Are sequels good or bad?

[martinmir]

As Multiwinia is a sort of sequel to Darwinia following on the story of the beloved Darwinians through their evolution. I just want to see what you guys think about the sequel as a recognised form of Art. Obviously painters will use the same style as their follower’s like that particular style that has been created. If a style is great what is wrong with improving it for an improved creation. Don’t we all try and improve ourselves to make a better improved up to date of one self.



Do you understand what I am getting at? I suppose I am just trying to justify Introversion and the creation of a sort of sequel to Darwinia. Multiwinia is a brand new game in that the gameplay is original but visually it plays on Darwinia. We are still as a company looking at creating unique games but we also need to gain recorgnition as apart of the journey.

[zach]

Personally, I love sequels to games - well, most of the time.

There is always a very high risk of ruining the 'game concept', or simply not spiritually following the concept enough.
An example here could be the Worms series.


-------

Worms 2 was a brilliant spiritual successor to the first Worms games - it had truly brilliant 2d graphics/animations, and I think we can all agree the cartoonish look is pulled off better in Worms 2 than most other games.

Worms: Armageddon didn't change a thing in the graphics - since they got that spot-on in Worms 2, and they recognized this, just like IV and your Darwinia/Multiwinia (I know effects etc. have had a major update, but the general visual setting is more or less exactly the same).
Instead, W:A introduced hordes of new weapons, as well as a very polished (at the time) online experience. It is a bit like 'Worms 2 Deluxe', but I believe they put enough new stuff in there to justify them calling it a sequel.


The first 'proper' sequel to Worms 2 was Worms 3D - complete overhaul of the visual style (moving from 2D to 3D, obviously), and - at least in my opinion - much deviation from the general concept of the game; shooting holes in the ground with grenades and bazookas. The third dimension did not do the worms series any good in my opinion, since the spirit of the game - as we knew it all the way back from the first Worms - had been tinkered with to such a degree that it was too different to be called the 'same concept'.

I'm sure the 3D Worms games are decent in and of themselves (I played a few of them with much joy) - but as a successor in the worms series, they just don't feel 'worms-y' enough. To me, at least.

Sequelising is risky.

-------

Now, a trend I see a lot in todays gaming industry is how everything is considered a Sequel, and nothing an Expansion Pack. A sequel that feels exactly the same (as in the worms games too, I suppose) can be quite upsetting - having to pay full price for two identical games with different content.

It usually goes something like "2 new levels! 5 new weapons! 8 new enemies! 1 new multiplayer mode!" - and they call that a sequel.


I see this especially much on the console market. It is probably very difficult to release expansion packs on consoles, but nevertheless, who wants to play, say, Gears of War when you can play Gears of War 2 - both are marginally different, gameplaywise, and you wouldn't feel like you wasted your money on GoW if you go out and get GoW 2 afterwards.

-------

The same goes - to some extent - for Darwinia.

I believe multiplayer was mentioned as a definite future patch possibility for Darwinia, yet here we are, at the verge of the release of 'Darwinia, the multiplayer aspect'. I believe Multiwinia would have worked brilliant as an expansion pack to Darwinia.


If nothing else, it could work like Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War: Dark Crusade - it lets you play standalone with the two races introduced in Dark Crusade, and if you also have Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War, it can be installed on top of that to allow choosing all races, as well as all the content/singleplayer stuff from the original - essentially merging the stand-alone expansion with the original game.

That way, I bet IV would also sell a few more Darwinia-games - to people curious about the singleplayer campaign imbedded in the same game.

-------

That being said, I don't really see Multiwinia as a sequel to Darwinia (unless it has a new/continued single player campaign), but rather the multiplayer experience expansion of Darwinia.

~ My two cents.

[vanarbulax]

Sequels. Hmmmm well I reckon there are three types of sequels (or the defining characteristics) : refinements, expansions and continuations. As I see it continuations are just the same game in most aspects with different locations and maybe a few new ideas (the HL2 episodes and expansion packs). Expansions contain things which weren't in the original game and add stuff (sometimes to it's detriment) and refinements are taking the core game and changing things here and there making sure it's the best experience.

I tend having mixed feelings about all three I enjoy the HL2 episodes because they allow small changes but basically insure you get to play quality stuff regularly (in theory, only valve time gets in the way). Expansions are often just bloats to the game but people seem to like to release them the most, that's not to say expanding on stuff is bad but the difference between 2 types of shotguns and 4 really doesn't add much to the game. Refinements also have a lot of potential, especially if it's a type of game which isn't often made but it needs to have a hook. This seems to be what blizzard with Diablo 3 or StarCraft 2 has done of the new Prince of Persia (this is all based on press videos so I know this might all be wrong). They all have a new graphical style and more "modern" (for a lack of a better word) gameplay but are still based on a formula that has proven to be entertaining.

I'm not quite sure where I was getting at but I think sequels are good to flesh out a new idea or world but should always try to change the experience. Also I think there is an overabundance of franchise continuations when there should be more new ideas coming out. This strikes me the most when fans backlash against a developer changing a franchise. I know they are trying to keep the audience and it's hard to start up a following for a new game but if you're going to change the games' core gameplay and style (e.g the new splinter cell) it should be a new game because ever aspect of the game should be tailored to the concept not trying to stuff an old franchise into new clothes. I new I'm using examples of games which haven't been released yet but I'm trying to keep it relevant to current franchises.

[MarvintheParanoidAndroid]

It really depends a lot. For example, Call of Duty 4 is a fantastic game - while you'd expect them just to churn out another war-based FPS, it really builds on all the previous games and polishes it all nicely, and it's a great single and multiplayer experience. You've also got games designed to have a continuing story throughout a series, this seems to be all the rage these days, it's like publishers are saying 'You can't release this without a ludicrous cliffhanger at the end so we can cash in on it if the IP is successful'. Half-Life 1 does this right - you get a complete story, but with a definite indication that there's more to come. Half-Life 2 and the Episodes sort-of do it right, aside from the fact that the episodes aren't really all that episodic, given the time they take (not complaining, seeing as once they are finally released we're getting some excellent sequels). Both of these are pretty decent examples of how to do sequels right - I'd be wary of a Call of Duty 5, and once HL2: Ep 3 is out, I imagine I'll be wanting something new, but up to this point both have done very well.

Then you have games like Halo, which I guess tried to do something similar with epic story cliffhangers, but from what I've heard, the endings were rather poor and they'd have been better served by following the Call of Duty route and polishing the multiplayer.

Then you have crap like yearly sports games, and their gradual decline in quality, and Tony Hawk's Pro Skater umpteen-thousand-and-ten. No need to explain what they're doing wrong there

[Xocrates]

There three basic types of sequel "justifications": plot, gameplay, graphics

What I mean is this, a sequel will usually alter one or more of the above, and while there is nothing fundamentaly wrong with any, the way most companies handle them is usually far from optimal. This is usually a consequence of releasing sequel after sequel with only very minor changes between them.

The above could be justified, or at least bearable, if the games where released as "episodic" or as expansions. Case in point: in two years telltale games released 11 (!) Sam and Max games, but justified so by making them episodic and cheap. Dawn of war released three expansions, two of them playable as stand alone, which usually included more new content than many sequels.

The other end is to release said sequels with enough intervals that the simple "updating" can justify the purchase. This seems to be Blizzard's goal with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3, and the only real justification for getting more than one Unreal Tournament.



The Multiwinia case is an interesting one, as the game sits quite close to the line between sequel and spin-off, it's not just Darwinia turned Multiplayer, but it is still very recognizably Darwinia.
But hey! As long as it is Awesome I'm getting it.

[The GoldFish]

Sequels are awesome - why wouldn't they be? More of something good can't exactly be bad...

(Quick) uninventive cashins using previously created universes from previous games in an attempt to make money for less work, resulting in typically poor quality titles, now that, *that*, sucks.

[Dover]

i would like to compare game- sequals to film- sequals: good films are almost always completely story- driven. making a sequal based on a film, that wasn't originally planned to have sequals rarely goes well. the only example that pops into my head right now is the terminator franchise.

in comparison games: the story there is not really that important, since every player actually sort of makes the story himself, at least part of it. not many games have complex plots- except japanese ones maybe, like final fantasy or metal gear solid. the point i want to make: in not having a strong script, it makes it pretty easy for games to have sequals and still be consistant story- wise.

i definitely second zanzer's opinion about multiwinia tough. the standalone- expansion- pack would have suited here quite well i think. IV though seems to go more the path of epic with unreal and it's tournament spin- offs. this certainly is also a possible way to go and i'm eagerly awaiting to kick some darwinian ass online. i just hope, the network code is going to be alright, since this is absolutely crucial for MMOs - much more important than graphics. that's what killed c&c generals for example, it's a principle EA just doesn't seem to get into their narrow corporate minds.

[desktopsimmer]

IMHO I don't count Multiwinia as a sequel. If there were different graphics, it could be a completely different game, the ground war after DEFCON for instance

For me a sequels are not just to make the games look better and add a extra weapon or special move, but to continue and expand a story (HL HL2 HL2EP1 HL2EP2......). Also, a sequel has to improve the game technically, not just graphically but to add something that was missing in the original, i.e., Doom1&2 didn't have physics, were as D3 does and boy, that was an upgrade

The only time (IMHO) that a sequel was needed to rescue the first game was Quake as it was a loss for me, simply, I got bored with it half way though. Q2 was a bolder, better game. Really it should of been called something else, "The Strogg" would of done and no one would of been the wiser . Going back to Doom3, it wasn't just a (3)sequel, but an alternate 'verse to Doom 1&2 and adds a half decent story to boot.

There was a page of stuff and rantings about games that come out yearly.... but I've had my medication and feel better now.

[Rkiver]

Hehe, nice quoting of the topic.

Let me see, is multiwinia technically a sequel? In a way I'd say no. There is no direct storyline per say. It's all about player versus player. I'd call it an indirect sequel, the same way Quake III Arena isn't a sequel to Quake III per say.

Overall I don't have an issue with a sequel if it's good. However sometimes sequels are not. Deus Ex Invisible War for example was a terrible sequel. System Shock 2 was a great one. Just off the top of my head there. When a sequel builds on what went before, improves it, adds something good it's great. When it's an attempt to just cash in for example it annoys the hell out of me as it usually ends up being terrible.

All in all if the sequels are good I'm all for it.

[xyzyxx]

Let me see, is multiwinia technically a sequel? In a way I'd say no. There is no direct storyline per say. It's all about player versus player.

No one knows whether or not Multiwinia will have a story mode or any sort of tie to Darwinia's storyline. That's speculation.

[Xocrates]

Also, zanzer7, I played Worms 4 again today (incidentally the pic in your post is from that game, not Worms 3D). That was the first proper sequel, Worms 3D was awful - and I think you don't count Forts Under Siege because it's not the standard Worms gameplay, other than that it was a good game.

Jelco

Actually I bought Worms 4 last week on discount (although I also have Worms 3D). And I have to agree that Worms 4 is pretty decent, with many improvements over Worms 3D, unfortunately I fear it has less usable content (although it vastly improved of the carry over one).

[elexis]

Worms 4 is pretty good to start with, but I got bored to snores pretty quickly.

Also, has anyone here played Crysis? Great concept, great gamepley, awessome storyline EXCEPT they left a monster cliffhange, the cliffhanger to end all cliffhangers, at the end.
I was so *censored* off by the ending which tells you absolutely nothing that if they ever get around to releasing a "sequal", I will probably never buy it. Most of my friends are with me on this.

Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

There is one type of "sequal" that hasn't been mentioned, "Platinum editions". Examples would be Need for Speed: Most Wanted - Black Edition and, more recently, Command and Conqueror 3 - Kane Edition. These really drive me up the wall. There like expansion packs where they ran out of ideas, so they call it a Platinum Edition and sell it for 20% more, even though it only adds 3 new things. I hate them.

[desktopsimmer]

Let me see, is multiwinia technically a sequel? In a way I'd say no. There is no direct storyline per say. It's all about player versus player.

No one knows whether or not Multiwinia will have a story mode or any sort of tie to Darwinia's storyline. That's speculation.

It's going to be after darwinia, as our little friends have become "children of war". Hmm. I have a feeling that could Multiwinia be a bridge between darwinia and Subversion. After the Wars of multiwinia, the darwinians find peace and realise that war is bad and try to 'correct' humans from having war, or go after the virus creator(s) in large cities. Idle speculation, or random guess

[ewanm]

Also, has anyone here played Crysis? Great concept, great gamepley, awessome storyline EXCEPT they left a monster cliffhange, the cliffhanger to end all cliffhangers, at the end.
I was so *censored* off by the ending which tells you absolutely nothing that if they ever get around to releasing a "sequal", I will probably never buy it. Most of my friends are with me on this.

Some of us like Crysis, it's got multiplayer too, and the sequel is already named, Crysis Warhead and release announced for fall 08...

[Montyphy]

Also, has anyone here played Crysis? Great concept, great gamepley, awessome storyline EXCEPT they left a monster cliffhange, the cliffhanger to end all cliffhangers, at the end.
I was so *censored* off by the ending which tells you absolutely nothing that if they ever get around to releasing a "sequal", I will probably never buy it. Most of my friends are with me on this.

Some of us like Crysis, it's got multiplayer too, and the sequel is already named, Crysis Warhead and release announced for fall 08...

Isn't Crysis Warhead a standalone expansion rather than the second game of the planned trilogy?