Support NeoGAF

[mr_nothin]

How do you solve this easily?
Spinoffs.

Battlefield had it right before they consolidated the franchise again. Bad Company 2 was more of a condensed
action COD type shooter & the main series was to be the more tactical shooter. But then BF3 happened and kind of pissed off
everybody. They should have just kept it seperate.

Also, stop trying to use sequels solely to capture the attention of new players for your trilogy (or what should be linear sequels).
Dont bank on the fact that you already have an established userbase from the last game that will blindly follow you. Just build/expand
upon what you've already succeeded at and stop trying to re-innovate everything, especially when you're only on the 2nd game.
As long as you keep the spirit of the game intact then all should be fine. When you start taking away key elements that people enjoyed
just so you can cater to people who didnt like the game, then that's when things get messy.

Sometimes this works out but most of the time it doesnt. If you're redoing a game just to get more attention from new players
then that title should probably be a new franchise altogether.

 

[cluto]

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.

By stagnant change, do you mean things like "new weapons, better graphics, etc.", while fresh change is more along the lines of new gameplay mechanics that improve on the original?

 

[The Crimson Kid]

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.

This post nails it. While there's always going to be a small and extremely vocal contingent of players who don't want anything changed in a sequel, most "hardcore" fans of a game won't mind changes in a sequel if they add to or enhance the experience without fundamentally ruining the key principles or features that made the previous game so attractive to them. Cliff mentions people whining about the pistol in Halo 1 being rebalanced for 2 as an example of this. While there certainly is still a lot of fondness for that weapon and there were certainly complaints at first, after people got more used to Halo 2 and found that it was a faithful and improved successor to the original, the complaints from the "hardcore" about the pistol more or less disappeared. For another example, there was a lot of streamlining done between Mass Effect 1 and 2, and while 2 had its own set of issues, most of the changes they made improved the game without doing too much to ruin what people liked about the original.

While there's a lot to agree with in Cliff's post, his framing of all "hardcore" gamers as whiny children that can't accept any change is wildly off the mark. Then again, I could see how he could think that after receiving so much negative criticism from all corners after Gears 2 launched with significantly worse MP than the original. Having to go through thousands of people shitting on the thing you and your team have invested so much work into does things to a man.

I think there's an expectation with customers that if a company is making a direct sequel to a game, it should keep the main principles and features that made the original so appealing to people while improving and tweaking where necessary. It's a totally reasonable thing to expect. If the developer wants to radically switch things up with their next game, then they shouldn't call it a direct sequel. Call it a spin off or a reboot, or even better, just make a new IP.

At the end of the day, it's up to the developer to determine what is best for a sequel because in most cases they were the ones that made the original game that got so many people to invest time and emotional energy into without any fan feedback at all. While studying fan feedback can be useful, a smart developer can't lean too hard on that (often contradictory) feedback because it dilutes the vision the developer has for a sequel instead of relying on the instincts and principles that made so many people enjoy the original game.

 

[Pachterballs]

uncharted 2 proved him wrong.

and cliffy himself hasn't been able to make a good sequel. (twice)

 

[PinkCrayon]

Sequels allow developers to iterate on old ideas and add new ones to the existing formula. There's always going to be mechanics that were not fully realized the first time around that can be improved. That being said, there is definitely something to playing (and creating) a fresh experience for each new game. It is also not very feasible from a development and business standpoint unless you are a smaller developer.

The argument of Gears 2 however, does no hold up because you completely fucked up the multiplayer, so there were more pressing matters than the shotgun fire rate. In fact, the Halo 4 argument doesn't hold up either because they didn't put any new ideas into it. Now, I'm not expecting 343 to revolutionize the fps, but I sure as shit wasn't expecting to just straight up copy Call of Duty. Also, who the fuck says they just want the same game with upgraded graphics?

Sequels only become a problem when you start releasing games like GoW Judgement and Ascension. God of War just looks like more of the same, while Gears looks like it's trying as hard as it can to alienate its fan base.

Oh, and after what happened with the Gears 3 season pass, how about you fuck off with your dlc comments.

 

[oVerde]

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.

Core gamers tend to buy because campaign, they know the online of those big shooter franchises games are full of try hard bastards and step away it being casual friendly mechanics or not.
You share the same insight of franchise's core gamers and those online hardcores as me.

 

[xJavonta]

uncharted 2 proved him wrong.

and cliffy himself hasn't been able to make a good sequel. (twice)

This is exactly what he's talking about lol

 

[Lime]

By stagnant change, do you mean things like "new weapons, better graphics, etc.", while fresh change is more along the lines of new gameplay mechanics that improve on the original?

Fresh change could for example be taking the IP in a new interesting way (mechanically or semioticially) that isn't already well-presented in the current gaming environment, such as making a point 'n click into a survival horror (just an example). Stagnant change is when you change the IP into something that is already well-represented in the current gaming environment, such as making a turn-based strategy game into an over-saturated first-person shooter market.

 

[-PXG-]

I'm gonna keep this short and get right to the point.

Cliff, there is nothing wrong with fine tuning things, it's just a matter of what you change and how far you go. When it comes to Gears, "Bigger, better and more badass" wasn't the right direction. You guys forgot what made Gears so great and what made it so special. The dark, gloomy, macabre atmosphere. The tight, claustrophobic, and intimate game play. The straight forward and simple mechanics. Gears 1 wasn't perfect. It was sloppy, but it had an identity. It was different and it offered me something I couldn't get anywhere else. Over time, the franchise just became too bloated and lost sight of what it was meant to be. There were many more changes in Gears 2, besides that Gnasher, that pissed me, and a shit load of fans, off. And no, you're never going to be able to live that down. It was that bad. Gears 3 was a massive improvement and step in the right direction, but still nothing close to the fresh, satisfying, yet simple experience that Gears 1 offered. But hey, at least it works.

 

[Pachterballs]

This is exactly what he's talking about lol

Nah, I don't agree. Gears 2+3 as a SP campaign got botched by him making it less difficult and more casual - co-op balancing didn't happen right and broke the game. He does a good spiel but he was the designer of the series and it was him that shaped it - for the worse. and the story is abysmal (game sequels mechanics and whatnot aside)

Uncharted 2 managed to up what the 1st game was and made it substantially better.

But if you give the hardcore what they claim to want then the press respond “It’s just Game 1.5”

I've never really heard this written by the press. And also, who are they making the game for? The press? Who cares. make your game

 

[xJavonta]

Nah, I don't agree. Gears 2+3 as a SP campaign got botched by him making it less difficult and more casual - co-op balancing didn't happen right and broke the game. He does a good spiel but he was the designer of the series and it was him that shaped it - for the worse. and the story is abysmal (game sequels mechanics and whatnot aside)

Uncharted 2 managed to up what the 1st game was and made it substantially better.

I agree on it becoming more casual but it was a lot more enjoyable to play (for me, personally). It felt more refined. I also liked the story.

I've never really heard this written by the press. And also, who are they making the game for? The press? Who cares. make your game

It's a lot easier to say that when you're not the one making the game. Good reviews from the press sells more copies. He worked for a business. A business wants to make money. They're essentially making a game for the press.

 

[Shai-Tan]

uncharted 2 proved him wrong.

and cliffy himself hasn't been able to make a good sequel. (twice)

I liked GoW 2 more than 1 (the single player anyway - I don't play console multi much)

 

[subversus]

Thats absurd from both a design and business standpoint.

yeah, that's why this doesn't happen.

 

[BigTnaples]

Cliffy B has always had a good feel of the industry. Very grounded guy.

 

[Gold_Loot]

The problem with sequels is that they're almost too good!