LBPCentral Archive

Home

General Stuff

General Gaming

Sequels

Archive: 34 posts

I personally love a good story in games. The more thought out, the better. So, when a sequel is involved I get a bit anxious because I'd love to see a story develop into something more, but at the same time I worry it might ruin the whole game's plot. Now, let us start with a specific series.

My friend has recently finished inFAMOUS 2 (he hasn't played it because he didn't buy it on day one, so I lent it to him). He enjoyed it and thought the story was flawless. However, he says the ending is an opener for a possible inFAMOUS 3 title. While I already know about this, he claims that a new addition to the series would be great for the fans. This is where I say NO, JUST NO!

inFAMOUS 2 had a great story, and they ended it professionally; no more Conduits around, everybody's cured, and the Beast is gone. Sucker Punch would be stupid to make this game into a cash cow by adding a third installment to an already finished series. What surprises me though is that of all the people I asked, none have shared the same opinion as me and actually look forward to a third game. This is where I'm confused.

Tell me, do you love seeing good stories go bad, because that's exactly what everybody has been wanting to see so far. My friend even suggested that inFAMOUS 3 revolves around Kessler. I tried to reason with him and say that it's impossible for Kessler to live since he was killed by Cole, but he claims ANOTHER Kessler could come from an alternate universe. HOLY ****, words cannot describe the amount of rage I would get if they went through with this.

Anywho, what's your thoughts on sequels? Are they needed, or do they just act as method of getting money out of loyal fans?

2012-04-13 06:39:00

Author:
CyberSora

Posts: 5551

Sequels like that are inevitable. It is best not to rage about it, because it is how game companies work. They find what sells, (Silent Hill) make a decent sequel or two (2,3) and then they rehash everything until it is dry and tasteless. (Homecoming) then they wonder why the reviews are bad. You see, game devs are a special breed of people. They lack what I like to call "Shame" and they will put out any sequel no matter how rushed or plot-less it is.

2012-04-13 08:35:00

Author:
poorjack

Posts: 1806

2012-04-13 16:29:00

Author:
SnipySev

Posts: 2452

2012-04-13 16:34:00

Author:
DominationMags

Posts: 1840

I like sequels when they're a genuine improvement and add to the story, and it annoys me when people default into saying "the original was better" even though the sequel is clearly superior. Especially when they haven't even played the sequel.

However, it also annoys me when the original is better, or the original's story is left on a cliffhanger so you know a sequel is inevitable, or when the original ends nicely, the company say there defiantly won't be a sequel, and then there is one (don't worry, I forgive you Mm). Basically, laziness and money grabbing companies.

2012-04-13 16:37:00

Author:
kirbyman62

Posts: 1893

Yep, same with COD. They didnt have to make a sequel to Modern Warfare 2, But they made Modern Warfare 3, which is literally the EXACT same thing as MW2, except new maps and campaign. They just want money...:/

Actually, they didn't even need to make MW2. Nothing was improved upon. The story got just plain silly, like the Russian government being fooled into war by a dumb terrorist attack? All the information needed to support a full scale invasion on the USA being held in a satellite module that conveniently crashed on Russian territory? The Russian army reaching Washington in a matter of days? Pfft. Also, they completely ruined the theme. The "Modern Warfare" theme on COD 4 was geat, there were great action scenes but they all felt realistic and possible. Then MW2 made the action scenes a 100 times more unrealistically over-the top than a James Bond movie.

Call of Duty 4 was a great game... Modern Warfare 2 was just poo.

2012-04-13 17:42:00

Author:
SnipySev

Posts: 2452

Yeah, anybody who cares about good stories in games hopes they don't make inFAMOUS 3. The first game set the tone and laid the groundwork for the second part of Cole's story. The second game delivered the continuation and conclusion we were promised. In Infamous 1 we uncovered the prophecy, in Infamous 2 we dealt with it. The story of both games was great and both endings provided a decent amount of closure. That's what people look for in good stories.

I have a nitpick with inFAMOUS 2. I really didn't like the way they handled the Karma in 2, because in 1 you got the ending you deserved (whatever Karma level you had near the end of the game). inFAMOUS 2 ignored that and let you choose your ending. Not only was that such a disappointment since they based both games on Karma actions, but it made your decisions in the game practically useless and noncontributing to the ending. Also, the Cole and Zeke's voice actors took time to get used to, and they looked like they had a reverse aging effect, which took away some of the good inFAMOUS 1 atmosphere. Oh, and I hate what they did to Zeke; they made him look more sluggish than in 1. I get he put on a few pounds, but really?

Nowadays, it seems like devs can't create a new franchise without making it a trilogy. And the third installment will have a blatanly crappy ending without closure so that the devs have the possibility of making another game in the series. Killzone 3, Halo 3, God of War 3, Mass Effect 3 etc.

• Killzone 3 - was always meant to be a trilogy; very good game, so invalid argument
• Halo 3 - they left an opener for 4, so I agree with this
• God of War 3 - Jaffe said it himself: Sony asked for him to make more GoW games; it was never meant to even become a series
• Mass Effect 3 - 1 was good; 2 was The Legend of Retarded; 3 had potential to save the series, but they ruined it with terrible writing and broken promises

I have great respect for Sucker Punch (and Valve with Portal 2) for going against these shallow tendencies. But of course, they'll lose that respect if they make Infamous 3. There's no reason to make it. The plot was solved, both endings were 100% conclusive. They can't just create a new plotline while keeping the story fresh.

Finally, someone here who listens!

2012-04-13 18:11:00

Author:
CyberSora

Posts: 5551

2012-04-13 18:13:00

Author:
Rabid-Coot

Posts: 6728

While I personally hate the idea of milking a franchise with sequels... The sad truth is that those sequels sell more then new games. Even when the story gets so ridiculous that the original plot is forgotten. For instance, your inFamous example. fortunately, I'm petty sure sucker Punch said they're working on a new series... Then again, it'd be Sony's call in the end. And sequels tend to sell more then new games.

I've always said, a good story needs to end. That's why Comic Books are so terrible in my eyes: nothing winds up mattering. Both Metal Gear Solid and Kingdom Hearts have ruined some good core story elements with all the WTFness.

So yeah, a story needs to end. Preferably, the storyteller would know the endpoint before beginning the story. Sometimes you can make it up as you go (the ending of BattleStar Galactica was one of my favorite endings ever despite them making it up as they went along), but I think they should have an end point for the story and make the story actually matter.

But then they'd need to increase brand recognition of a new series. /sigh

2012-04-13 19:55:00

Author:
RockSauron

Posts: 10882

^ some games never had much of a story to start with. and some have no story at all. as long the game is based on just sillyness and nothing to deep then they minds well should keep making them as long people still enjoy the games. me myself i hate series when they end. i don't want to enjoy a new series and character i don't give a hoot about. but then again i mostly only feel that way about none deep funny stories like sonic. games like kingdom hearts should had ended with the first game IMO. *mew

2012-04-13 20:13:00

Author:
Lord-Dreamerz

Posts: 4261

• Killzone 3 - was always meant to be a trilogy; very good game, so invalid argument
• Halo 3 - they left an opener for 4, so I agree with this
• God of War 3 - Jaffe said it himself: Sony asked for him to make more GoW games; it was never meant to even become a series
• Mass Effect 3 - 1 was good; 2 was The Legend of Retarded; 3 had potential to save the series, but they ruined it with terrible writing and broken promises

Killzone 3: Good game, crappy story and ending. I'm not saying they're going to make a Killzone 4, but they made sure that was a possibility by allowing one of the big baddies to survive.

Mass Effect: I included this series because there's no reason for Mass Effect 2 to exist. While the writing is good, the storyline itself is very underwhelming. The issue of the Reapers is postponed and instead we get to deal with their little minions. The story of ME2 is pretty much: "let's gather a group of badasses, infitrate an enemy base, shoot everything that moves and fly away from an explosion that's put Michael Bay out of business". ME1's story was much more complex, convoluted and had that Lovecraftian feel about the mistery of the Reapers and the inevitability of their arrival.

God of War: It's pretty obvious that the first GOW was meant to exist as a standalone game. The ending is closed and the story is a perfect Greek tragedy. And the sequels were clearly unplanned because the story and character development became sloppy. In GOW 1, Kratos is terrified when he realizes he's beyond redemption, that his crimes are unforgivable. As soon as GOW 2 begins, we realize that Kratos apparently learned nothing. He's killing innocents, he becomes a villain even worse than Ares and turns his anger against Zeus, who only wants to stop him from destroying everything and everyone. He then proceeds to kill all the gods, effing up the world more and more as he goes along... tell me again, why should we feel good about playing as this madman? We could empathize with him when he was this tormented guy who was tricked into killing his own family because of his lust for power, but why should we empathize with the a-hole who kills millions and brings forth the apocalypse? This is what unneeded sequels do. They completely ruin character development and story.

2012-04-13 20:32:00

Author:
SnipySev

Posts: 2452

I can see there being another Infamous, it'll be one of those sequels that discards the majority of what happened before and builds a new story while keeping a few core elements like the basic morality system. Sort of like how GTA and Finaly Fantasy do their main entries.

True, Final Fantasy is ridiculous now, and each installment makes the series look more worse. As for GTA, though, Rockstar makes really good stories to back each game up. My only dislike in the series is the Vice, Liberty, and China games; now those are cheap games made for profit.

While I personally hate the idea of milking a franchise with sequels... The sad truth is that those sequels sell more then new games. Even when the story gets so ridiculous that the original plot is forgotten. For instance, your inFamous example. fortunately, I'm petty sure sucker Punch said they're working on a new series... Then again, it'd be Sony's call in the end. And sequels tend to sell more then new games.

I've always said, a good story needs to end. That's why Comic Books are so terrible in my eyes: nothing winds up mattering. Both Metal Gear Solid and Kingdom Hearts have ruined some good core story elements with all the WTFness.

So yeah, a story needs to end. Preferably, the storyteller would know the endpoint before beginning the story. Sometimes you can make it up as you go (the ending of BattleStar Galactica was one of my favorite endings ever despite them making it up as they went along), but I think they should have an end point for the story and make the story actually matter.

But then they'd need to increase brand recognition of a new series. /sigh

Like I said, Sony is the reason Jaffe had to make more GoW games, so it's the reason why I hope Sony doesn't screw up and make Sucker Punch make another sequel. Also:

So yeah, a story needs to end. Preferably, the storyteller would know the endpoint before beginning the story. Sometimes you can make it up as you go (the ending of BattleStar Galactica was one of my favorite endings ever despite them making it up as they went along), but I think they should have an end point for the story and make the story actually matter.

MGS fan here. BattleStar Galactica had the same style of story as MGS; both had no idea how to end the series or where to take. MGS was intended to end with Sons of Liberty, but MGS fans wanted the series to end in a trilogy. Kojima, being the nice guy he is, made Snake Eater to finish the job, but once again everybody wanted a new installment, and Sony wanted one too so they can make it a PS3 exclusive. In comes Guns of the Patriots, and that one was supposed to end everything (again). True, the story is confusing, but it's only confusing because people didn't know when to stop asking for a new game and Kojima had to reluctantly add more to an already complex story. So yes, brilliant series turned bad because of fan pressure. Don't know why you criticized MGS at something your favorite series does too. >_>

God of War: It's pretty obvious that the first GOW was meant to exist as a standalone game. The ending is closed and the story is a perfect Greek tragedy. And the sequels were clearly unplanned because the story and character development became sloppy. In GOW 1, Kratos is terrified when he realizes he's beyond redemption, that his crimes are unforgivable. As soon as GOW 2 begins, we realize that Kratos apparently learned nothing. He's killing innocents, he becomes a villain even worse than Ares and turns his anger against Zeus, who only wants to stop him from destroying everything and everyone. He then proceeds to kill all the gods, effing up the world more and more aas he goes long... tell me again, why should we feel good about playing as this madman? We could empathize with him when he was this tormented guy who was tricked into killing his own family because of his lust for power, but why should we empathize with the a-hole who kills millions and brings forth the apocalypse? This is what unneeded sequels do. They completely ruin character development and story.

Actually, GoW3 was an attempt to make up for 2. By killing Kratos, the gods, and restoring hope to the world, Kratos looks like the good guy who saved mortals from worshiping the gods. This, however, contradicts his murder spree in the game. Not only that, but the opener in the end of 3 kind of ****ed me off because I was hoping he would finally die. Instead, Sony might pressure Santa Monica to make God of War IV for PS4 (makes sense; on launch exclusive, GoW4's number coincides with the PS4's like GoW3 and PS3 did, and easy money).

2012-04-14 04:59:00

Author:
CyberSora

Posts: 5551

Actually, GoW3 was an attempt to make up for 2. By killing Kratos, the gods, and restoring hope to the world, Kratos looks like the good guy who saved mortals from worshiping the gods. This, however, contradicts his murder spree in the game. Not only that, but the opener in the end of 3 kind of ****ed me off because I was hoping he would finally die. Instead, Sony might pressure Santa Monica to make God of War IV for PS4 (makes sense; on launch exclusive, GoW4's number coincides with the PS4's like GoW3 and PS3 did, and easy money).

If GOW3 was meant to make up for GOW2 they did it wrong. Until then there was no evidence that the mortals were being opressed by the gods. They worshipped them, so what? That's what you do when you believe in gods. For all we know, the Olympus was good to these mortals before Kratos came along and screwed everything up. Kratos didn't kill the gods to save the people from their tyranny, he did it for his own selfish reasons. And in the process he killed what's probably a big portion of the Earth's population, so it's completely irrelevant if he freed the people from the opression of the Olympus (again, an opression we didn't even know existed). He flooded the world, released the d?mned souls from hell, created a plague and doesn't seem to realize how much of a prick he is until the very end.

Kratos is really like a petulant child in GOW 2 and 3. He wants to do what he wants, he doesn't care about the consequences, when someone wants to stop him for perfectly good reasons he lashes out at them, he has no emotion besides lust for petty and meaningless revenge. The only insteraction he's capable of in GOW3 is killing stuff. He has no redeeming qualities (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/no-redeeming-value). Instead of an anti-hero, he became a villain and there isn't any reason we should agree with his agenda.

Not that the games aren't fun. Gameplay-wise, they're a blast to play. And if a GOW4 comes out, I will surely buy it because it's still God of War. It's just that the story and the way the protagonist became an emotionally crippled vehicle for trivial violence makes me feel stupid. The GOW games that nail the character development just as good as the first one does are the PSP games, Chains of Olympus and Ghost of Sparta. Kratos' lost daughter and brother are much better motivations than petty revenge.

2012-04-14 07:59:00

Author:
SnipySev

Posts: 2452

(Keeping words said minimum)

Overall, sequels aren't always bad. It's just that there's soooo much that can go wrong. I mean, true I enjoy sequels. However, if each just builds on the direct plot, then it just dries out over time. No use continueing a story that can be easily just ended then and there.

I like sequels if they either have little connections to the original or just have the core elements down. Like maybe, I dunno, 200 years later with a new protagonist or something? Spiritual sequels are good too.

Though you have to admit, it is pretty funny to look at Final Fantasy I and then immediately look and Final Fantasy XIII. "What the heck happened here!?"

2012-04-14 08:52:00

Author:
Fang

Posts: 578

I don't know why I didn't respond to fumetsu's comment in the last post (probably forgot), so I guess I'll do it now:

^ some games never had much of a story to start with. and some have no story at all. as long the game is based on just sillyness and nothing to deep then they minds well should keep making them as long people still enjoy the games. me myself i hate series when they end. i don't want to enjoy a new series and character i don't give a hoot about. but then again i mostly only feel that way about none deep funny stories like sonic. games like kingdom hearts should had ended with the first game IMO. *mew

(Keeping words said minimum)

Overall, sequels aren't always bad. It's just that there's soooo much that can go wrong. I mean, true I enjoy sequels. However, if each just builds on the direct plot, then it just dries out over time. No use continueing a story that can be easily just ended then and there.

I like sequels if they either have little connections to the original or just have the core elements down. Like maybe, I dunno, 200 years later with a new protagonist or something? Spiritual sequels are good too.

Though you have to admit, it is pretty funny to look at Final Fantasy I and then immediately look and Final Fantasy XIII. "What the heck happened here!?"

Both of you are the developers' key demographic when a sequel releases. You hardly care for the story, only to satisfy your need to keep a game going by trying to make it 'fresh' or 'keeping its core elements'. That's like asking Tolkien to make a sequel to The Lord of the Rings by keeping the same theme but with reincarnations and a different situation instead. This is what irritates me so much; nobody cares for a good plot anymore, and those who do are a small minority in the eyes of developers and publishers.

2012-04-14 09:09:00

Author:
CyberSora

Posts: 5551

2012-04-14 09:34:00

Author:
Lord-Dreamerz

Posts: 4261

the problem is you are just trying to group every game together. every-game is made for different reasons. did i not just get done saying they should end a story when it was meant to end? like clearly GOW was made to end with the first game. they should not create sequels to games unless they do a super good job at thinking up a new way for the story to continue without messing up their last story. but chances of that are really low, they be most likely better off not making a sequel at all if they truely ended the story in the last game. but other games Like Mario were never made to having a deep or meaningful story really. they were made for gameplay mainly but with a simple and light hearted story put in just for fun. they were made from the start with endless sequels in mind, so they could put out a new game with more levels to play with the characters you like. nothing wrong with that. and i do love plot. but that don't mean i can't enjoy games without plot, every game is different. *mew

Understandable, although certain type of games are just cash cows, and they're either criticized (Sonic), loved (Mario), or both (CoD). Either way, they're a lazy way of making a game. Also, I was talking about sequels. What you're talking about is more of about series in general.

"But what's the difference?"

? Final Fantasy is a series with no actual story to connect them.
? Final Fantasy XIII is a game that's part of a series; XIII-2 is its sequel

So basically, I wanted to talk about sequels to games with stories, not 'Final Sonic Bros. Brawl' type games. Hopefully that clears things up.

2012-04-14 09:55:00

Author:
CyberSora

Posts: 5551

As far as the initial infamous arguement goes, I would be quite happy with a third iteration. If the lead character is changed, and set in a different area of the world then i don't see any problems with a sequel. there are clearly other conduits in the world of infamous and it wouldn't be hard to create another. *SPOILERS* in the evil ending to the game as well, theres kind of an x-men style hinted at, with cole deciding to teach the new army of conduits. its easy to concede a third game where you create your own character and choose all their powers from scratch based on this ending.

as far as sequels in general go, I'm more then happy to buy a game in a series I like, because the bottom line is, games are just that : games. they're intended to be fun to play first and foremost. this is why I'm continuing to play new ratchet and clank games to this day. the gameplay is great fun. playing a game like mass efect in this mind frame will maybe make you understand why I'm possibly the only person who couldn't stand those games. they are bland, generic and no thought has gone into making the core gameplay unique at all. I think that a good story is a good addition to a sequel sure, but for a sequel to be needed, in my eyes at least, there needs to be some new gameplay inovation as well. games shouldn't be designed with the intention of concluding the story in a sequel as these games are usually the ones whose gameplay never progresses.
infamous for example closes the initial story well, whilst setting up the idea of a sequel. the gameplay didn't really progress all that much between the games.

2012-04-14 11:03:00

Author:
Smudge228

Posts: 533

As far as the initial infamous arguement goes, I would be quite happy with a third iteration. If the lead character is changed, and set in a different area of the world then i don't see any problems with a sequel. there are clearly other conduits in the world of infamous and it wouldn't be hard to create another. *SPOILERS* in the evil ending to the game as well, theres kind of an x-men style hinted at, with cole deciding to teach the new army of conduits. its easy to concede a third game where you create your own character and choose all their powers from scratch based on this ending.

? inFAMOUS 1 and 2 are all about Cole saving the world
? good ending (the one that's considered the 'real' ending by most people) gets rid of Conduits
? he wants a totally new character and scenario

What?

as far as sequels in general go, I'm more then happy to buy a game in a series I like, because the bottom line is, games are just that : games. they're intended to be fun to play first and foremost. this is why I'm continuing to play new ratchet and clank games to this day. the gameplay is great fun. playing a game like mass efect in this mind frame will maybe make you understand why I'm possibly the only person who couldn't stand those games. they are bland, generic and no thought has gone into making the core gameplay unique at all. I think that a good story is a good addition to a sequel sure, but for a sequel to be needed, in my eyes at least, there needs to be some new gameplay inovation as well. games shouldn't be designed with the intention of concluding the story in a sequel as these games are usually the ones whose gameplay never progresses.
infamous for example closes the initial story well, whilst setting up the idea of a sequel. the gameplay didn't really progress all that much between the games.

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/7594/watvt.jpg

I was going to let you have the first sentence, but Holy Mother of What. What?

2012-04-14 15:40:00

Author:
CyberSora

Posts: 5551

The gameplay between Infamous 1 and 2 progressed far more than most sequels out there.

Besides, designing Infamous 1 while planning a second installment was justified, because the second one is set in a different place with new characters and in a different chapter of Cole's life. Infamous 1 was meant to be about Cole discovering the prophecy his future self brought to him, his transition from a normal person into a superhero, trying to return to a normal life and stuff like that. Infamous 2 was about Cole arriving in a new city as an established hero/anti-hero and preparing for the inevitable showdown between him and his nemesis.

I think that division makes sense. If you crammed all that into a single game it'd feel way too convoluted and there wouldn't be enough room for the twists and turns that make Infamous' story so great.

What I don't like about the infamous series is the way they handled moral choice. Like in Mass Effect, the moral spectrum has no depth: you're only rewarded if you're a total jerk or a total saint. There's no room for a morally grey protagonist.

2012-04-14 15:50:00

Author:
SnipySev

Posts: 2452

What I don't like about the infamous series is the way they handled moral choice. Like in Mass Effect, the moral spectrum has no depth: you're only rewarded if you're a total jerk or a total saint. There's no room for a morally grey protagonist.

But I liked that option. You got what you deserved in inFAMOUS 1, and it should have been like that. inFAMOUS 2 was exactly like Mass Effect 3.

**Before the Karma decision that leads to the final battle.**

"Cole, you monster! You killed every civilian left, murdered your best friend, and you are the biggest hypocrite to live! I hate you!"

**One Good Karma decision later.**

"Cole, you're our hero! Here, have this statue and my daughter!"

2012-04-14 16:03:00

Author:
CyberSora

Posts: 5551

In regards to direct storyline sequels as a whole, I do feel they are appropriate if the plots behind franchises themselves are designed to be continuous sagas. It's certainly better (in theory) then cramming and compressing some would-be sprawling epic into a single game though I think spreading out the plot through multiple games only really works well if the writers and other developers have a really good idea of how the plot is going to move along but that seems to be rather harder in practice if recent history is any indications. I'll concur with SnipySev and CyberSora in regards to how oftentimes they actually fail to do this and the stories just sort of fall apart as the sequels come along, but there's also the seperate risk that the plot just isn't engaging enough to keep people interested and whatever investments were made end up coming up short for eveyone involved.

I remember when Xenosaga's story was originally planned to span across five games as a sort of prequel to Xenogears, which could theoretically give it the time and resources to create the sort of epically ambitious storyline that Xenogears (with its shoestring budget second half) couldn't quite do within one game. The problem was that the overall story just became so crammed with characters, subplots and pretentious religious symbolism that would be fans just stopped caring (I know I did by the second game) and the games were cut down to three and that didn't even conclude with a really definative ending. Square Enix's poorly received recent titles bodes even worse when you consider FFXIII and it's related titles are but three years into what is supposed to be a grand, ten year long long project that, if fan response is any indication, has hit the ground stumbling.

And as much as I've come to like Mass Effect, its setting, and characters, I will have to agree that in hindsight that ME2 was something of a wasted opportunity despite its virtues. It's rather obvious now that Bioware really didn't have any sort of plan as to how the overarcing storyline would resolve itself until ME3, which outside it's much more engaging tangential arcs and improved gameplay had a plot that boiled down to being a race to make a (suprisingly rather literal) deus ex machina.

Taking all that into account, I'm actually starting to think franchises that have no expectations to actually being franchises have roughly the same chance of making multiple games of decent quality then those that do. The first Final Fantasy was, true to its name, intended to be Square's last game but its unexpected success resulted in desire for more and for the most part they continued to be successful and kept things fresh by only having very loose connections between the games until Square merged with Enix and they shifted their focus into basically intentionally crafting their works to have plots that stretched across multiple games (i.e. FFXIII and related works) or chose to "expand" upon existing work (i.e. the entirety of the FF7 compendium) rather then continuously "reinventing the wheel" with their FF games as they had done before but they've run into the aforementioned problems of either being poorly crafted from conception or just not made to be a multi-title story to begin with and the fanbase has begun turning against them as a result. So I guess the real lesson here might be: if you can't come up with a good enough plot that can sustain itself across multiple games then just make a strong standalone title and if it comes to making sequels to that then you might actually be safer shifting gears and making them only tangentially related to their predecessors?

2012-04-15 03:17:00

Author:
Dapiek Absaroka

Posts: 512

Skipping all the posts and going back to your OP.... I don't want an InFamous 3. Sure there was the lightning bolt with the question mark, but if they seriously made a third one, I'm not sure I'd support sucker punch any more. Nobody likes it when a developer milks a franchise for everything its worth, I know I certainly don't.

2012-04-15 03:57:00

Author:
anoken

Posts: 1654

You see, game devs are a special breed of people. They lack what I like to call "Shame" and they will put out any sequel no matter how rushed or plot-less it is.

Also in that breed are book writers and film makers.

2012-04-16 22:12:00

Author:
Jonarrthan

Posts: 310

Also in that breed are book writers and film makers.

Difference is, writers and film makers are openly criticized by professional reviewers when they make a crappy product. So they don't fool anyone. But professional game reviewers haven't quite reached that level of actual "professionalism".

2012-04-16 22:50:00

Author:
SnipySev

Posts: 2452

sequels are not the best in my opinion. i liked the first better. i like the 3rd the best. example: ratchet and clank for ps2. i liked the 1st. the sequel didn't had the touch. idk why. the 3rd had the best controls, upgrading weapon leves more, multiplayer, and of course the story. the 2nd didn't really had much of a story as the 1st and 3rd ones.

2012-04-16 22:57:00

Author:
Sunbunny23

Posts: 995

Difference is, writers and film makers are openly criticized by professional reviewers when they make a crappy product. So they don't fool anyone. But professional game reviewers haven't quite reached that level of actual "professionalism".

I assume you think book and movie critics aren't paid to give good reviews?

2012-04-17 04:05:00

Author:
CyberSora

Posts: 5551

There is scope for an inFamous sequel. For example, they could use a different character entirely and just have it set in the "inFamous universe".

Regarding sequels in general, I'm happy with them as long as there is:

a) Improvements in gameplay
b) Decent story
c) Reasonable time period between games

So good examples would be:

-Uncharted
-First 2 Assassins Creed games
-Bioshock
-Dead Space
-Batman

etc etc

Bad examples would be:

-CoD
-Battlefield (which is going the way of CoD)
-Assassins Creed 2.5, 2.75, and 3
-Dynasty Warriors
-Fifa (though not technically sequels, they haven't changed much since Fifa 2009)

2012-04-17 10:51:00

Author:
Ali_Star

Posts: 4085

I assume you think book and movie critics aren't paid to give good reviews?

Maybe some are paid, but it's impossible to buy the majority of them. But game reviewers, you don't even need to buy those.

Imagine you run a videogame website. News, videos and reviews are free content, accessible to all. How do you make money off of free news and entertainment? By advertising stuff, of course. Publishers will pay you a considerable amount of money to advertise their game, especially if you get a lot of views. But if you give their game a negative review, it's bad publicity. So it's implicit that they're going to stop paying you for ads if you give their product bad reputation.

That's why some previews create hype for a game and then it turns out it's not as good as they led you to believe. Videogame reviewers became too lenient. Instead of analyzing the game with a critical mind, they just spend 2 pages complimenting it and then just write a tiny little paragraph to point out its flaws.

That's why videogame scores are so inflated nowadays. Any "good" game gets a 9 out of 10 when it should be a 7 or 8. Normally, a 5 should be handed out to a mediocre game, a 7 to a good game and a 9 to an amazing game. But instead, they use the score scale like this:

http://bnbgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Review_Score_Disparity.png

Book and film critics go much harder on what they're reviewing. Go check out Metacritic and you'll see excellent movies with averages of 60 in 100 and vomit-inducing games with the same average score.

2012-04-17 11:41:00

Author:
SnipySev

Posts: 2452

So good examples would be:

-Uncharted
-First 2 Assassins Creed games
-Bioshock
-Dead Space
-Batman
-CoD 1-5
-Battlefield 1-BC:2

etc etc

Bad examples would be:

-CoD 6+
-Battlefield 3(which is going the way of CoD)
-Assassins Creed 2.5, 2.75, and 3
-Dynasty Warriors
-Fifa (though not technically sequels, they haven't changed much since Fifa 2009)
-Uncharted 2-3 and Golden Abyss

Fixed.

Maybe some are paid, but it's impossible to buy the majority of them. But game reviewers, you don't even need to buy those.

Imagine you run a videogame website. News, videos and reviews are free content, accessible to all. How do you make money off of free news and entertainment? By advertising stuff, of course. Publishers will pay you a considerable amount of money to advertise their game, especially if you get a lot of views. But if you give their game a negative review, it's bad publicity. So it's implicit that they're going to stop paying you for ads if you give their product bad reputation.

That's why some previews create hype for a game and then it turns out it's not as good as they led you to believe. Videogame reviewers became too lenient. Instead of analyzing the game with a critical mind, they just spend 2 pages complimenting it and then just write a tiny little paragraph to point out its flaws.

That's why videogame scores are so inflated nowadays. Any "good" game gets a 9 out of 10 when it should be a 7 or 8. Normally, a 5 should be handed out to a mediocre game, a 7 to a good game and a 9 to an amazing game. But instead, they use the score scale like this:

http://bnbgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Review_Score_Disparity.png

Book and film critics go much harder on what they're reviewing. Go check out Metacritic and you'll see excellent movies with averages of 60 in 100 and vomit-inducing games with the same average score.

Nice image. About the 5th or 6th time that's been thrown into my face, but still fairly accurate. However, if you honestly believe movie critics aren't just as bad as game 'journalists', then you're delusional. Also, Metacritic is hardly a credible source for reviews anymore. In fact, nobody is. That's why you ask other people who actually played the game, like your friends or gaming communities, and you make judgement yourself. Relying on any critic's or community's opinion for everything you play, watch, or read is the stupidest thing you could do.

2012-04-18 03:05:00

Author:
CyberSora

Posts: 5551

Nice image. About the 5th or 6th time that's been thrown into my face, but still fairly accurate. However, if you honestly believe movie critics aren't just as bad as game 'journalists', then you're delusional. Also, Metacritic is hardly a credible source for reviews anymore. In fact, nobody is. That's why you ask other people who actually played the game, like your friends or gaming communities, and you make judgement yourself. Relying on any critic's or community's opinion for everything you play, watch, or read is the stupidest thing you could do.

Hey, I never said I judged a game's quality by Metacritic. I said it's used to see a game's critical reception, not its actual quality. It's not something that will decide which game I should buy. I not only check the reviews a game has in general, I also read player feedback in forums, watch a few gameplay videos, play the demo if ther is one, and then think for a while to make sure I want said game.

Movies are reviewed much harshly than games, it's just a fact. The 8 out of 10 became the standard score for any game that's minimally good.

2012-04-18 10:47:00

Author:
SnipySev

Posts: 2452

Hey, I never said I judged a game's quality by Metacritic. I said it's used to see a game's critical reception, not its actual quality. It's not something that will decide which game I should buy. I not only check the reviews a game has in general, I also read player feedback in forums, watch a few gameplay videos, play the demo if ther is one, and then think for a while to make sure I want said game.

Movies are reviewed much harshly than games, it's just a fact. The 8 out of 10 became the standard score for any game that's minimally good.

Metacritic is a good source because it allows you to compare journalist reviews easily. It is not a good source for user reviews. Half the time, a game only gets 2 scores - 0 and 10. 0 meaning not good, 10 meaning good.

I think the review scale for games (from the image) is mainly down to reader attitude. These people who expect every decent game to get +8.5/10, when reality, 7/10 is a good score, and even 6/10 can be described as a "solid" score.

2012-04-18 10:56:00

Author:
Ali_Star

Posts: 4085

Uncharted 2? serieouly? i can agree that 3 and golden abyss where rushed cash-in games (that doesn't make them any less good though) but uncharted 2 was easily one of the greatest sequels this generation. it added so much to the franchise, from great multiplayer to the diversity of great environments that 3 copied.
sorry about my earlier post, I was very sleep deprived and re-reading it now, it doesn't seem to make any sense at all. what I was aiming to say is that leaving a story open to sequels etc is fine, but intentionally saying for instance, we're gonna make a trilogy out of this game, then padding the story out just because isn't a good thing
(my opinion on mass effect and especially white knight chronicles) games like these (again, mass effect, white knight chronicles and the later assassins creed games) tend to never advance in terms of gameplay really, which is why I prefer stand alone titles which are good enough to spawn sequels over games intended as series from the start (certain exceptions include platformers, which really aren't about story anywho)
looking back on it now, I can see that infamous 2 was actually a great sequel. In terms of a third, I can see a good route to take would be more of an MMO-ish type game where players can level up their hero and battle each other, create side quests etc... or maybe have similar online to dark souls or journey, where players heros can join each others worlds and help or hinder each other, with a limit of say 4 characters to a game world.

2012-04-18 14:15:00

Author:
Smudge228

Posts: 533

dolu bir forum sitesi aradigim herseyi buldum tsklr.

....

I'm sorry, what? inb4 spambot

2012-04-18 14:24:00

Author:
CyberSora

Posts: 5551

LBPCentral Archive Statistics

Posts: 1077139 Threads: 69970 Members: 9661 Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Datenschutz

Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.