Unnecessary game sequels?

[Paj!]

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?

 

[Aimless]

To those who think follow ups can't taint previous entries in a series I have this to say: midi-chlorians. A lot of times unnecessary sequels give you answers you never really wanted, taking all the mystery out of the originals.

 

Generally gaming sequels are better than their débuts: the technology is more refined, the mechanics are expanded upon, the things people didn't like are addressed. As games tend not to be that narrative driven the above issue isn't so prevalent, either, although there are certainly some examples; Resistance 2 springs to mind, throwing all the intrigue of the original out of the window.

 

There's a lot of gaming sequels which haven't lived up to their potential, but off the top of my head I can't think of one that's been downright unnecessary.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Aimless

[Cube]

It's actually hard to think of unnecessary gaming sequels - the majority of them usually get what they deserve and forgotten about.

 

Games like BioShock probably shouldn't get sequels, but BioShock 2 wasn't a bad game and was a nice addition to the story. I view it as a side-story.

 

As much as I would probably really enjoy it, I kind of hope that the Alan Wake sequel (or "sequel") plans fall apart - it's a great singular game and should probably be left. The right amount of stuff was left unexplained.

[EEVILMURRAY]

To those who think follow ups can't taint previous entries in a series I have this to say: midi-chlorians. A lot of times unnecessary sequels give you answers you never really wanted.

Very true. Knowing that people can only use the Force depend on how much of a certain bacteria in their body wasn't exactly the greatest way to explain it.

[Cube]

Very true. Knowing that people can only use the Force depend on how much of a certain bacteria in their body wasn't exactly the greatest way to explain it.

 

I don't see the big problem with that. The fact that it "runs in the family" seems to suggest it was linked to genetics or something anyway.

[EEVILMURRAY]

I don't see the big problem with that. The fact that it "runs in the family" seems to suggest it was linked to genetics or something anyway.

Between Luke and Anakin perhaps, but then being told that this mysterious bacteria managed to impregnate a woman is something people may find a problem with.

[Captain Falcon]

It depends on why the sequel was bad. Was it because it took the gameplay of the original and rung it dry of all of it's novelty? Or was it because the new story was horrendous in what is ultimately a narative led game with actual gameplay taking a backseat? Either way, I don't see how that makes the first game any worse.

 

The examples being given so far are all to do with films... and in particular bad/undermining stories. But most games only have a story to give a half assed reason as to why you are shooting everything in sight on the grounds that it will make for a more compelling experience.

 

But games shouldn't be about setting the controller down and watching the story unfold. They should be about your actions being the story. I play games to play games. If they have a story, and it's good, then great. But there is a reason why games allow you to skip the cutscenes and get to the gameplay.

 

If the story in Terminator or Alien Ressurection was brilliant, but the acting was crap, would it be ok then? Storu is story, but acting in a film is akin to the gameplay of a game in my eyes anyway.

 

The bad story in ToS2 does weaken the overall tale that was established with the original and Tales of Phantasia before that. But the gameplay is serviceable and isn't that what matters with games?

 

For me, a bad sequel has never dulled my love of it's prequel... but a good sequel has lessened my love of the first game after I've see how much better it could have been.

[Paj!]

But...this logic is dependant on their being an INTENTION for a final chapter to be how it turns out. There was clearly never meant to be a Terminator 3 after T2. If in T3, they made some bullshit retcon up like...Sarah Connor was terminator the whole time (or something), but it was obviously made up after the fact and doesn't make any sense in the context of the original films with her in, why would you pay attention to it/let it ruin the films? It makes no sense.

 

When a retcon along those lines (or less ridiculous) is introduced which then is carried on as canon in later installments of whatever metaphorical story we're talking about, then I suppose you have more cause for complaint, BUT it still wouldn't change the fact that the originals weren't created with that in mind, so it's fine.

 

I'm a comics fan - I have to deal with, and accept or reject alterations/additions/subtractions to a fictional, never-ending, always transforming 'canon' every month of my life for the last...13 years. You learn to realise what was tacked on later, and what was part of a greater vision.

 

I fail to see why others let shitty things that weren't part of the original's plan taint earlier greatness.

[Diageo]

I think it's less about forgetting the sequels and more about being able to separate them in your mind.

[EEVILMURRAY]

I fail to see why others let shitty things that weren't part of the original's plan taint earlier greatness.

Because then two things become associated with each other. Kinda like a grade average.

[Nolan]

I find it's less tainting previous iterations and bring down the series average as a whole. That's just me.

 

I quite like most Final Fantasy games and tolerate others and hate a few. Those I hate don't make the ones I love any less loved, I might love them more even because I know what could have been done wrong to them. However those few I hate bring my whole opinion of the Final Fantasy series down, irrelevant of the greats I enjoy.

[Jonnas]

Like people said, depends on what we're talking about.

 

If it is simply a poor sequel, it is easy to ignore, and won't affect the original's enjoyment. If it decides to apply retcons on the originals, then we have a problem.

 

ToS2 never really applied any retcons to the first game. Sure, Lloyd's character took a turn for the worse, voices were changed, sudden new locations were added, and the new design/art direction completely clashes with the original (I mean, look at those monsters. Hell, just look at the new characters' clothes and weapons). Pretty much the only thing they "retconned" was something of a brief and unexplained plot device from the first game, anyway. It is easy to ignore.

 

And then we have Star Wars and Terminator. It's hard to rewatch the originals without cringing. And if they undermine the point of the original, even worse.

 

That said, sequels can only ruin plot, I think. If the new game is sub-par in other areas, we simply go back to playing the original. Like with Soul Calibur II or Smash Bros. Melee (for those who disliked Brawl).

 

Even a new Zelda or Final Fantasy can't ruin the original unless we're talking about plot.

(Or the sequel being so awesome, the original looks outdated, but that's not the point of this thread)

Edited September 13, 2011 by Jonnas

[Captain Falcon]

 

ToS2 never really applied any retcons to the first game. Sure, Lloyd's character took a turn for the worse, voices were changed, sudden new locations were added, and the new design/art direction completely clashes with the original (I mean, look at those monsters. Hell, just look at the new characters' clothes and weapons). Pretty much the only thing they "retconned" was something of a brief and unexplained plot device from the first game, anyway. It is easy to ignore.

 

I don't want to turn this into the "let's rag on ToS2" thread but the introduction of the Centurian Spirits made the Summon Spirits that defined the original and Phantasia almost meaningless.

[mr_bogus]

What about sequels that exist for apparently no reason except milking the cash cow?

 

Look at Crash Bandicoot games after 3, for instance - would you say any of those were/weren't necessary additions to the franchise?

[Beast]

Hmmm, I would probably say Call of Duty or Medal of Honour. They have a lot of unnecessary sequels. Fun but unnecessary. I would also say Crash Bandicoot and possibly Klonoa as well. As much as I love the Klonoa games, I didn't see Klonoa 2 necessary.

[Jonnas]

I don't want to turn this into the "let's rag on ToS2" thread but the introduction of the Centurian Spirits made the Summon Spirits that defined the original and Phantasia almost meaningless.

 

Really? The Centurions were so poorly implemented and explained, it doesn't even qualify as a retcon attempt

There were what, two Centurions with actual designs? And none of them felt like they mattered as much as the Summon Spirits.

 

What about sequels that exist for apparently no reason except milking the cash cow?

 

Look at Crash Bandicoot games after 3, for instance - would you say any of those were/weren't necessary additions to the franchise?

 

Hmm, good point. I suppose that case would be franchise fatigue more than an unnecessary sequel. The originals aren't ruined, what might be ruined is the potential future of the franchise (look at how long it took for Sonic to recover. Crash Bandicoot still hasn't, in fact)

[Cube]

Hmm, good point. I suppose that case would be franchise fatigue more than an unnecessary sequel. The originals aren't ruined, what might be ruined is the potential future of the franchise

 

In the case of Crash and Spyro, it's more the case of the developers ditching the franchise and another developer picking up the pieces.

[mr_bogus]

In the case of Crash and Spyro, it's more the case of the developers ditching the franchise and another developer picking up the pieces.

 

Actually, the new Spyro has now been confirmed to leapfrog "unnecessary" and land in "oh my crap" land.

 

Seriously, would you take your child to this event and NOT expect them to have nightmares for the next few weeks?