gaming VG Sequels: What Do You Look For?

[Fire_Fly 499]

With the sequels of so many celebrated games scheduled for release soon, it makes me wonder what keeps sequels appealing to gamers.

 

With any sequel, there comes a conflict of interests in terms of features. A sequel wouldn't be a sequel if it didn't feature gameplay similar to its preceeding game, but at the same time, it'd be just like the preceeding game without new features to spice it up and make things more interesting for increased playability. I think it takes a controlled combination of the two to make a successful sequel, balancing new and old concepts in a way that keeps veteran interest, but can also draw in newcomers to the series.

 

What do you look for in the sequels to your favorite games?

Edited July 24, 2012 by Fire_Fly

[Xebec 74]

Mass improvement of plotholes

New game UI to keep things fresh

Improvement of gameplay mechanics that were needed

Of course a new story

And upgrades to preexisting multiplayer :3

[WTFisupwithyouguys 24]

Good gameplay, preferably good graphics and sound, too. A decent story would also be nice.

 

..........

[LowfatEnvelope 335]

I like game sequels to have some distinct new feature(s), while keeping close enough to the play style of the original. Also upgraded graphics are always a plus I also like sequels to expand on to what the original had with new items, levels, characters, etc, but at the same time keeping most of the good stuff while getting rid of the bad stuff that was in the first game. If a sequel keeps the bad stuff in the first in the second, then that's a large minus I usually don't mind alterations to pre-existing features and items either (and tend to enjoy them), as long as they aren't completely redone (unless of course the thing was horrible and was fixed).

Edited July 24, 2012 by LowfatEnvelope

[Titan Rising 2,156]

Above all else, I think a sequel needs to be harder than the previous game. Some of the most noticeable sequels, in my opinion, are Zelda: Majora's Mask, Banjo Tooie, and Pokemon Silver and Gold. All of these games brought significantly more challenging obstacles to the player while keeping almost the exact same gameplay at the same time.

 

Silver and Gold is a loose exception since it's not actually a sequel in the traditional sense, but it did kind of go back to the previous games and brought a lot of cool new challenges like being able to fight Red.

 

Aside from increased difficulty, I think a LOT of new content is also a manditory addition. All three of those games provided new lands to explore, things to collect, abilities to use. I think if it isn't different enough to distinguish itself from the previous game I might as well just keep playing the original. Which is why I've never bought a CoD game after MW2 lol.

[Fire_Fly 499]

I like game sequels to have some distinct new feature(s), while keeping close enough to the play style of the original. Also upgraded graphics are always a plus I also like sequels to expand on to what the original had with new items, levels, characters, etc, but at the same time keeping most of the good stuff while getting rid of the bad stuff that was in the first game. If a sequel keeps the bad stuff in the first in the second, then that's a large minus I usually don't mind alterations to pre-existing features and items either (and tend to enjoy them), as long as they aren't completely redone (unless of course the thing was horrible and was fixed).

 

I can't even count the number of sequels I've played that I couldn't stand because the same issues from the first game managed to survive into the second, combining with brand new problems, which by themselves. might not have been so bad. Sometimes I wish developers would be a little more responsive to the negative feedback they get about certain features.

[Bari 7,023]

Continuity, character development, and improved mechanics. I hate it when the original is better than the sequel. Take the Fable series for example. Fable 1 is much more exiting and satisfying compared to Fable 2. Fable 2 had better character options and the story wasn't dumb compared to Fable 3. As long as a game doesn't try to "Modernize" with new ideas based on what worked with other games, instead of coming up with their own ideas, I'm fine. Game companies these days rehash over used ideas and pass them off as "innovative".

[Fire_Fly 499]

Continuity, character development, and improved mechanics. I hate it when the original is better than the sequel. Take the Fable series for example. Fable 1 is much more exiting and satisfying compared to Fable 2. Fable 2 had better character options and the story wasn't dumb compared to Fable 3. As long as a game doesn't try to "Modernize" with new ideas based on what worked with other games, instead of coming up with their own ideas, I'm fine. Game companies these days rehash over used ideas and pass them off as "innovative".

 

Respect + 50.

 

It's about time someone used Fable as an example of progressive degeneration. I loved the original Fable, and was increasingly disappointed after playing the other two.

[Radiance64 7,053]

As long as the sequel is as good and fun to play as the original, I'll be happy with it, which most sequels to the games I play tend to be.

[LowfatEnvelope 335]

I can't even count the number of sequels I've played that I couldn't stand because the same issues from the first game managed to survive into the second, combining with brand new problems, which by themselves. might not have been so bad. Sometimes I wish developers would be a little more responsive to the negative feedback they get about certain features.

 

Most definitely. That's why I love developers that actually listen to and interact with the community they created. Not only do things seem to get done in a more satisfactory way, but also the community is much happier.

[Lacey Shadows 164]

Just a good improvement over the foundation. Let's I make a racing game without a "Boost" feature (like in Burnout), but it still has lightning fast gameplay and it's really fun. Now I wanna make a sequel, what could make the game faster and more fun? How about a "Boost" bar?

 

That's the kind of stuff I look for. Some good examples are Time Crisis (Co-op implemented in the 2nd game, Gun variation in the 3rd one, Multi screen battles in the 4th one), Tony Hawk's Pro Skater (Manuals introduced in THPS2, Reverts in THPS3, No time limits in THPS4). Basically, if you can keep the core mechanics without having the new features mess it up, you're okay in my book.

[Discordian 6,015]

I don't particularly look for anything but I can say that I have a tendency to like a game more if it changes things drastically from the one before it. Sly 1 to Sly 2, pretty much every Final Fantasy after VI, new Sonic compared to old Sonic...being different usually appeals to me more than being the same, even if I thoroughly loved how it was originally. It doesn't matter about quality, scores, general opinion I will love a game in spite of all of that, even if it's low scores and opinions like FFXIII got.

[Teh Boi 113]

I just want to know who the hell is the GMan, and what happens to Isaac in DS3.

The graphics: Must it be eyecandy? Nope, I just want something that looks good.

Gameplay: This is, along the script, the most important thing in the video game. It must be improved (Half-Life has had superb gameplay since HL1, so I doubt they can improve it anymore)

[Fire_Fly 499]

I don't particularly look for anything but I can say that I have a tendency to like a game more if it changes things drastically from the one before it. Sly 1 to Sly 2, pretty much every Final Fantasy after VI, new Sonic compared to old Sonic...being different usually appeals to me more than being the same, even if I thoroughly loved how it was originally. It doesn't matter about quality, scores, general opinion I will love a game in spite of all of that, even if it's low scores and opinions like FFXIII got.

 

Interesting perspective! But that makes me wonder:

 

At what point do you draw the line with drastic changes? I can enjoy them in a sequel, as long as there's still a significant essence of the preceeding game to be found in it. I don't want the sequel to be nearly undistinguishable from the original game, and I'm all in favor of major changes, fixes and additions, but I don't think I could enjoy the game if the additions and changes completely define the game itself. It'd be like playing a game in an entirely different series than the original.

[Discordian 6,015]

There is no line. I will enjoy a game regardless of if it went from RPG to TPS like Dirge of Cerberus did. I have this rare ability to enjoy every single game for being itself, not because it's better or worse compared to another game, even within the same series. A game can change so drastically it's a completely different game and I'll enjoy it. I don't stay loyal to companies or consoles, so why would I do it for a series? I just love playing games.

 

That said, enjoying a game for what it is and noting how different it is from the previous one in the sequel aren't the same thing for me so I can enjoy a game as it is and still compare it but that comparison won't make me enjoy a game more or less than it already was. It's like comparing apples to oranges to me, there's no comparison to be had between Resident Evil Code Veronica and Resident Evil 4 because they are so drastically different. Using lore, cameos or references to past games in a series is just about all that really makes a game a part of a series imo and even then it could do something totally different with no connection to the others and still be a part of the series. I don't argue "FFXIII isn't Final Fantasy anymore" or anything silly like that, I actually can't stand when people try to say RE1-CVX are Resident Evil but RE4 and after aren't because they are so different. It's not up to you to decide whether it's a part of the series or not, it's up to the creators. If a game is called Final Fantasy, regardless of if it's a completely different game from the others, it's Final Fantasy and you can't change that and have to accept it. You can say "I prefer older FF" of course but trying to say FFXIII isn't FF because of it's differences is silly and is an act in futility.

 

I know I mention FFXIII a lot but I've seen these sorts of accusations from FFXIII haters more than any other game besides RE4/5 which get about the same. I'm not trying to sound defensive, I'm just using examples I have heard in the past several times.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Raronoopa

[Ghastchip 33]

What do I look for in a sequel?

 

Longer play time (but not extended using some obvious methods), expands the story to the original, or begins something new and better, ties in with the original with game mechanics we grew to love and adds new features

 

All adressed in Portal 2, perfect sequel

[Envy 6,167]

All I want in a sequel is for it to build on top of its predecessor. In other words, it should have all of the features from its predecessor, plus more. There are exceptions, but generally, features should stay, and I do not like it when they go missing.

 

I think that comes from me really being into series like Animal Crossing and The Sims. Animal Crossing, in particular, is now notorious for having sequels that are steps to the side instead of actual improvements. They add features, but at the same time, they take away vital features. It's really very jarring, and makes it very hard to enjoy the sequel like I should. I do not understand what is going through the heads of the Animal Crossing developers, but I really hope they have gotten it right with AC:3DS.