the original -- I am fucking happy. But when you have Halo or COD coming out every year or two, it wears a person down.

I also agree with your statement about "overall quality" -- and that's where Blizzard pretty much destroys EVERYONE. I know you're looking forward to D3 (as am I).

[Himu]

I agree. Games like SC2 which take the core gameplay of the original and enhance but space releases a few years apart and don't bog the market down are great. Which is why a lot of people (me) don't really mind, for example, the Zelda formula. We get a new Zelda every 4-5 years. Who gives a fuck. Lemme bask in my Zeldafag-hood.

I'm not looking forward to SC2 at all but D3...can't wait.

[pilonv1]

Fans are contradictory in what they want. First they say that want something new and fresh, but then they get bent out of shape when a sequel "tosses the legacy of its predecessors".

As much as archie's post, this is the correct answer.

[CajoleJuice]

This has me curious as to how Burnout Paradise sold in comparison to its predecessors. That was a reimagining done right, as much as I was opposed to the idea. I still have my qualms with it, but fuck if I didn't sink a shitload of time into it.

Burnout series

[Stoney Mason]

I understand what you are getting at, but on the issue with RE5, didn't people bitch because RE5 played EXACTLY as RE4, just that it wasn't as good game?

I'm more saying if a person doesn't agree with the chances being taken, they won't look favorably on it. Look at Starcraft 2. From what i've heard it seems to essentially be a throwback game. It ignores most of the fundamental changes that have occurred in the RTS market. But the fans of the series like that. They don't want it to be different. They want an improved version of what they already like. Same with Street Fighter. Same with Halo. Same with Call of Duty. Etc.

Yeah, I thought this thread might be about SC2. But Blizzard gets away with that because hey, Starcraft came out TWELVE YEARS AGO. Sure, it has the same gameplay but holy fucking shit I've been waiting all this time so to get a graphical update with a great campaign and perfect multiplayer along the lines of the original -- I am fucking happy. But when you have Halo or COD coming out every year or two, it wears a person down.

I also agree with your statement about "overall quality" -- and that's where Blizzard pretty much destroys EVERYONE. I know you're looking forward to D3 (as am I).

I hear you. But for it just goes to how voracious the appetite is of a particular consumer. While I may not buy every game in a particular series I find it weird to criticize people who do on their enjoyment of it. (Not saying you are but just throwing it out there). If someone wants to buy Street Fighter one year. Then Super Street Fighter the next, and then Marvel versus SF the next, then that's simply what they like. If somebody wants to pay a subscription for World of Warcraft for 10 years then that's what they like. I mean I see how its very possible to wear a person down but then I don't think a person has to buy every iteration. They can skip a couple and when they come back the accumlated changes will seem bigger. I guess what I'm saying is that I appreciate when a seldom done sequel comes along but I also understand why yearly or bi-yearly iterations of franchises are popular. Because people like getting their fix.

[Great Rumbler]

This has me curious as to how Burnout Paradise sold in comparison to its predecessors. That was a reimagining done right, as much as I was opposed to the idea. I still have my qualms with it, but fuck if I didn't sink a shitload of time into it.

Burnout series

My biggest complaint about Burnout Paradise was how the crash mode was just awful compared to the previous games. I liked the open world nature though.

[CajoleJuice]

This has me curious as to how Burnout Paradise sold in comparison to its predecessors. That was a reimagining done right, as much as I was opposed to the idea. I still have my qualms with it, but fuck if I didn't sink a shitload of time into it.

Burnout series

My biggest complaint about Burnout Paradise was how the crash mode was just awful compared to the previous games. I liked the open world nature though.

Yes, definitely. Although I've always been more about the racing, maybe due to playing it from the original. I also liked the original Burnout mechanic of needing a full Burnout meter in order to boost. It really emphasized the risk vs reward and strategy in terms of utilizing it.

[Stoney Mason]

Burnout Paradise is a perfect example of why the argument of taking chances versus not taking chances is often irrelevant to my personal gaming taste.

I've tried many times to get into burnout paradise and I've never been able to do it. I rationally understand why a  lot of people love it but I'm just not one of those people despite many attempts and the fact that I love TDU.

For me something is lost that I use to love in Burnout by going to an open world structure versus what they had before. But that's just an opinion. Nobody is right or wrong. Somebody loving it is also valid. Framing the argument in that way is wrong just as framing it in the form of taking chances versus not taking chances. Some people will like the changes and some people won't. And it depends on the changes. It depends on why a person played a series. And it depends on the game.

[drew]

Don't get why you're mentioning halo, halo 2 took a lot of chances and halo reach looks pretty promising

[Stoney Mason]

Don't get why you're mentioning halo, halo 2 took a lot of chances and halo reach looks pretty promising

It depends on how familar a person is with a series. If a person is very familar with a series then the changes in any specific iteration seem huge. If a person is less of a hardcore fan of a series then the changes often seem like not that big a deal. That goes for any series. Halo fundamentally is the same series it began as. (not a knock. Nearly every franchise is) The weapon balance has changed. News features and weapons have been added. But the series is fundamentally recognizable to most people as the same basic series despite how the pistol has changed over the years or specifically how health regen works or other examples like that.

[demi]

The real answer is because they'll know yure lame ass will just go play a crappy game like BKO or FFX-2

[TripleA]

Because games are now multimillion dollar projects and potentially alienating a consistent audience in the name of creative freedom wouldn't go over well with stockholders.

^

[Cormacaroni]

Very few games find a formula that works well enough commercially to even justify a sequel; the incentives for them to then change that formula significantly are very low. If/when the sequel(s) start to flop, then you go back to the drawing board and take some chances (i.e. Tony Hawk).

[drew]

the biggest change in all the halos (i used to be a hxc halo 2 player) is the feel of the sticks and aiming, 2 was perfect, 3 fucked it the fucking fuck up, reach is a lot more like 1, which was good for what it was

[magus]

"i have a popular series that i already cheesed with 5 games?
who cares! we are doing a new game next time!"

if only more dev could be like him :'(

spoiler (click to show/hide)

in before demi 'they aren't because of your pirating ass'

[close]

[recursivelyenumerable]

Square has always taken chances with most of their sequels, actually. For better or worse.

[tiesto]

I think the DQ series does a great job with mixing the old and the new... it offers several new features per game that mixes stuff up, but never changes the core tenets of the series ('vignette' style storytelling, turn based battle systems, fun but not overwhelming dungeons, lighthearted monster design). Most games in the series are relatively similar in quality, and usually the changes that are introduced don't sour people's opinions on the game that much.

Of course, most people see the DQ series and think its stagnant, but they are used to FF radically reinventing the wheel every single time, usually for the worse.

[cool breeze]

A lot of game sequels just seem like the creative spark was to provide more of the same game mechanics, so I'm not surprised if they don't want to take chances.  Look at a series like Mass Effect where it started as a planned trilogy, they already had other reasons to make a sequels.  ME1 was an rpg-shooter broken hybrid while ME2 was a shooter with some rpg elements; the games were pretty different and I thought ME2 was a lot better and a sequel that took chances, but people still complained that the game wasn't exactly like ME1.  But then looking at something like Bioshock 2, it just seemed like they threw something together to support more Bioshock gameplay.  I think Arkham Asylum 2 (or Arkham City now) is going to be the same way.  I don't really mind.

One of my favorite sequels is still Soul Reaver as a sequel to Blood Omen.  I think people were saying that it wasn't intended as a blood omen sequel at first, but whatever the case, it worked.

then again, wasn't DMC2 originally not a Devil May Cry game at all? they just changed it around to work as a sequel or something?

[chronovore]

Slime, I was about to post what you did, but after reading some of Stoney's thoughts, I find I'm more in line with his view. Devs have to be very delicate about what they change, or the public will turn on them in an instant. It's also risky to change a system which can radically effect whatever was successful in the previous iteration. Sometimes what looks like adding a "couple new tweaks" can instead entirely destroy the ephemeral quality of what it had.

I loved the first Bushido Blade, but the default health bar and IIRC a cheap combo system killed that game's balance. In contrast, I was certain that ranged attacks would ruin Tobal 2, but it ended up making it an even deeper game. These are PS1 era games, with smaller budgets and team sizes; reticence to change rises directly in proportion to those factors -- and now I'm back to your argument. I need sleep. Jetlag is killing me.

[Stoney Mason]

devs are definitely willing to take more chances because they are the creative part of any equation. If you let them take more chances you would probably end up with more revolutionary stuff and also a lot more crap honestly. So the extremes on both ends would increase imo.

But then that's the tension between a dev and a publisher. A publisher wants to minimize those risks. A dev wants to push those risks. Some consumers care about "revolutionary" games. The vast majority just want to be entertained.