default header


Sequel: The Videogame

Moderator: JC Denton

Sequel: The Videogame

Unread postby icycalm » 09 Jul 2009 19:18

Sean Maelstrom wrote:There is a fascinating correlation that every single time a game series becomes a ‘franchise’, it enters decline. I try to think of exceptions, but I cannot. ... -industry/

HINT: That's because you know fuck-all about videogames, in addition to being dumb as a rock. Not to mention a liar, since you make no effort to provide evidence for this "fascinating correlation" you speak of.

His analysis is fantastically weak. I would bet good money that all the big-name games he namedrops (the Ultimas, the Wing Commanders, the Civs, etc.), all of which were indeed, and still are fantastic games, he has never really played. Because if he HAD played them, as I have, and on day one no less (which makes a huge difference to playing them twenty years later...), there's no way he would be spouting all this nonsense. There's simply no way.
User avatar
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 27 Feb 2013 00:24

CliffyB on sequels: ... th-sequels

Cliff Bleszinski wrote:The Problem with Sequels

Here’s the problem with video game sequels, as opposed to linear/film ones.

In a game, the users are used to the cadence of the experience. However airtight each game mechanic is. They are, quite literally, learning a new “language” with each new game that they’ve never laid their hands on before. (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.)

In a sense, if they like the game, they’re experiencing what is most likely the mental equivalent of falling in love while under duress. They’re discovering a whole new world of mechanics, characters, sounds, musical themes. If they love what they’re interacting with then that love runs EXTREMELY deep and is a very powerful thing. Think about your first visit to Rapture, or the Mushroom Kingdom, or Hyrule.

Now, remember, that a great video game often takes years to produce. So the time between your first experience with the original and the long awaited sequel can feel like forever. You read every preview. You salivate over every screenshot. You hear scary rumors, about how character X may die, or weapon Y may fire differently, but you attempt to have faith in the developer. (Now, imagine the pressure that the folks at 343 had taking over the reigns of the Halo franchise from Bungie…no pressure.)

I like to cite the example from the TV show “The Sopranos” now about Tony’s mother and her relationship with Tony’s dad. By all accounts, Tony’s father was a bad man, a criminal who, like Tony, wasn’t a very good husband and father. However, upon watching the first two seasons of that show you see Tony’s mother Livia as she recalls her relationship with the guy as if he was perfect. “He was a saint.”

No, he wasn’t a saint, you’re just remembering the highs. It’s the same reason why one of the most powerful spam/malware attractors on the Internet are “What’s your ex doing now?” Because when you break up with someone you romanticize the highs, the sweet sweet moments when you fell for that person, not the lows, the horrid moments when you knew this person wasn’t right for you.

Now, by all accounts, a sequel is usually a more refined experience. I’m going to let you in on a little development secret. The first features to often go into a sequel are the ones that we cut out of the first one. Shocking, I know, but towards the end of a development cycle a good producer knows to keep cutting in order to get the core of the title out the door. (Remember, this is a business.)

However, a refined experience isn’t always what the user wants. Sometimes they loved everything about that first game, the warts and all. Halo fans loved their overpowered pistol. Smoothing that out seemed to enrage them. Gears fans loved their overpowered shotgun. Quake 1 fans loved the One Rocket Launcher to Rule Them All. Then, in the sequel, when you take the balance to the virtual forge and iron out the impurities something can be lost.

(It’s the same problem that Top Gear has had with Lamborghini since Audi bought them.)

Then, we ultimately get to the sequel conundrum that I’ve mentioned in interviews before.

HARDCORE USERS claim they want the SAME EXACT GAME, only with upgraded graphics. Never mind the fact that one of the things they loved about the original was the clarity of experience, the clean, simple lines, the lack of business in the environment. Ignore the fact that you could have done that with some more DLC to keep their experience new and fresh. (That’s “nickel and diming” them.)

THE PRESS’s #1 question to any developer? “What’s new?” Their #2 question? “What’s changed?” And wait for it, because #3 is coming “How are you going to keep fans of the original happy?”

By and large these are conflicting goals. Making a sequel is an attempt to balance all of that.

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

And then if you change it too much the hardcore will claim “you ruined it!” while the press might just give you accolades for a bold, fresh take.

That, my friends, is the sequel conundrum.

All he seems to care about is how to balance whom to please, and that's why the article is utterly forgettable. The problem of theory is how to IMPROVE the thing you are making, end of story. If you are not writing about that, you are not writing theory. Hell, you are not even writing criticism. Maybe you are writing a business study or journalism, but not theory.

Someone with a tumblr account should copy-paste the above paragraph for him and add a link to my sequel article as well. And maybe the mini-gaming and complexity ones. Because that's what he needs to understand, that the only thing to care about when making a sequel is COMPLEXITY UP, everything else is bad game design.
User avatar
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 04 Oct 2017 04:08

sems4arsenal wrote:Racing game reviews are a bit useless

I've been noticing this for a while, but it has become more evident lately.

I have a beef with lots of reviews for racing titles. My main issue lies with the average reviewer's credentials. Sure the average reviewer can properly judge stuff like: the UI, the visuals, the loading times, etc. However, the gameplay part (driving physics) is something a lot of reviewers get wrong.

Take FM7 for example. One preview (from Gamespot IIRC) likened the physics to that of Driveclub (which is an arcade racer). Another reviewer mentioned that is more realistic than PCARS 2 (it isn't). Most of these reviewers don't drive various cars in real life on actual tracks -- which is arguably the best way to judge the physics of a racing game.

The discrepancies don't end there. PCARS 2 which has so many bugs that it is recommended to not play the career and/or have lots of car setups gets a 9.2 from IGN while Eurogamer don't recommend it.

It's not just sim or simcade racers either. NFS 2015, a game that had some of the worst driving physics off all time, got 7s and 8s from major outlets (for an almost unplayable game).

There is also the lazy assumptions like: GT has the best driving physics (it doesn't) and stuff like a game doesn't have a soul (no idea what that means)

I really don't see the point of paying attention to the reviews of racing games currently. I just find most of them so lacking in effort that I just only read impressions from gamers on sites like GAF.

It's the same complaints people have in other highly evolved genres: Journalists are casual players, and casual players can't properly evaluate anything with depth because they lack a frame of reference. The only reason this guy is noticing it only now is because HE is a casual reader who lacks a frame of reference in reading proper reviews.
User avatar
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Return to Theory