Originally Posted by RedDevil
Ending the franchises past the 2nd title...? Fuck no, what would happen to Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Tekken, Street Fighter, Virtua Fighter, Ninja Gaiden, among bucketloads of other titles that have been succeeding with their titles since the second title. (best example is probably Final Fantasy)
There's nothing wrong with seeing what a game has wrong and trying to fix it with a sequel. I mean, look at the sports games series that come out each year! FIFA 10 is almost coming out, so is Pro Evolution Soccer 2010. Madden NFL 2010, NBA Live 10, among lots of other games.
Now, if a game is polished (by that I mean bug ridden, and enjoyable), such as Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, you should either give the fans a new sequel which lives up to the original, or just go for something completely different, which they did with the earlier games, (Prince of Persia to Prince of Persia 3D, completely changing the gameplay) because there wasn't that much content to polish. (Remember, games were smaller back then, and probably less bugged. Less data, less mistakes can be made, I'd think.)
The problem is not all developers do that. A lot just make the sequel to leech out more money with the same game with more features or different levels of the same theme.
I personally started hating the Halo series as soon as the second one came about because one try on it told me that it was the same thing repackaged with a few extra tidbits. It may maintain a loyal fanbase, but some players want a new experience, or at least a new storyline, to make the games interesting and not just varying degrees of copy paste.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Originally Posted by OrAclE
The problem is not all developers do that. A lot just make the sequel to leech out more money with the same game with more features or different levels of the same theme.
I personally started hating the Halo series as soon as the second one came about because one try on it told me that it was the same thing repackaged with a few extra tidbits. It may maintain a loyal fanbase, but some players want a new experience, or at least a new storyline, to make the games interesting and not just varying degrees of copy paste.
Exactly what I mean, and it's the loyal fans that keep buying it, that causes the companies to believe that they can keep milking franchises.
Originally Posted by OrAclE
The problem is not all developers do that. A lot just make the sequel to leech out more money with the same game with more features or different levels of the same theme.
I personally started hating the Halo series as soon as the second one came about because one try on it told me that it was the same thing repackaged with a few extra tidbits. It may maintain a loyal fanbase, but some players want a new experience, or at least a new storyline, to make the games interesting and not just varying degrees of copy paste.
well, I agree that halo 2 storyline doesn't change but the multiplayer paid up for that. try saying that to the millions people still logging in to halo 2. Changing the gameplay and storyline can also really shit-it-fy a series. Take a look at the Sonic series, beloved, simple, fun. then they added new characters, storylines, gameplay and he has become a living joke. Fortunately
they are making a new HD 2D sonic. Will it be good? only time will tell.
speaking of changing gameplay, look at mario. sure the gameplay might be a little different, but it's still all the same. The storyline is kept easy and sweet and it keeps selling like a bazillion copies, Same with the Legend Of Zelda series. they just gave him a new look and sent him on his way. the games rock, but it's the same format just with new abilities.
Games are hard to make and harder to please the audience with. It's not all that simple.
My seniority means you should probably just agree with everything I say
Well, those games are very different. Put it this way, Mario, Sonic, and The Legend of Zelda were all meant to be played with that kind of standard. They're classics, and so they shouldn't be changed too much. You see, a classic shouldn't be changed, because like you said, it could become complete and utter s***.
Now, that being said, 3D games and the like... You know, CoD4 etc., they're meant to raise the bar, or par. When I look for games, I look for the ones that either A) Seem the most realistic in gameplay, or functionality (B) Have a good multiplayer feature, and (C) can be played through more than once without an incredible onslaught of boredom.
Now, that being said, 3D games and the like... You know, CoD4 etc., they're meant to raise the bar, or par. When I look for games, I look for the ones that either A) Seem the most realistic in gameplay, or functionality (B) Have a good multiplayer feature, and (C) can be played through more than once without an incredible onslaught of boredom.
those are some interesting standards. I don't come with that problem of bad multiplayer and boredom because I myself like strategy games like supreme commander or starcraft.
I don't really car for the games to be realistic because, they're games. They are not meant to be realistic. Realistic games are called simulators, which are still, loads of fun to play.
I don't really car for the games to be realistic because, they're games. They are not meant to be realistic. Realistic games are called simulators, which are still, loads of fun to play.
My seniority means you should probably just agree with everything I say