Unnecessary game sequels?

[mr_bogus]

We've all more than likely had experiences where we realise that a game should've been left alone, because the sequels ruined it.

 

Which ones stand out in your mind?

Have you been disappointed by Deus Ex sequels/prequels?

Crazy Taxi 2 and 3?

Banjo Kazooie 2 and/or N&B?

Bioshock 2?

 

This gets discussed all the time with movies, but not a lot in gaming it seems...

[Pit-Jr]

FF XIII-2? I havent played it of course, but im declaring it unnecessary all the same

[MoogleViper]

I've never understood this "the sequels ruined it, they should have left it alone" sentiment. So what if the sequels are bad, don't watch/play them then. Having bad sequels doesn't make the original any less good.

[Nikos9]

Legends of Wrestling...started bad, got worse! Leave the wrestling games to Smackdown!

[EEVILMURRAY]

I've never understood this "the sequels ruined it, they should have left it alone" sentiment. So what if the sequels are bad, don't watch/play them then. Having bad sequels doesn't make the original any less good.

True, but it can taint your/others memories of the game etc.

[Dog-amoto]

Having just played F.E.A.R 3, you can add that (as well as the second one to that list as well.

[mr_bogus]

I've never understood this "the sequels ruined it, they should have left it alone" sentiment. So what if the sequels are bad, don't watch/play them then. Having bad sequels doesn't make the original any less good.

 

I don't think of sequels ruining the originals in movies or games, but you often hear discussions of films where people say "the original was the best, let's pretend the sequel/s never happened" (eg. Robocop).

[Sméagol]

I've never understood this "the sequels ruined it, they should have left it alone" sentiment. So what if the sequels are bad, don't watch/play them then. Having bad sequels doesn't make the original any less good.

It is true, it doesn’t necessarily ruin the originals, but it does ruin the franchise as a whole. It put those who love a franchise in conflict. Simply disregard the sequels? Or admit that, as a whole, the franchise just isn’t good. I look at each franchise individually. You can see in the Star Wars blu-ray thread, that I’m not touching any of the films anymore, allthough I occasionally still enjoy a Star Wars game. The other extreme is, for instance, Donny Darko. I think. No wait.. That doesn’t have a sequel, my mistake.

[Fierce_LiNk]

I've never understood this "the sequels ruined it, they should have left it alone" sentiment. So what if the sequels are bad, don't watch/play them then. Having bad sequels doesn't make the original any less good.

 

It does make a difference, though. Quite a big one.

 

Let's look at the Terminator series. The first film was a great thriller, where the fight of/for the future is fought in the present. The second film expanded on this, with Skynet sending back another Terminator. We're explicitly told in the film's introduction that Skynet sent back two Terminators, the film ends with closure, knowing that they have prevented something terrible from happening.

 

Now, Terminator 3 is brought into the conclusion. It completely destroys the ending of the second film, including the whole notion of "there is no fate but what we make for ourselves." The future is what you want it to be. It ruins that ideal. The scripting is terrible, the acting is bad and the casting is lacklustre. No matter how much you want to ignore that film, you can't...because it's a clear continuation of the series. It's the third film in the sequence. You can ignore something like Salvation more easily because it isn't an explicit follow-on to the previous films, whereas 3 was.

 

Another example. Alien Resurrection. I loved 3, despite many hating it. But, that film ended well, with closure. When Ripley dies, you feel sorrow, yet you realise that it was something that had to be done, and the series with her character draws to a close. Then, up pops along Resurrection, which butchers her character, again with horrible writing. Again, no matter how much you want to ignore it, the film is part of the main series and is an obvious continuation from the third film. You can just not watch it ever again, but you're aware that when the third film ends, despite you wanting it to end there, it doesn't. You're conscious of that, no matter how much you don't want it to be.

 

I'll reply to this when I think of unnecessary sequels for videogames. Can't think of any off the top of my head.

[MoogleViper]

No matter how much you want to ignore that film, you can't

 

But you can. Just pretend the film doesn't exist. Pretend the series ended at 2. It's that simple. Even if you hate the film, it doesn't make 1/2 worse, so just don't consider it a part of the series. It only bothers you because you're choosing to be bothered by it. If I went out and made a rubbish film based on the terminator series and uploaded it to youtube, you wouldn't be bothered by it, because you wouldn't care. Yet you choose to be bothered by terminator 3. The only person who is making the previous films/series worse is you.

[Paj!]

Yeah but it'd be far worse is Terminator 2/Alien3 ended with a cliffhanger/intention to be continued in another film, and then the next film was atrocious. As it was, both films concluded conclusively. Anything after that, and it's quality, should have no bearing on the films previous. It's not like the final chapter being crap. Both T3 and A:R were tacked on. They mean nothing to their respective previous films, really.

[MoogleViper]

Yeah but it'd be far worse is Terminator 2/Alien3 ended with a cliffhanger/intention to be continued in another film, and then the next film was atrocious. As it was, both films concluded conclusively. Anything after that, and it's quality, should have no bearing on the films previous. It's not like the final chapter being crap. Both T3 and A:R were tacked on. They mean nothing to their respective previous films, really.

 

Yeah I agree with this, when things should have been better, and then ruin it for any other sequels. Then I would agree that it ruined the series. But you can still ignore it, so the "should have stuck with the original" argument doesn't hold up. It's more of a "they should have made a better film".

[Fierce_LiNk]

But you can. Just pretend the film doesn't exist. Pretend the series ended at 2. It's that simple.

 

That's...really shit reasoning. You can't just "pretend" something doesn't exist if you've already seen it and are conscious that it is there. You could just ignore it and vow to never watch it again, but once you've seen it, you've seen it. You can't un-see it.

 

You could just pretend that the Alien saga ended at 3. Or, even ended at 2, if you want. But, you'd be lying to yourself. That's the equivalent of placing your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la" like a seven year old. In fact, it just deflects us further away from the real problem, which is when franchises are run into the ground by directors who know absolutely nothing about the original source material, or just couldn't give a shit anyway. Look at how both the Alien and Predator films are being merged together into one, AvP, and how that tarnishes the name of two iconic science fiction villains.

 

Even if you hate the film, it doesn't make 1/2 worse, so just don't consider it a part of the series. It only bothers you because you're choosing to be bothered by it. If I went out and made a rubbish film based on the terminator series and uploaded it to youtube, you wouldn't be bothered by it, because you wouldn't care. Yet you choose to be bothered by terminator 3. The only person who is making the previous films/series worse is you.

 

Again, that's pretty poor reasoning. You can't just pick and choose what you consider to be part of a series, especially with something that has a specific timeline such as the Alien franchise and Terminator films. They've happened, they're meant to be direct sequels to what has already taking place and are even platforms for future films. If it's a reboot such as Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes film, then you can put that to one side because it means nothing in relation the original 5. But, these are part of the series, no matter how much you try and pretend they're not. They feature the same recurring characters, themes, it's a continuation of the plot.

 

If you went out and made a rubbish Terminator film, it would be fan-made. It's not canon and wouldn't be considered part of the film's canonical timeline. There's loads of fan-made films out there, some good, some bad, but none of them are part of that main series. There's a huge difference between short youtube films made by fans, and what is intended to be a clear and legitimate sequel to a well established series.

 

Again, the problem is that some films just don't need to be made. Like some games don't need to be. Which is the whole point of the thread. What you're essentially saying is that "it's ok for these films/games to be made, you can just ignore them." That's fair enough. I view it differently, in that respect should be paid to the original material.

 

Edit: Long post is long. If you want to ignore anything I say, please do. This is just how much I fucking RESENT Terminator 3. And, to a lesser extent, Alien: Resurrection. I'm probably going off on one and breaking the thread.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Fierce_LiNk

[MoogleViper]

That's...really shit reasoning. You can't just "pretend" something doesn't exist if you've already seen it and are conscious that it is there. You could just ignore it and vow to never watch it again, but once you've seen it, you've seen it. You can't un-see it.

 

But you enjoyed 1/2 before 3 came out, so why would a new film make you enjoy them any less? I can understand that you'd be annoyed by the shit film, that it should have been better, or that it ruined any future installments. But why would you let it ruin the originals for you? it has no bearing on the previous installments, so it doesn't affect them.

 

That's the equivalent of placing your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la" like a seven year old.

 

But if something bothers me, then I just walk away/ignore it. You may consider that childish but I think that the ability to not let something bother you is more mature than getting wound up over it. I'm sure that in many cases you'd agree, so why get so bothered about a bad film.

[Sheikah]

But you can. Just pretend the film doesn't exist. Pretend the series ended at 2. It's that simple. Even if you hate the film, it doesn't make 1/2 worse, so just don't consider it a part of the series. It only bothers you because you're choosing to be bothered by it. If I went out and made a rubbish film based on the terminator series and uploaded it to youtube, you wouldn't be bothered by it, because you wouldn't care. Yet you choose to be bothered by terminator 3. The only person who is making the previous films/series worse is you.

 

You can only convince yourself something didn't happen if you're really thick. If you've half a brain cell, you will always remember it happened, especially if it's to do with a series that you like.

 

Story is one such factor that some people like in a game. And in some of the best games, story often plays a big part. For instance, FFX has a great ending. At the time it was quite a tear jerker what with Tidus being made up and therefore technically dying at the end.

 

But oh no. Forever now I will associate Tidus with completionist shite, simply pummelling the sequel to 100% and mashing x several times at the end brings him back to life.

 

Sure, at the time of completing FFX this made no difference. But looking back, it does. And it affected my perception of the game when I went back to play it again.

 

Sequels can somewhat ruin the overall 'grand story' of a series. What sequels can do is give you information about events in the first game that can taint the original. Or just extend an existing storyline into something shit.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Sheikah

[Fierce_LiNk]

But you enjoyed 1/2 before 3 came out, so why would a new film make you enjoy them any less? I can understand that you'd be annoyed by the shit film, that it should have been better, or that it ruined any future installments. But why would you let it ruin the originals for you? it has no bearing on the previous installments, so it doesn't affect them.

 

It does affect them though in one vital aspect: The ending. The ending for Alien 3, Ripley's sacrifice, is made redundant by the introduction and whole plot of Resurrection. It's cruel what was done to her character and wrong. (sometimes cruel in tv or film can be good, but we're talking the bad kind, here). As for the Terminator films, like I mentioned, the message of the second film is lost due to the third film. "Hey, remember all those awesome set pieces where we destroyed Cyberdyne and changed the future...welll...it didn't, lolollol." I still watch these film series' (not the atrocities) and love them to bits, that will never ever change, but the ending has undoubtedly less impact because of their sequels. There's no escaping that.

 

 

But if something bothers me, then I just walk away/ignore it. You may consider that childish but I think that the ability to not let something bother you is more mature than getting wound up over it. I'm sure that in many cases you'd agree, so why get so bothered about a bad film.

 

It really relates to the previous part of this post, the ending for the films. Not only that, but the legacy it leaves behind. Instead of Ripley dying heroically, we learn that she is cloned, is an Alien-hybrid, crashes back on Earth 200 years after she died and...has a significant personality change. That's the legacy that is left. Terminator 3 is pretty much the same, and that film even created a platform for future films, such as Salvation, even though they're not really direct sequels.

 

I get wound up about these because I'm pretty passionate about these films in question, but also because they're good examples of their genre. Seeing bad films in the series does impact on their reputation, especially when you consider that names are being dragged through the mud due to the AvP films and so on. It's not good or healthy for their genre.

[Diageo]

I agree with Moogle.

 

Regarding game sequels, ToS2, as boring as that was, had no effect on my opinion on ToS. You can easily not think of the other films/games.

[Sheikah]

I agree with Moogle.

 

Regarding game sequels, ToS2, as boring as that was, had no effect on my opinion on ToS. You can easily not think of the other films/games.

 

It's such a dumb logic though. "lalala I won't think about you!"

 

You could just as well apply this logic to ANY event in game you like.

 

You just can't tell yourself what to think, that is the failing point of this argument. Once you know the story goes off the rails or changes the conclusion of a previous game/film it leaves a permanent negative mark.

[EEVILMURRAY]

To Paj and Moogle, does your logic extend to social situations or just movies?

 

I'm just wondering what you would say to someone who had an accident on, let's say a plane, and as a result had their experience of air travel tainted - would you just say to them "Forget about it" and push them onto the nearest choppa?

Yeah but it'd be far worse is Terminator 2/Alien3 ended with a cliffhanger/intention to be continued in another film, and then the next film was atrocious. As it was, both films concluded conclusively. Anything after that, and it's quality, should have no bearing on the films previous.

First thing which sprang to mind with such an ending is At World's End.

Edited September 12, 2011 by EEVILMURRAY

[Diageo]

Maybe we're different people, but with games at least, sequels haven't tarnished the originals for me.

 

I felt no different to ToS after ToS2. I felt no different towards Sonic Adventure 2 Battle after Shadow the Hedgehog, even though I liked Shadow. I think it's easy.

 

Regarding films, I'm not really passionate about them so that probably makes a difference. But there is still no film that tarnishes my thinking of another. The only time that happens is when I thought a film had an interesting, unique premise and then I find an earlier film with the same premise.

 

To Paj and Moogle, does your logic extend to social situations or just movies?

 

I'm just wondering what you would say to someone who had an accident on, let's say a plane, and as a result had their experience of air travel tainted - would you just say to them "Forget about it" and push them onto the nearest choppa?

 

First thing which sprang to mind with such an ending is At World's End.

That's clearly very different.

[EEVILMURRAY]

That's clearly very different.

No it isn't. Dead Man's Chest had a very obvious cliffhanger ending.

[Diageo]

No I meant forgetting a traumatic event and keeping feelings about one film separate from another.

[EEVILMURRAY]

No I meant forgetting a traumatic event and keeping feelings about one film separate from another.

The fundamental concept is the same, you enjoy something one minute, something negative happens and your opinion will never be the same again. Just because it's harder to forget doesn't mean the point is less valid.

 

Let's make it less traumatic and more passive:

You have a friend, you've known each other for years. You found out a week earlier he banged your mum up the ass. Your view of your friend (and possibly your mum) will never be the same again. Under the Moogle and Paj logic if you pretend it never happened your relationship between them will be fine. Or does this logic only extend to poor videogames?

[Fierce_LiNk]

Did you really just compare ignoring Terminator 3 to ignoring somebody banging your Mum up the arse?

[EEVILMURRAY]

Did you really just compare ignoring Terminator 3 to ignoring somebody banging your Mum up the arse?

It can be up the vagina if you'd prefer.