Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

To Sequel or Not to Sequel? That is the Question.

SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,126
edited February 26 in News & Features Discussion

imageTo Sequel or Not to Sequel? That is the Question.

In video games the idea of creating a sequel means you pretty much kill off the original, right? That is unless you use some methodology which works to bring the characters, design, and world up to speed in a new version of the game which adds in a much-needed boost. Lately, games have relied on DLCs to make these updates, and they tend to do well. Recently, we saw a sequel announcement from the team at Red Hook for Darkest Dungeon 2. Here is why it went well.

Read the full story here



¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


Comments

  • PalebanePalebane Member RarePosts: 3,811
    edited February 26
    All things being equal, I prefer full-fleged expansions to sequels or dlc. I always forgo games with dlc until I can get a nice packaged goty deal. And sequels are hit and miss, so I stick to reviews even if its a title I’ve enjoyed in the past.

    Expansions can be bad too though. Cataclysm, Planes of Power, and NGE all spring to mind. Though that is subjective as well, with expansions there is no going back so if something doesn’t work you get stuck in a rut, like with BfA. Can they change direction even if they wanted to? History says no.

    Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.

  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 6,208
    "EQ2 remains a solid title, but never outshined its predecessor."

    EQ2 could have done a lot better if it had stayed true to Everquest. Instead it went rogue and did its own thing entirely.

    Which brings up the issue, how far can you deviate from the original? I would say not so far that you create something not even reminiscent of the original.

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • TamanousTamanous Member RarePosts: 2,997
    It depends on the game.

    For MMORPGs, sequels have historically, on average, been the beginning of the death spiral for the game. It goes against logic and reason to split and/or segregate your audience in a game that is built for an in game community.

    Nearly every old school MMORPG would have benefited more by re-engineering the original game (but no too soon) and expanding the original concept, than making sequels. I am not arguing that they would make more money vs their conversion to F2P over a select period of time. I am saying that the original game would still exist today, with it's smaller, yet MUCH more dedicated audience.

    Companies can only do this if they retain completely control over their IP and not forced into the venture capital model. Some seem to think that the original companies wouldn't stay afloat. This is false. Many would if every small indie company wasn't purchased by EA and Activision and dismantled. They purchased most of those indie companies when they were still in peak profit.

    Profit needs to be valued once again. Meeting projected increases in profit, by ANY means, is not sustainable. To argue that lean and niche specific indie companies can't profit, compared against a proven, unsustainable model that exists today, is rather obtuse.

    You stay sassy!

  • AeanderAeander Member LegendaryPosts: 4,996
    For MMOs, I would say that a sequel can only be justified by a desire to introduce new mechanics that cannot be done on the engine of the core game, or which would make the sequel different enough from the original game that it cannot justifiably be consolidated into the original (GW1 and GW2 are a good example of this, as both are true here). However, if there is a substantial difference of mechanics and design philosophy, the original game should also be maintained and updated (and this is where GW2 faltered.)

    For single player games, the question becomes one of story. If there is a story worth telling and it is substantial enough to not be consolidated into DLC, a sequel is justified. 
    blueturtle13
  • NorseGodNorseGod Member EpicPosts: 2,456
    Sequels are for console games.
    blueturtle13
    To talk about games without the censorship, check out https://www.reddit.com/r/MMORPG/
  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,894
    NorseGod said:
    Sequels are for console games.
    Like Diablo 2? Or Portal 2? or Age of Empires 2 or 3? 
    That surprises me to read someone thinks that.
    I think it depends on the game and the series. 
    Aeanderonelesslight

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • Grunt350Grunt350 Member UncommonPosts: 56
    This reminds me how I didn't care about dishonored 2 announcement.
  • CryomatrixCryomatrix Member EpicPosts: 2,777
    I thought the destiny 2 sequel was a clear money grab and wasn't needed at all. The game was already super shallow to begin with. 

    I also thought about this with Subnautica, they just came out with a sequel and I was wondering, how come they didn't just make it a DLC and the answer was obvious, based on their initial story, they couldn't have made a DLC and have the story work out. The sequel works out with the story much better. 

    Overall, I think with any DLC/sequel you will lose some players and gain some players, you just hope that you gain more than you lose. 

    I prefer DLC in most games as to not split the population. 

    I think a sequel may be better if you want to re-brand your game as the first one is sub-optimal (i.e. Mortal online). 

    I'd be super pissed if PoE came out with PoE 2 as there's absolutely no need to split the population. 
    Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix
    You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations. 
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 16,649
    I don't care if a developer does a sequel but NOT,like no way in hell the way they are doing it.

    Devs are using sequels as nothing more than fast easy cash grabs,the work was already done in the first version,all they do after is change a few stats ,add in a little bit of new art work and call it a new game.
    They are NOT new games,they are barely even good enough to be an add-on,they are simply reselling the same game TWICE and sometimes thrice.
    The most obvious in your face is recently Snail games,instead of just using a sequel they give the exact same game a new title ...sigh and they've done it 4x.

    Destiny 1>D2 should have been a 5-10 dollar add-on and nothing more but these devs/publishers,they know they have a ton of suckers and can pretty much pull off any scam they feel like.People complain,then soon the next one comes out,they buy that one too,oh not good enough,let's sell them some cash shop as well.

    Game business 101...99% of the time is build crap,sell crap all is good,next.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • KroxMalonKroxMalon Member UncommonPosts: 433
    For me it all depends on how closely the story ties in, it's definitely a nice touch when they transition some of your old data over to give the feel of continuation. Bungie did a good job with the legendary system but I couldn't help but feel D2 was unnecessary but I didn't look into the technical reasons for the change.

    This had made me wonder why there is no Warframe 2, I'm sure DE with all there knowledge would make an awesome sequel.
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,216
    I am starting to think that the best idea is to update the game graphically and just transfer the old players to the "new" game. That would get new players in for something like WoW but this is a perennial problem for which there is no real solution.

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • cameltosiscameltosis Member EpicPosts: 2,248
    The time for a sequel is when the current game (primarily it's engine) can no longer support what you want to do with the game OR when you need to move the story on in such a way that would make existing content redundant (e.g. you can't destroy the world in the story and still allow players to play the story before the destruction....too weird).

    A prime candidate for a sequel is LotRO in my opinion.

    First, the engine is dead. It was great in it's day but it's not aged well and all the game's mechanics have been butchered over the years. So, in order to improve the game and bring it up to date would just be a monumental effort, so much so that it would be better to spend that effort on a new game.

    Second, the story has reached a phase where the gameplay really needs to change. It's been a very linear game for most of it's life and players have had no impact on the game world. That's fine, thats the way the license holders wanted it. But, we've now reached Mordor, we've reached the end. The time of man has come!

    So, I think LotRO 2.0 would be a great move. Move away from the themepark design model and into a sandpark model, allowing players to join factions and shape the world in the 4th age. It can still be kept fairly carebear (i.e. no FFA pvp) and still have a pve focus with plenty of quests, but cut down on the bloat and increase player agency. It would fit with the lore and the existing story and wouldn't necessarily kill off existing LotRO - that could be thought of as a historical journey, whilst 2.0 can be *your* journey.

    blueturtle13
Sign In or Register to comment.