Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
More sequels please
Comments
-
-
Ah, good stuff!ShadowHearth wrote: »YesI did and I loved them.
Yea, the back story to the Ishimura would have been my first port of call for another Dead Space game but based on how that went down in Downfall, I'd wager it wouldn't really be able to pull off the creepy survival horror vibe.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
johnny_ultimate wrote: »Less sequels please. True, gameplay mechanics can be iterated and improved upon much easier than making a sequel to a purely narrative book or film, but the amount of once great games now wrapped up in endless franchising is depressing. Things like Resident Evil and Final Fantasy should just be put out of their misery and have the resources poured into developing new ideas without the weight of expectation around them. We should be more willing to see a franchise retire peacefully, rather than die slowly in an assault of irrelevance and saturation, and be satisfied with what we did get (after all, there's probably more deeply disappointing sequels than completely satisfying ones). Not that that's ever going to happen given the financial viability of half-hearted yearly updates and the like.
Still, there are some games out there that do have potential for a revisit. Mirror's Edge is indeed a good example. The first felt like a prototype or draft - the mechanics were there, but the level design wasn't. Something like that probably deserves the opportunity to build upon the foundations established and the potential realised.
Grumpypants wrote: »A trilogy is about the right length for any story to be told and very often the second and third games are much better. With most games taking a min of 2 years, that ends up being 3 games in 6 years. That's fine, it's when they start franchising it in to parts 6-7 or 8 things get silly.
A trilogy works very well for a lot of stories (Mass Effect comes to mind) but it's not necessarily the "right" length and it's usually best when actually planned as a trilogy from the start with a proper over-arching plot imo.Resi really started losing it after 3
Resident Evil 4 is widely regarded as the best one in the franchise
It was sort of a case of a sequel done right by completely revamping the games. Shame it was then also buried with the next instalment but hey, that's what sequels are for! :pac:ShadowHearth wrote: »A lot of new IPs come out, which had great new and fresh mechanics, but those are not safe from flows too. Sequel is always a chance to polish out shortcomings and improve new mechanics. Just because some franchises are milked to feck, does not mean sequel is a bad thing..
But you can do that without needing to drag out sequels. It's absolutely possible to polish up game mechanics and attach them to a new IP that is similar but not a sequel. And no, a sequel doesn't equate to horribleness but there's a huge chance of a franchise getting milked with mediocre games. I can't think of too many franchises that haven't been milked. I thought Metal Gear Solid knew when to stop, same with God of War and Mass Effect (which is getting another last I heard). Naughty Dog were good enough to finish with Uncharted at 3 games.ShadowHearth wrote: »I am not saying I would not like to see New IPs, I am saying that there is no need to bury good universes.
Feck it, might as well scrap Starwars IP. How many sequals and spin offs we can have of that...
The problem is that you can't really have it both ways. The more resources that goes into sequels, the less that goes into new IPs. There just aren't enough people making games to make loads of both, nor do customers have the time and money. There's usually a balance but the sequels tend to get far more in the real world. Star Wars is a perfect example of a franchise gone completely off the rails for financial purposes. The first one came out 40 years ago and based on the fact that it was just called "Star Wars" with no episode number or subtitle, seems to have been planned as a single film. Despite George Lucas seeming like a hopeful and talented young director at the time, he's directed nothing but Star Wars since.Mal-Adjusted wrote: »Yearly updates tend to be mostly the same with only little improvements. Just look at the COD and Fifa games of the past few years. There's also the risk of over saturating the market and jading the consumers.
This seems to happen with some franchises but I'm sure when devs/publishers see the likes of COD breaking records for years they tend to think they can do it too. In fairness to FIFA, that is something where the age will show every year since the players will be out of date and such, even though there is no reason they couldn't just release it as a DLC each year with new players if it wasn't such a reliable seller.
Generally, I wish the industry would cut down on sequels. Not that I want video games to be like films but I wish it would take a leaf out of that industry's ability to put out mostly single-iteration franchises that don't milk the success of the first for years after. Sure, keep some long-running series for fun, just not where literally the majority of games are sequels. I know this won't happen though because as someone once pointed out to me, the publishers look at franchises the way most people look at brands. Once they have good brand recognition, they tend to do a lot better and sure enough, most sequels to popular games do better than the originals. I just wish the branding was around the people who make the game rather than the game itself. It would be nice to have more reliable companies like Valve where you know their new game will be good from reputation or game directors who constantly produce solid games.
There are some sequels done really well imo though. Bioshock Infinite took bits of the original's concept and formed something completely new from it. Half Life's story changed massively from 1 to 2. I tend to like Zelda for only putting out 1 or just about 2 full games per life cycle. Fallout 3 was also a great way of reviving and reinventing an old franchise imo.
Just my two cents anyway.0 -
-
-
RE4 is the one and only largely applauded 'let's go 3D action over the shoulder' of the series.
I think you'll find that calling RE4 the best would spark a lot of people off into a debate about the original being the best, and them being squashed by those who preferred RE2
I really liked RE4, even if they completely did away with the Survival Horror that sucked me into the series in the first place, and it was a commercial success despite it making a rift between the newcomers loving the action side of it and those who want to revisit the scary survival puzzlers that are the old REs - But it's most definitely not the best of the series and I'm sure a lot of people will agree with that, unless you purely weight it down to sales figures. It does however prove the point that a good sequel does not have to be a remastering or repackaging of an already done game and just improving it's mechanics, writing, characters or whathaveyou.
Seemed like a big gamble and it paid off for Capcom - Just a shame they butchered it from then on looking to replicate the sales by just graphically improving what they had just done in RE4 and churning out two more with little charm, some bells, whistles, bigger graphics and bugger all else in the name of sale-desire.
Well critically as well, Resident Evil 4 is the highest-rated one in the series. I'm not just saying it's "the best" though because I know that's pretty controversial, I'm just saying that a lot of people do think it's the best. I don't think it completely did away with survival horror (it was still pretty scary to me and it had survival horror tropes like scarce ammo and health), even if it's not as much of a horror game as the fixed-camera ones.
It is a shame they ruined it though. I had no love for Resident Evil 5 (co-op is a surefire way to kill any semblance of horror in a game) and it sounds like 6 wasn't good at all.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement