-Pyromaniac-
Member
I'm saying all this guy does is talk/criticize/judge/fantasize lately. Preaching on much that he was involved in himself. Not questioning his abilities at all. Talk is cheap is all.
-
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'
- Thread starter RoKKeR
- Start date
Change is fine, but know when you go to far. Also a major reason why people are fussy with Gears is because there's is no series like it. The MP is a truly unique experience. I always saw it as the successor of arena shooters modified for consoles. You had the twitch aspect with strafing of wall sliding. You had the old strategy of map control which includes amazing "power" weapons. Everyone starts equal as well. It was however modern in the way it played slower and optimized to be played with a controller. With a heavy emphasis on team work.
Hahaha.
How about just make the sequel good, Cliffyb? Don't get lost in the weeds and just make a good game.
MARIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
The best example of how to do a great sequel is in my opinion Half Life 2. It built off it's predecessor and continues the ground work, but it goes in a completely unique and fresh direction to make it seem like new again; similar to what Bioshock Infinite is doing. Too many sequels are essentially just remakes of the original with a few new features; I feel the gears series is how not to do sequels.
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.
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.
Robot Pants
Member
Gears 2 literally crushed my gaming spirit. I never looked at games the same way ever again.
Absolutely no exaggeration.
Absolutely no exaggeration.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
sublimit
Banned
I always say that if you establish something that is almost universally loved don't try to change it.Usually big changes although they might improve one thing to some they are also affecting something else and this could ultimately change the premise of the original concept.
Superficially the game might still be about the same things but it's the core mechanics that define the experience.
This doesn't mean you can't improve something.But "improvement" is quite a broad term that people abuse with various interpretations that usually result in replacing something with something very different in order to appeal to a bigger market (and risk loosing your core fanbase.)
Superficially the game might still be about the same things but it's the core mechanics that define the experience.
This doesn't mean you can't improve something.But "improvement" is quite a broad term that people abuse with various interpretations that usually result in replacing something with something very different in order to appeal to a bigger market (and risk loosing your core fanbase.)
Robot Pants
Member
It does.
Doesn't take much with you does it?
Because it was really unfathamable to me that anyone could screw a game up that bad.
I am having similar thoughts. It seems that since he left epic not a week goes by that we don't get to hear his insight on some facet of gaming.
I disagree completely. Aside from just being fresh and new at the time, which is hugely important in how I rate a game, it had the best designed encounters and it was extremely well paced. Gears 2 just felt like a bunch of loosely connected set pieces with gimmicky sections like the awful vehicle ice sequence.
EmCeeGramr
Member
But what about when your one of your series' greatest successes is that it can attract people who play for a thousand hours? If you can keep the same spirit as the original game, you can change quite a bit. It's once you go against certain principles of those beloved games that you run into trouble.
All of the scare quotes in the world and implying that people don't like a game simply because it's changed can't handwave away design mistakes.
EagleBurnn
Banned
Everyone knows this already.
It's a good thing though that Nintendo never made Super Mario Galaxy 3.
Most games series should really stick to one sequel though. It's fun to play a sequel to a game you really liked, revisit favorite characters and places in a new story with numerous improvements and surprised. But most third game in a series don't bring anything new to the table anymore. They've become either fan services or a completely diluted experienced ruined by additions that feel out of place to long time fans.
Far better to completely reboot a game like the new Tomb Raider while straying true to core principles.
Yep. This is why I can never hate FF games.
RurouniZel
Asks questions so Ezalc doesn't have to
The argument can also be made that fans really do want changes, but those changes have to be meaningful changes that were designed to improve the game rather than just be different for the sake of being different. Final Fantasy games ran into this trap and are now stuck with the idea that every FF game must be completely different from the last not because it would make it better, but simply because.
R
Retro_
Unconfirmed Member
DMC4
DmC
ComputerMKII
Banned
Never make sequels. Problem solved.
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.
I absolutely agree with Cliff Bleszinski. The mark of a good designer is delivering what people need rather than what they want. Typically what people need is different from what they want, and unfortunately, things that are 'different' aren't as welcome as things that are the same.
Frankly, the realities of business interfere with the desire of innovation. I think it's going to take a while before videogame consumers are inherently comfortable with the idea of a sequel that changes "the formula".
Frankly, the realities of business interfere with the desire of innovation. I think it's going to take a while before videogame consumers are inherently comfortable with the idea of a sequel that changes "the formula".
R
Retro_
Unconfirmed Member
Well then what's the purpose of a sequel? If not to iterate and expand on the previous game?
The goal is a nice balance like he said
I don't understand the intricacies of the ultra linear military shooter, so I could use an explanation on how one of them apparently changed so much that it ruined all games for you.
I think that has to do more with the average Nintendo fan.
ZeroGravity
Member
It doesn't really happen with any Nintendo franchise other than Zelda though.
Gears 3 is, arguably, the best multiplayer game released on consoles all generation. At least I think it is/was.
That won't be the case forever. Both the Tony Hawk series and the Guitar Hero franchise were once 'unstoppable'.
Robot Pants
Member
Haha for you? Won't waste my time.
Very arguable. I like Gears, and I like Cliffyb, but this post is more navel gazing than insightful commentary.
Holy Order Sol
Member
I have never knocked a sequel for being more of the same in my entire life. I've always found the 1.5 talk irritating.
Matt2thefuture
Member
Cliffy seems to have a tad too much time on his hands since leaving Epic...he's been writing alot about the state of the industry, Sequels, coop, Sony Vs Microsoft vs. handheld vs whatever..Most of it is sound stuff from someone from the inside but some of it sounds a tad bitter over what I assume is him being unhappy with the situation of him leaving epic and state of his industry (wanting more arty games then what he's known for GEARS) or for whatever reason. So alot of what he says is valid but for the most part it's always bit of both true and false.
This post about sequels is a good one and holds mostly true. Core gamers complain about everything, and alot of them want their part 2 JUST like part 1.
I remember when they announced Infamous 2 was going to have a different lead or a redesigned Cole with hair. People FREAKED out, So much infact that Sucker Punch went back to part 1 designed lead aka buzz cut Cole. While I wasn't super in love with the new designed guy with the hair I didn't hate it, or feel the need I needed COLE the exzact way from 1. I was looking forward to change. I felt the same with DMC, I thought after 4 games Devil May Cry did feel stale and needed a fresh coat of paint (not a half step like 4). While I may be in minority (I think it sold bad, so I guess I am) I thought DMC was the best game besides 3. AKA a reboot was what it needed.
I personally like sequels that take risks and do something different. Obviously keep the mechanics that worked but when something is sooo similar to a game I already played I find it boring. Bioshock 2 was soo simular to 1 I found it unnecessary...that's why to me Infinite looks like the true sequels I always wanted.
My point is there are always going to be some core gamers who want the same thing. OVER AND OVER AND OVER (COD and Halo are like this 2 me) but some of us want something new.
But this doesn't just go for videogames. That's movies, music and any genre. Some people will always want the same thing over and over and others like it when they evolve and put turn on it's head. Some wanted the Beatles to always stay the same others love the drug filled sgt. pepper era more. Sometimes change is for the worse, sometimes it's for the better. But the difference is even when changing something is for the bad it's there taking more of a risk than staying the same. And in my eyes taking a risk most of the time is better than playing it safe over and over.
This post about sequels is a good one and holds mostly true. Core gamers complain about everything, and alot of them want their part 2 JUST like part 1.
I remember when they announced Infamous 2 was going to have a different lead or a redesigned Cole with hair. People FREAKED out, So much infact that Sucker Punch went back to part 1 designed lead aka buzz cut Cole. While I wasn't super in love with the new designed guy with the hair I didn't hate it, or feel the need I needed COLE the exzact way from 1. I was looking forward to change. I felt the same with DMC, I thought after 4 games Devil May Cry did feel stale and needed a fresh coat of paint (not a half step like 4). While I may be in minority (I think it sold bad, so I guess I am) I thought DMC was the best game besides 3. AKA a reboot was what it needed.
I personally like sequels that take risks and do something different. Obviously keep the mechanics that worked but when something is sooo similar to a game I already played I find it boring. Bioshock 2 was soo simular to 1 I found it unnecessary...that's why to me Infinite looks like the true sequels I always wanted.
My point is there are always going to be some core gamers who want the same thing. OVER AND OVER AND OVER (COD and Halo are like this 2 me) but some of us want something new.
But this doesn't just go for videogames. That's movies, music and any genre. Some people will always want the same thing over and over and others like it when they evolve and put turn on it's head. Some wanted the Beatles to always stay the same others love the drug filled sgt. pepper era more. Sometimes change is for the worse, sometimes it's for the better. But the difference is even when changing something is for the bad it's there taking more of a risk than staying the same. And in my eyes taking a risk most of the time is better than playing it safe over and over.
I don't even know that that is a "success" at least not from a fiscal standpoint. A game company's biggest attribute is the high traffic consumer gamer who plays something and moves on, not the one who milks a game and gets thousands of hours out of it, not buying anything new, and using up servers.
I am not even trying to denigrate those people, I am just saying I am not one of them. There is no game I want to play for hundreds let along thousands of hours. None. Yet there are many game series I like, that I play through once, maybe twice, then I am ready for a sequel. Obviously due to my very bias, I would like game companies to cater to gamers like ME more than they cater to their "hardcore" fans. But it seems to me I could make the argument that it even makes more fiscal sense for them to cater to me.
F2P games disagree with you. So do MMOs.
EmCeeGramr
Member
So a game being fun, having a large fanbase, and having a long life should be ignored in favor of profits? Those things are mutually exclusive?
I doubt anyone hardcore 'jizzes' over COD.
They are more likely to go to a game that is more skill based and better on the competitive scene then that game.
Call of Duty is a very casual game dressed up as hardcore.
That is just the point. What makes sequels "fun" for hardcore fans is not what makes them fun for me. And I suspect, not what makes them fun for the larger fanbase since most of those pepole are not the hardcore who play for thousands of hours, those people, by almost definition, are the extreme minority.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Case in point: From Gears 1 to Gears 2 we changed the firing speed of the shotgun by 50ms. Barely the blink of an eye for most people. However the die hard fans who loved that weapon felt it immediately. You can’t fool them. Muscle memory is a powerful thing.)
Damn right we did, among with all the other stupid-ass changes you made. Slower animation, worse framerate, ragdoll smoke grenade stuns...
Thank god Gears 3 turned out as good as it did
Damn right we did, among with all the other stupid-ass changes you made. Slower animation, worse framerate, ragdoll smoke grenade stuns...
Thank god Gears 3 turned out as good as it did
EmCeeGramr
Member
So Call of Duty sold entirely on its single player, and not on the multiplayer fanbase? World of Warcraft was a failure?
Sure but the differences in those models are important:
1) You have a wider potential audience from the start being free
2) You can continually monetize the game through microtransactions.
So if these sequels can do those two things then it would make fiscal sense for them to cater to long term players first and foremost. But somehow I have a feeling that most of the hardcore fans wouldn't like it that much of the kind of games we are talking about were built around a microtransaction model.
That Dude John
Member
Well, that's a gross exaggeration.
Why we got Dota then?
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. Those are not the same as the kind of hardcore core fans Cliff is complaining about demanding no change to millisecond feedback.
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.