About sequels or rehashes

[Nuudoru]

Alright, so I'm making a thread about a post I did in another thread because I think it's worth discussing about for itself.

Quote:I never got why keeping a formula for a sequel is such a bad thing as long as it's done right. Why would you buy a sequel for any other reason than wanting more of what you just played, but with different content? I'd be disappointed if I bought a sequel for a game and they changed it completely since I loved they did before so much. If I wanted something totally different, I'd probably just buy another game.

For me Pokemon and Mega Man (classic) has always been good examples of how to create sequels while keeping the same forumla. Mega Man kept it the same but with just new stages to master, because that's what fans wanted. When they wanted to change Mega Man in anyway they just started another series (Legends, X, Battle Network). This is exactly how you should keep a game series going. If you can't keep the formula fresh, just stop doing that series.

As I just mentioned, Pokemon is another good example. When they create another game in the series they make A LOT of new content. Every game has been bigger than the generation before and there has always been a bunch of new stuff to explore, while keeping the same old formula of catching pokemon and plowing your way through the gyms and E4.

So the point I wanted to make here was that a lot of people seem to think that games that keeps their formula are bad, while I think that's a sequel should do.

What do you think a sequel should be? Please elaborate so we can keep an actual conversation going.

[Tajasaurus]

I like sequels that keep a certain formula but continue to improve upon it. And I mean, like, more than just a yearly CoD or Madden update. I think Pokemon is a very good example at continually improving upon a very basic formula.

I'm a fan of keeping the same formula fresh. I don't think anyone wants to play the same game over with a new skin and a new title

[Lesqueecee]

It really depends on the game. If the game is already good and awesome as it is, keeping the formula with a few extra add-ons is what a sequel should have. However, if the game needs to improve on some parts or completely overhaul something, like a drastic change, it's understandable.

[Beardy]

I'd offer Max Payne 3 as a good sequel. The gameplay is pretty much similar to the previous ones, but there's been a lot of time spent on refining and prettying it up and stuff.

That being said, I think the same is true for Arkham City....but that game just didn't do it for me as much as Asylum.

[SlothyPunk]

GTA3, Vice City and San Andreas are another great example. Keeping the same formula, but adding more with each game. I didn't include GTA4 because it felt like a huge step backwards in my humble opinion.

[DidYouKnowGaming]

I have no problem with what is done with Nintendo games. SMB3 and SMW control largely the same, but are completely different experiences. Same with OoT and MM. I'd say All the generations of Pokemon are fairly distinct too, especially the differences between the first three.

[Nuudoru]

(06-26-2012 09:29 PM)DidYouKnowGaming Wrote:  I have no problem with what is done with Nintendo games. SMB3 and SMW control largely the same, but are completely different experiences. Same with OoT and MM. I'd say All the generations of Pokemon are fairly distinct too, especially the differences between the first three.

I agree with the Super Mario series being another great example of what a sequel should be.

What makes this thread kind of more interesting is if you read this thread, then go to the "overrated games" thread and read that one. A lot of people mentioned Pokemon and so far has no one really told me that what I said wasn't true.

[Abdulito-kun]

Right, you can see Deus Ex: Invisible War, they changed the game a lot. It was a good game, but not a good deus ex, the fans (like me) raged out!

So, do not change the gameplay, but do change the experience.