Sequals. How do you like 'em?

I was playing JSRF last night and couldn't help but notice that it was nothing at all like JSR. Splitting up the police and graffiti made it a new game all together. Add to that the removal of the "R" button speedup and the addition of the "B" button boost that uses 10 paint cans, and now the controll is totally different. Part of me was sad that they messed with it, and the other part of me was happy to have something new. So how do you like your sequals?

Radically new: Zelda to Zelda II style

New: F-zero to F-zero X style

Mostly the same with a few game changing differences: JSR to JSRF style

Major graphic overhaul with controlls are the same but flow entirely differently: Mike Tysons Punchout to SNES Punchout style

Major graphic overhaul with controlls that are pretty much the same: DoA2 to DoA3 style

Tweeks n' new characters: Capcom fighter style

"Level expansion pak" sequal: Megaman style

No, this isn't a poll! We're discussing this one. :) I'm a big fan of the radically new sequal, but there aren't many of them to speak of. The funny thing is that any type of sequal can work out great, and any type of sequal can be a disaster. I love more original content than re-hash, but SFII Turbo and Megaman 2 are two of my favorite games of all time. I think the key to re-hash is you have to know when to say when. It rarely works past the second game. SFII Turbo is one of those exceptions where the third time was worth it. I guess this is because often there is much that couldn't get done in time with the first game because the engine had to be built. The second game gets all those good ideas in there, and then after that it just turns into a cash run.

Well I havent played JSRF , but I think castlevania is the best example of how a series should progress.The best thing about the series is that it doesnt stick to a fixed formula as long as say mega man does.And at the same time we dont see radical changes in every single game , which would piss the fans off. Even when we did have the simple pick up and play castlevanias we had seen Zelda 2 type adventures and arcade games.

I love sequels, as long as the original was good and the sequels keep things fresh.
I think its fine when the gameplay almost totally changes. You still have the same characters in the same universe, but the gameplay is totally new. i can dig that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kinopio
I love sequels, as long as the original was good and the sequels keep things fresh.

---

Even better when the original sucks, and the sequel is amazing, ie GTA3.

I wish Treasure did sequels :(

I have a theory on sequels. They pass through at least three major stages.

Stage 1- The first sequel(s) are often very much like the original, but offers MORE of what made the original good- along with a few tweaks and imporvements.

Stage 2-Then by the second or so sequel, the developers try to add more radical, new elements to the mix. It is at this point where the game engine really deviates from the original.

Stage 3-Finally, the designers often return to the "feel" or "vision" of the original game(s). This usually occurs when fans dont react well to the dramatic changes made in earlier sequels.

Some examples:

VF2 refined and tweaked the VF1 formula. VF3 added a new button, uneven playfields, and other additions. VF4 went back to a more VF2 formula which fans loved and removed many of the VF3 features.

MK2 was a refinement of MK1. MK3, UMK3, and MKT added the run button, dial-a-combos, and a much more humorus attitude to the formula. MK4, while it did add more "stuff" (I call it crap), the more serious feel of the first 2 MKs was brought back. Goro came back, as did some classic backdrops (lair, living forest).


Other series that I could point to for examples are: SMB and Samurai Shodown.

In my opinion, I think Miyamoto has developed some of the best sequels that are even better than the original such as Super Mario Bros. 3 and A Link to the Past to name a few, but he also has a habit of doing sequels that are nothing like the games that inspired them. Case in point: Donkey Kong 3 and Zelda 2. He also has a habit of taking unrelated games and replacing the main characters with those from already-existing games. Case in point: Doki Doki Panic (Super Mario Bros. 2) and Dinosaur Planet (Star Fox Adventure). Metroid Prime wasn't even meant to be a Metroid game at all.

Maybe you know this Johnny U, so I'll ask: which Nintendo team developed Doki Doki Panic? I enjoyed SMB 2 just as much as the other Mario games.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny Undaunted
Metroid Prime wasn't even meant to be a Metroid game at all.

---

All the more reason for it NOT to be released...

In my mind, the fact that a game is a so-called sequel means very little (other than creating some expectation of what the game will be like). Very simply, a game is a stand-alone experience, regardless of whether or not it is a sequel. What I don't like about sequels is that they immediately force the player into comparing the game against it predecessor(s). Aside from that, I find sequels to be like any other game -- some are great (Streets of Rage 2), some suck ass (you know which ones those are), and lots are just plain mediocre.

All that being said, there's something nice about being truly surprised by a first-time entry, with no name or mystique behind it, that turns out to be an incredible gaming experience. More of these, please...

I think gaming would be much better off if everyone followed Atari's original goal. If it's been done before, you can't do it again. This doesn't only apply to sequels but entire genres. Imagine for a second, that for every platformer out there we'd be treated to something special like NiGHTS and JSR. Games unlike anything before, that just scream 'fresh'.

The niche oddball titles are the soul of gaming. Sure FF will always sell in the millions, but the true spirit is found in stuff like Vib Ribbon and Samba De Amigo. That's my take on it at least.

I think many see sequels as a safe bet. They enjoyed the previous games and fear the quality will vanish if developers take a risk on something new. Sequels are tried and true and there's comfort there I guess. Many would like to see sequels to Treasure games, however would they be the same company if they followed the fans' advice? If they were working on sequels many of the games you love wouldn't make it. Think about it for a second.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NeoZeedeater
Maybe you know this Johnny U, so I'll ask: which Nintendo team developed Doki Doki Panic? I enjoyed SMB 2 just as much as the other Mario games.

---

Doki Doki Panic was developed by, well, R&D4 (Miyamoto's Team), alhough Fuji TV was involved in promoting the game. The original Disk game even came with promotial materials with Mario and the main character of Doki Doki Panic (who's name I can't remember).

Thanks.

I knew it was too good not to be a Miyamoto game. Not that the other teams aren't great but for that type of game, R&D4 would certainly be best.

Johnny, I agree with what you're saying. But there would
be times when a developer may get some new ideas that are
best suited in a project they made previously. At this point,
there isn't much of a reason to not make it a sequel just
because. Sequels shouldn't be avoided simply because they are
sequels.

And then there are the characters in a series. If you develop
an attachment to them, you may find new ways to use them, or
situations to put them in that weren't available the first time
around, and wouldn't have made sense.

In any case, there are reasons why they may want to return
to something they've done before, and if those reasons are
good, then let it be. Creativity has its limits. If they can
always come up with some grand new experience, then I hope they
don't offer sequels to us instead. If their current idea is similar
to the previous one. We're not losing much, if anything, if they
decide to bring back the "old gang".

I do prefer the "sequels" in the manner of the downtown nekketsu series. The same set of characters and style for the most part,
but many of the games are unique.

I also wish that RPGs were handled as a single series. If I'm getting a sequel, I want to see the people I left behind in part 1. This is why I liked Suikoden 2 so much, and will play through 1 and 2 when 3 comes out. If you're setting a game 1000 years in the future, and all the references to the previous game are patronizing, just make it a different game. There's no reason to attach the other games name to it. This also makes the awkward "true sequel to FF7" and the like arise. they were discussing doing that with one of the FFs, yes?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny
I think gaming would be much better off if everyone followed Atari's original goal. If it's been done before, you can't do it again. This doesn't only apply to sequels but entire genres. Imagine for a second, that for every platformer out there we'd be treated to something special like NiGHTS and JSR. Games unlike anything before, that just scream 'fresh'.

The niche oddball titles are the soul of gaming. Sure FF will always sell in the millions, but the true spirit is found in stuff like Vib Ribbon and Samba De Amigo. That's my take on it at least.

I think many see sequels as a safe bet. They enjoyed the previous games and fear the quality will vanish if developers take a risk on something new. Sequels are tried and true and there's comfort there I guess. Many would like to see sequels to Treasure games, however would they be the same company if they followed the fans' advice? If they were working on sequels many of the games you love wouldn't make it. Think about it for a second.

---

I have to disagree with the notion of "If it has been done before, you can't do it again". Back during the Atari-days, games were so simple that you didn't need to do sequels. That has changed however. As technology gets better and new formats are introduced, allowing for more space, there's always room for improvement. Imagine if we didn't have Super Metroid, Super Punch-Out or A Link to the Past?

Also, msot of the stuff Treasure has been releasing (and I know I'm gotta get flamed for this) has been rather mediocre. Strech Panic is a sign that the team is running out of ideas.

Assuming that the original is a solid game, I say keep the core of that game (main ideas, concepts, maybe even graphic style), and then just add to it. That's where it get's tricky though (there is a diffrence between sequels and expansion packs). Don't want to bog it down (too much added, or flawed ideas), but I want something substantial done. And depending on the genre, a bitchin' story. I love a good story in a game, it keeps me going.

Fantastic Sequals to great originals:
Sonic the Hedgehog 2
Jet Set Radio Future
Panzer Dragoon Zwei
F-Zero X
Wipeout XL


Craptastic Sequals to great originals:
Castlevania 2
Super Mario Bros. 2
Zelda 2
Daytona USA CCE
Resident Evil 2


And those are my thoughts on the matter ^_^
- Kabuki

I don't follow Atari's slogan, neither did they later on. I just think the industry would be better off if it was followed. I'm not totally against sequels, but they're usually a waste of resources.

I can understand something like Mario 64, since 3D helped form a different experience. However did we need 3 Mario Party games? That kind of thing gets me. I'm not satisfied with little upgrades here and there.

A pointer for the original posting: Fighting games need sequels in different ways then, say, platformers. In fighting games, the focus in sequels should be tuning the gameplay, refining the engine and combo-methods, and adding new styles of play that don't detract from the rest of it. While platformers for instance are games that should should add new gameplay elements while the rest can basically be just bew new levels (Ninja Gaiden to Ninja Gaiden 2 as a perfect example).

The VF series is a perfect example on how fighting games should progress. The first was good, but with each sequel it's more and more finely tuned, while trying out new styles and methods, and slowly getting it to the point where it's all at once varied, can conform to anyone's fighting style, well-balanced, and has damned good hit detection. Tekken has progressed more like a platformer, where they just keep adding stuff while almost only addressing balance and tuning through the occasional small addition.

For most sequels, I think the game should add to the features list (if it controls exactly the same and the level setup therefore remains insanely similar, there's usually no point) and create levels to take advantage of that. SMB3 had it's new transformations and an insanely cool varied assortment of new levels, even if it hadn't had all those cool suits, I'd still love for it for areas like Giant World. Ninja Gaiden 2 added all sorts of useful Ninja Arts, the ability to climb the walls and better-integrated environmental hazards.

For instance, maybe if Megaman games had his weapons effect the levels themselves instead of just actually being useful for the bosses (like the way the Elec Beam and Guts Power could destroy/throw blocks in MM1), and they added more things like the way destroying certain bosses would effect levels in MMX, the game series could progress much better. Rockman Zero has the most changes in the regular 2D-platformer series since MMX, and it's my favorite MM up there with MMX and MM3.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rumpy
Assuming that the original is a solid game, I say keep the core of that game (main ideas, concepts, maybe even graphic style), and then just add to it. That's where it get's tricky though (there is a diffrence between sequels and expansion packs). Don't want to bog it down (too much added, or flawed ideas

---

Battletoads vs Double Dragon anybody? Talk about adding the wrong stuff to a great original.

Sequels go either of 2 ways. Good or Bad.
Samurai Showdown > Samurai Showdown 2. Good.
Samurai Showdown 2 > Samurai Showdown 3. BAD.

Silent Hill > Silent Hill 2. Bad.

Mario Bros. 3 > Mario World. Good... but I still love 3 more.
Mario World > Mario 64. BAD. *shudders*

I think some series can only have so many ideas to expand and improve. From then on, it's all a matter of milking the cow.
*cough* CAPCOM *cough*