• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

CliffyB Blog Post: 'The Problem with Sequels'

Darkangel

Darkangel

Member
When ever I think of a "full" non-rehashed game sequel, I think of Halo 2.

-Online multiplayer
-Dual wielding weapons
-Vehicle hijacking
-Exploding vehicles
-Multiplayer banshees
-Playable Elites
-Awesome new maps and remakes of old favourites
-Lots of new weapons, vehicles and gametypes

I know the MLG community complained about a few things like increased autoaim and lower grenade throw distance, but overall the gameplay was a logical evolution of Halo 1. You can add a lot of new content without drastically changing the game.

Games like Killzone 3 and Uncharted 3 fall more into "Game 1.5" territory since they barely added anything. Something like Halo 4 on the other hand is the opposite since that game changed the fundamental gameplay of the series.
 
N

nbthedude

Member
HK-47 said:
Why we got Dota then?
Click to expand...

I don't even understand your point. Dota confirms my argument.

For games with microtransactions it makes total sense fiscal to be concerned with and cater to gamers who will be playing your game for hundreds or thousands of hours. For games that don't, it does not.
 
E

EmCeeGramr

Member
nbthedude said:
No. Those are two radically different business models for starters that dont' even really belong in the same conversation.

For Call of Duty it has a huge audience. But only a small portion of that audience plays those games for thousands and thousands of hours. Most people typically play it on weekends for a few months before moving on to something else.
Click to expand...
So they play for hundreds of hours.

nbthedude said:
Those are not the same as the kind of hardcore core fans Cliff is complaining about demanding no change to millisecond feedback.
Click to expand...

They would complain if Call of Duty became a paintball game or changed many of its key features in negative ways.


nbthedude said:
For WoW, that game is based on a subscription model. Of course it makes sense for them to cater to fans in the long term. But games like Gears of War, Halo, DmC, etc etc. Those are not subscription model games. From a fiscal point of view, it makes no sense for the publishers to be concerned with whether a small group of players are intersted in playing that game for thousands of hours. They game literally nothing from it.
Click to expand...

They gain fans and buyers.
 
D

DocSeuss

Member
Darkangel said:
When ever I think of a "full" non-rehashed game sequel, I think of Halo 2.

-Online multiplayer
-Dual wielding weapons
-Vehicle hijacking
-Exploding vehicles
-Multiplayer banshees
-Playable Elites
-Awesome new maps and remakes of old favourites
-Lots of new weapons, vehicles and gametypes

I know the MLG community complained about a few things like increased autoaim and lower grenade throw distance, but overall the gameplay was a logical evolution of Halo 1. You can add a lot of new content without drastically changing the game.

Games like Killzone 3 and Uncharted 3 fall more into "Game 1.5" territory since they barely added anything. Something like Halo 4 on the other hand is the opposite since that game changed the fundamental gameplay of the series.
Click to expand...

Exploding vehicles was Halo 2? I could have sworn that was in Halo.
 
B

bomma_man

Member
Thought it was going to be about how sequels and franchise rape are necessary evils in gaming because they have no personalities (ie actors, authors) to pull people to something original.

But he has some good points. Basically Zelda to a tee.
 
S

SolidSnakex

Member
I think the MGS series generally does a good job of balancing new with old. They're similar in some ways, but they have enough new features added that they don't feel like a retread. I don't think that it's really necessary to reboot unless something at its core is broken or if the series has just declined dramatically in terms of sales or reception.
 
P

Plywood

NeoGAF's smiling token!
So in short: the press are a bunch of cunts for not understanding the nuances of the games they cover.
 
S

StalkerUKCG

Banned
CliffyB nailing it.

Halo is the best example of this in recent history. I don't for a second envy the stress a team like 343i face when making Halo. We all like to think we know what would be perfect for the game and armchair design is something many including myself are guilt of.

Its about that balance of creating some new quirk or edge that will draw people back in while retaining what fans loved.

Plywood said:
So in short: the press are a bunch of silly ducks for not understanding the nuances of the games they cover.
Click to expand...

Video Game Journalism™
 
K

Kikujiro

Member
Bebpo said:
The thing is that most games can totally be improved, so sequels are welcome when they take a game and fix what went wrong and add to what went right.

The problem is that this can only stay fresh for so long. I think 2-3 game trilogies should be about the max before rebooting the mechanics.
Click to expand...

I agree, this is why I don't understand people hating on Capcom for the killing the old Onimusha or Resident Evil. When both series hit the 3rd episodes their game mechanics were already stale, despite being at their peak. Cliffy "hardcore" fans want to play the same game is spot on, because the most "hardcore" fans love a game so much that they would gladly play the same thing forever.
 
H

HK-47

Oh, bitch bitch bitch.
Kikujiro said:
I agree, this is why I don't understand people hating on Capcom for the killing the old Onimusha or Resident Evil. When both series hit the 3rd episodes their game mechanics were already stale, despite being at their peak. Cliffy "hardcore" fans want to play the same game is spot on, because the most "hardcore" fans love a game so much that they would gladly play the same thing forever.
Click to expand...

And they traded that for doing worse and worse jobs aping RE4
 
JimiNutz

JimiNutz

Banned
I agree 100% but am not sure what the solution is.

I absolutely loved the first Gears of War. Its a very flawed game but in many ways it is my favorite game of the generation.

There will have been 4 Gears of War games by the time this gen ends and that is just too much. With each release I grow less and less excited.

I really think that they need to start leaving longer between sequels. Rather than trying to produce 'new' games that are different enough to justify a new purchase, but not so different that they anger the original fans, maybe they should just drip feed us DLC for the original game over the years? A new map here, a new weapon there, a few extra single player chapters one month and then maybe a new mp chapter the next.

Try to add content to the original game to keep it fresh, but not have to build a whole new sequel and change a bunch of stuff.

I cant even imagine how excited Id be if Gears 2 was only just coming out now on the new xbox rather than Gears 4 on the same system....
 
Darkangel

Darkangel

Member
StalkerUKCG said:
CliffyB nailing it.

Halo is the best example of this in recent history. I don't for a second envy the stress a team like 343i face when making Halo. We all like to think we know what would be perfect for the game and armchair design is something many including myself are guilt of.

Its about that balance of creating some new quirk or edge that will draw people back in while retaining what fans loved.
Click to expand...

Halo 4 transformed Halo from an arena shooter into one that was class based. I still found it a lot of fun, but it definitely wasn't true to the core gameplay design of the series.
 
E

EGM1966

Member
Don't make sequels - push out DLC packs for those that want "more of the same" - and focus on new IP .

Too often in video-games a successful studio with talented people simply pushes out variations on a theme as they cave to pure MacDonalds business sense.

I don't want to watch the same film 5 times and I don't want to play the same game 5 times - give me new stuff (and ignore the more profitable but easier to please masses!)
 
J

Jarnet87

Member
That is great that the press praises you and says how innovative you are, but hardcore fans are the people who buy the game.
 
T

tiggerkiddo

Member
I can see some of his points, especially about the part where he talks about how attempts at balancing a game can sometimes result in the worse. Sometimes the bugs and quirks about the game are also what make up the charm and when you take it away...eh, sometimes it isn't so hot.
 
S

Sephzilla

Member
In general a good sequel, to me, is a sequel that builds on and improves upon its predecessor generally. Good examples of this are Half Life 2 or Halo 2. I'm not a fan of sequels that arbitrarily change things up simply for the sake of going "hey guys, it's different!"
 
D

Diablo Rosso

Member
Darkangel said:
When ever I think of a "full" non-rehashed game sequel, I think of Halo 2.

-Online multiplayer
-Dual wielding weapons
-Vehicle hijacking
-Exploding vehicles
-Multiplayer banshees
-Playable Elites
-Awesome new maps and remakes of old favourites
-Lots of new weapons, vehicles and gametypes

I know the MLG community complained about a few things like increased autoaim and lower grenade throw distance, but overall the gameplay was a logical evolution of Halo 1. You can add a lot of new content without drastically changing the game.

Games like Killzone 3 and Uncharted 3 fall more into "Game 1.5" territory since they barely added anything. Something like Halo 4 on the other hand is the opposite since that game changed the fundamental gameplay of the series.
Click to expand...
Nope. Killzone 3 changed loads from 2, for the worse. Spawn grenades replaced with fixed parts on the map, unbalanced classes, lighter feel in the guns, I'm sure there's more I've missed.
 
K

Kikujiro

Member
HK-47 said:
And they traded that for doing worse and worse jobs aping RE4
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is why they should reboot the series with RE7. RE6 is the same as RE3 was back then, people have short memories, when RE3 came out a lot of people criticized it for being too shooty, not enough survival horror and being nothing but more of the same.
 
E

EmCeeGramr

Member
There's also the aspect that, unlike a movie or a real life sport, games can significantly age in a relatively short timespan, which is part of why so many fans would prefer sequels that remain truer than not to the originals.

You can watch plenty of older movies without much trouble. Some effects may seem cheesy, but the movie's controls won't feel archaic and awful, it won't hurt to look at the movie too closely, the movie's servers weren't taken down 8 years ago, the movie is probably compatible and available for most modern devices, the movie won't lag because you have a TV made in the last decade, there's probably not any later movies out that blatantly copied your movie but were praised because they irreversibly advanced the genre, etc.
 
A

angels.phillipe

Neo Member
nbthedude said:
No. They are a miniscule, tiny percentage of the people who buy your game. They just scream the loudest.
Click to expand...

This.


He's nailed it. That's why you see on game forums like neogaf a divisive opinion on sequels of games like Uncharted, KZ, Halo, Zelda and so on.

It's a very thin line, and i think only the best developers out there can manage do make a game that it's spot on.
 
Darkangel

Darkangel

Member
Diablo Rosso said:
Nope. Killzone 3 changed loads from 2, for the worse. Spawn grenades replaced with fixed parts on the map, unbalanced classes, lighter feel in the guns, I'm sure there's more I've missed.
Click to expand...

I only ever played the campaign, which was pretty much an expansion pack.

Now that you mention it I do remember hearing how they tried to "CODify" the multiplayer.
 
S

StalkerUKCG

Banned
Darkangel said:
Halo 4 transformed Halo from an arena shooter into something class based. I still found it a lot of fun, but it definitely wasn't true to the core gameplay design of the series.
Click to expand...

Halo 4 had to do something fresh to bring in the a new audience.

personally the changes are not something I like but they needed to do something and they did.

Halo is at its best competitively when every player starts on a equal footing and the gameplay consists of holding areas of the map, controlling power weapons and out matching your opponents.

However that is fun for a very small number of skilled players the rest of the community suffer only frustration from something like that because they lack the skill or the drive necessary to compete.

You have to at some point make a choice about which group you are going to devote time to making a game for, The casuals or the fanatics.

In theory you want to do both but in practice its not always (and rarely is) the way. Call of duty is popular because of its accessibility making you're game accessible seems like the perfect way to gain a large player base.

And remember its all about bringing in the money at the end of the day.

Halos core gameplay is still intact. If you stripe away the layers of fluff Halo 4 can be just as competitive as Halo 2/3 they problem is 343i are not willing to do this completely. Its half baked attempts.
 
D

dragonelite

Member
StalkerUKCG said:
CliffyB nailing it.

Halo is the best example of this in recent history. I don't for a second envy the stress a team like 343i face when making Halo. We all like to think we know what would be perfect for the game and armchair design is something many including myself are guilt of.

Its about that balance of creating some new quirk or edge that will draw people back in while retaining what fans loved.



Video Game Journalism™
Click to expand...

But they didn't really create new stuff now did they most of the stuff is in 95% of the shooters. The gameplay is now revolving around luck and rng numbers not skill like it was in the first halo trilogy. Kinda what Randy Pitchford said at DICE that it was better to do something new(and hope you are the best in it "Borderlands") then to copy something badly.

Halo had its own playstyle it did really well if not the best on consoles but 343 and bungie destroyed it by implementing Cod elements into it. And probably killed it for a lot of hardcore players.

Maybe im getting older and i can finally relate to the people that want snes graphics back and the likes but i want my old halo back. Or maybe cod really killed Halo online community.
But i really hope they make 1:1 FullHD remake of Halo 2 with gameplay the same but improved netcode and live stuff. Is the only halo i couldn't play weekly or monthly didn't had the money or a xbox for it back then.

Edit: Instead of copying cod gameplay. Why not innovate in the online community feeling.
Stuff like Guilds or Clans. Which you can level to get exp bonus for leveling your character or get more spartan points,or too unlock clan options like custom clan flag for CTF clan battles.
Upload a photoshop flag design to the 343 servers. Clan ladder system something to bring back that competitive feeling halo lost.
It is a missed oppertunity if you ask me i wouldn't be surprised if Bungie now beat them to this with Destiny.
 
T

TheBear

Member
Is he referring directly to Gears?
Because Gears 2 was literally Gears 1.5
I remember playing the SP for an hour and it felt like the same game
 
V

ViewtifulJC

Banned
EmCeeGramr said:
There's also the aspect that, unlike a movie or a real life sport, games can significantly age in a relatively short timespan, which is part of why so many fans would prefer sequels that remain truer than not to the originals.

You can watch plenty of older movies without much trouble. Some effects may seem cheesy, but the movie's controls won't feel archaic and awful, it won't hurt to look at the movie too closely, the movie's servers weren't taken down 8 years ago, the movie is probably compatible and available for most modern devices, the movie won't lag because you have a TV made in the last decade, there's probably not any later movies out that blatantly copied your movie but were praised because they irreversibly advanced the genre, etc.
Click to expand...

image.php


Im sorry EmCee pls don't be mad
 
W

Werhil

Member
nbthedude said:
Throw everything out the window. Start fresh. Give me something brand new. A new interpretation, or spin, or hell even a new genre applied to an old concept. That is my idea of an awesome sequel. If I have problems with games like Absolution and DmC it is that they still listened to those hardcore fans too much and tried (pointlessly) to appease them.
Click to expand...

But at that point why call it a sequel, instead of a new game or some kind of specific spin-off, like "DmC: The Puzzle Game" or whatever?

Personally I don't see a sequel conundrum. If it is an honest sequel, then you should expect it to bear a significant resemblance to the prior game(s). If I buy Game part5, I would simply be in the wrong to get upset that its much like Game part4. Not to say that a reboot or new direction for a series can't be good and end up as a great game that fans and newcomers would both like. But if the starting intention is to essentially make a new game, to just call it by a popular name admits to an element of dishonestly and cashing in, and fans could have a legitimate gripe.

To me, if new experiences are what you're after, the best option should generally be to avoid sequels.
 
Vire

Vire

Member
I really really liked Gears of War 3. So there is that.

Definitely my favorite version of Horde and Multiplayer.
 
O

Ol No Bones

Banned
One thing I appreciate about some tv series is that they know when to stop. Some series seem to never end until they run out of money from loss in popularity and then die. I think game designers should say this is the story we are wanting to tell and this is how it ends. If the story takes 2 games great than release 2 games. If it takes 3 great. Start and finish a series than start another.
 
Vire

Vire

Member
Ol No Bones said:
One thing I appreciate about some tv series is that they know when to stop. Some series seem to never end until they run out of money from loss in popularity and then die. I think game designers should say this is the story we are wanting to tell and this is how it ends. If the story takes 2 games great than release 2 games. If it takes 3 great. Start and finish a series than start another.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it isn't up to game designers. It's up to the publishers who whip lash the developers until their hands bleed.
 
RiccochetJ

RiccochetJ

Gold Member
Ol No Bones said:
Too bad his games have terrible writing. I really liked gears 1 and 3. I love the gameplay but I hate the characters and the universe. I have never finished a gears single player campaign besides the first one.
Click to expand...

You make it sound like he wrote the story and dialog.
 
F

FLAguy954

Junior Member
DocSeuss said:
It was fresh and new when I first played it. Then, I played Gears 2. I tried going back to Gears later, and found that it... hadn't aged nearly as well as I thought. The levels simply aren't as well designed, the pacing has some serious issues, the number of enemies is small, and the game spends a lot more time locking players into "hide in cover, shoot people, then leave cover."

Writing's better in Gears 2 as well, and I'd say the feeling you got stems more from Epic trying to diversify the environments than anything else. I think they did a pretty good job. Gears 3, of course, does this the best.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree with this. I don't get the love for Gears 1 at all, the game has aged horribly and inferior to both 2 (after patches) and 3 (the best of the three).
 
H

HK-47

Oh, bitch bitch bitch.
Ol No Bones said:
Too bad his games have terrible writing. I really liked gears 1 and 3. I love the gameplay but I hate the characters and the universe. I have never finished a gears single player campaign besides the first one.
Click to expand...
Well luckily he didn't write them
 
C

cluto

Member
StalkerUKCG said:
Halo 4 had to do something fresh to bring in the a new audience.

personally the changes are not something I like but they needed to do something and they did.

Halo is at its best competitively when every player starts on a equal footing and the gameplay consists of holding areas of the map, controlling power weapons and out matching your opponents.

However that is fun for a very small number of skilled players the rest of the community suffer only frustration from something like that because they lack the skill or the drive necessary to compete.

You have to at some point make a choice about which group you are going to devote time to making a game for, The casuals or the fanatics.

In theory you want to do both but in practice its not always (and rarely is) the way. Call of duty is popular because of its accessibility making you're game accessible seems like the perfect way to gain a large player base.

And remember its all about bringing in the money at the end of the day.

Halos core gameplay is still intact. If you stripe away the layers of fluff Halo 4 can be just as competitive as Halo 2/3 they problem is 343i are not willing to do this completely. Its half baked attempts.
Click to expand...
Did it though? Did Halo 4 sell really well in the first few weeks because it added instant respawn, killstreak rewards, and customizable classes? My guess is that the non-hardcore that bought the game did so because it's called Halo 4 -- they probably didn't even know those things were in the game. I think there could have been anything in the box and people would have bought it simply because it is the "Next Big Halo". So why not cater more to the hardcore if the casuals are going to buy the game no matter what? Even with all these mechanics that cater to the casuals, we've seen that they leave after a few weeks anyway.

I honestly don't understand the business decision behind making a game for an audience that is way more interested in a different series. It alienates the longtime fans while this new audience abandons it for the game they actually like. Seems like a lose-lose situation in the long run.
 
L

Lime

Member
The topic of change and its subsequent reaction is a bit more nuanced and complex than what CliffyB presents it to be. E.g. he seems to gloss over aspects like change not being intrinsically good, consumer knowledge and expectations about a product, consumers not always being right, supply and demand not being causally exclusive to each other, among other things.

For example, I would say fresh change is for the better, while stagnant change is for the worse.
 
W

willooi

Member
I've always been impressed by Cliffy's thoughts on game design and the guy definitely knows his craft, even if I didn't think much of Gears 2 and 3 as anything other than fun co-op games thanks solely to Horde mode.

I'd like to see him work on something with a stronger and more mature story in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Santa Monica Studio Rumored To Be Working On A New God Of War “Half-Sequel”
News Rumor 2 3
124
7K
yansolo replied
T-Pain Confirms He's Working on GTA 6, Says He Can't Role-Play in GTA 5 Anymore as a Result
News
20
2K
March Climber replied
Payday 3 isn't dead: devs discuss new plans after disastrous release and commit to delivering "the heisting experience you expect from a Payday sequel
News
20
1K
Kabelly replied
Yoshi-P doesn't expect a Final Fantasy 16 sequel or spin-off, says the team has moved onto new projects
Game Dev 2
73
4K
Sushi_Combo replied
Original Dungeon Travelers Game Comes to Steam in February; Sequels Still Banned
News
7
807
LazyParrot replied
Top Bottom