Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PlayStation (Games) Entertainment Games

Unlike Movie-Goers, Gamers Love Sequels? 97

Posted by simoniker from the bring-it-on dept.
Thanks to EvilAvatar for pointing to a Seattle Post-Intelligencer article discussing how gaming sequels tower above most movie sequels in terms of desirability and quality. The piece argues of movies: "Sequels suck, right? For every 'Godfather 2' and 'Aliens' there are hundreds of horrendous rehashes clogging the video store shelves. Hollywood wants your money; quality control be damned", before contrasting them with games: "Fans chomp at the bit for a few screenshots from the next installment of beloved games such as 'Half-Life' and 'Halo.' When the games arrive they rarely disappoint. Gaming franchises get better and better while their celluloid cousins go straight to video." Valve's Gabe Newell also comments on feedback for sequels: "We are super-involved in the community that has sprung up around our games. Whether through e-mail, the forums, the fan sites, or calling my house at 3 a.m. in the morning, we have a pretty good idea what they are thinking. And it absolutely factors into our decisions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Unlike Movie-Goers, Gamers Love Sequels? More

Unlike Movie-Goers, Gamers Love Sequels?

Comments Filter:

  • "Aliens" WAS a weak sequel (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @04:02PM (#9044813)
    "Aliens" (Alien 2) was one of those weak sequels. The first one was a masterpiece of horror and the Giger set design really sets it apart. Compared to this, the second one was a pallid echo that turned into a rehash of "Terminator" at the end. Based on "Aliens", I steered totally clear of the 3rd and 4th movies.

  • Yup totally true (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nocomment ( 239368 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @04:04PM (#9044840) Homepage Journal
    I considered the matrix 2 and 3, as well the star wars prequels to be borderline blasphemous. All the while I'm waiting for the next Legend of Zelda to be released...I'm just finishing up the windwaker now. This will make me sad when the game ends...what will I get?
    • The reason for this should be obvious: 1. Games are expensive, and therefore have a higher requirement of consumer satisfaction. 2. Game sequels are competing directly with the previous versions.

      You can still buy HALO (or keep playing it if you already own it), and it will still be the same experience it was when it was new. In order to get you to shell out $50 - $60 for HALO II, the folks at Bungie and Microsoft need to make a game that is not only new and better, but enough better to make you want to

  • The first two are usually very similar, the third is something entirely different/better.

  • That's largely relative (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, 2004 @04:05PM (#9044846)
    I think first of all it depends entirely on the sequel in question.

    Personally, however, I really do not like sequels at all. Unless the studio in question can create a unique addition to the franchise instead of more of the same, I will always shy away from repeated outings under a single title. If I detect that the developer or publisher is being cheap and trying to cash in, they can kiss my money good bye

    Like I said at first though, depends on what it is; "Tomb Raider" (and the more recent addition: "Hitman" series) being the worst case scenario, while, say Halflife 2, which is obviously an honest attempt to reach new heights, is an example of a sequel I might buy (too bad about the steam technology).

    • huh? with hitman you at least have gotten the sequels.

      with halflife 2 you can't really say jack about it since the game isn't out yet, so far it has been an honest attempt at sucking budget and lying about the state of the game.

      with games however, often it's incremental additions to a game - with movies it's entirely new movie every time, you can't just take the best scenes from earlier films.

      though, how nobody has mentioned Ultima's? they have an ongoing repetative story as well.

      • Re:That's largely relative (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Goldberg's Pants ( 139800 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @06:35PM (#9046441) Journal
        I hate sequels in forms of entertainment. It shows a dirth of creativity and originality. I couldn't care less about Half Life 2. Just like I don't care about Doom 3. Been there, done that. How about having some original ideas instead of just churning out more of the same?

        Say what you will, when you get right down to it, Half Life 2 is a first person shooter with a good story, and it's the sequel to a first person shooter with a good story.

        This is why I'm rapidly losing interest in games. I've been a gamer for over 20 years now... But I'm just losing interest when all that's coming down the pike is more of the same. Don't get me wrong, the games aren't BAD... But when you get fed apples all the time, you really long for an orange or too...
        • You're way too pesimistic: if these games don't impress you, then what COULD? Both Doom3 and HL2 promise not just prettier graphics, but stories and interactivity being integrated into the game like never before. How can you "been there, done that" when these games are both going to be such radical departures from the pervious games as to leave them in the dust? HL2 will feature minor connections to the old story, but mostly a very new locale with interactive characters and an totally in game story more
            • Ha ha, so funny to repeat the same joke that 10 year olds repeat over and over about id. I agree that their last couple of games (basically the whole Quake series) were basically just mediocre as games. I'm just saying that id sounds like they've acknowledged this, and want to finally do better. I have high hopes that they've learned a lot about game design: especially from Half-Life. And if you've played the alpha, you'll see that it looks to be the case: a game full of creepy events rather than pointl
          • if these games don't impress you, then what COULD?

            A writer.

            Both Doom3 and HL2 promise not just prettier graphics, but stories and interactivity being integrated into the game like never before. How can you "been there, done that" when these games are both going to be such radical departures from the pervious games as to leave them in the dust?

            Because they aren't radical departures. It's the same game as Castle Wolfenstein with better graphics. It's boring.

            then maybe you just don't like FPSes peri
            • A writer.

              id hired a sci-fi writer for Doom3. Valve has a full-timer writer as well for HL2.

              Because they aren't radical departures. It's the same game as Castle Wolfenstein with better graphics. It's boring.

              Look, I'm not asking you to buy into this before the game come out and are reviewed, but at least acknowledge that both promise to uniquely integrate the story into the game itself like nothing before. And both games promise to have REAL stories this times, though HL2 far moreso than Doom3. Bo
            • After 173 sequels, maybe people are tired of playing the same game.
              But then again, may be they aren't...

              Show people a game with a moral dilemma, or a moment of real drama, or a game that might make someone cry.
              I would honestly suggest you check out Kana - Little Sister [mobygames.com]. While on the surface it appears to be a hentai game about incest, it actually has the best story I ever saw in a game. It has moral dillema (a couple of them), it has a moment of real drama (a few of them too) and it made a lot of people
    • Whatever, steam is great! Like any software, it was buggy when first coming out, and they went final too soon, but right now it's pretty damn sweet, with-auto, while you sleep, updates, and lots of great new features. The friends network is still down a lot, but it's a cool ingame feature too. Because of steam, I'll have HL2 the second it comes out, already installed on my computer.

  • Spot on...... (Score:4, Funny)

    by MrIrwin ( 761231 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @04:10PM (#9044902) Journal
    Now, where can I get Pong 101, the final brain death.

  • Yes, they do (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lightspawn ( 155347 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @04:11PM (#9044909) Homepage
    When you've got the first game, a lot of the effort can be reused for the sequel - especially the engine and graphics / sound. You've read reviews of the first title and got feedback, so you know exactly what people liked and what they hated. Even just fixing a few hundred lines of code (say, changing the way the player chooses the active weapon) can make the game dramatically better. And it's probably a good game, if a sequel is considered. You know what you need to do to make it at least as good as the first one, and you probably will.

    With a movie, you want the same characters in a different setting, with the same feel and a different plot twist. You want it fresh enough so that viewers aren't bored. You can't let them carry over their saved games from the first title.

    Bottom line: sequels make more sense for media that relies far more on technology than on artistic merit.

  • Are the games "sequels" as such? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @04:13PM (#9044931)
    I don't consider the games to be "sequels" in the same way movies are: The games are more like "new improved" versions of the old. (Whether they do improve things is another topic).

    You are probably going to buy Halo 2 because you enjoyed Halo 1 and are expecting a better version of "more of the same". In contrast, you don't go to "Batman 5" expecting a version of "Batman 1" to see the same battle between Bats and the Joker with the latest new effects added that they didn't have in 1989.

    • I've only ever bought two sequels.

      Championship Manager: The new versions added so much new stuff it was tough to resist.

      Warcraft 3: Never bought the first two.

      Well, there's Myth 2, but I was introduced to that via a free review copy so didn't technically buy it.

      The worst case of "sequelitis" is EA Sports. The same game every year, occasionally with more than an updated roster.

      Triva fans: Did you know that the voice that says "It's in the game" is David Hayter, writer of the X-Men movies, and voice of S
    • I think it's just the opposite. Game sequels generally ground the game in some familar elements, but these days they almost always try adding major new gameplay elements that are more than just "more of the same." In part this is because the technology advances always allow more interesting features to be added, but it's also because designers know they have to deliver new gameplay to keep gamers from switching to a different liscence.
    • We usually judge games on story, graphics and gameplay. Story in most games is quite basic, even in Half-Life it's not the story that is important (you can buy tons of pulp sci-fi with better story), it's how it is integrated with gameplay. Graphics dramatically improve every year because games still have not reached the ultimate target (real world). Movies, on the other hand, had nearly perfect graphics 50 years ago and you don't have any gameplay there. Acting is also constant - actors today don't play mu

  • VG Sequels (Score:4, Insightful)

    by swat_r2 ( 586705 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @04:18PM (#9044973)
    Sequels are a great way for developers to take a great existing game and make it even greater - as long as the game itself evolves and doesn't feel like an expansion pack ie. GTA:VC, Advance Wars 2. A sequel needs to bring a lot more to the table than just more missions, and it must fix the most common complaints/bugs from the previous game.

  • oh yeah! (Score:1, Funny)

    by DeusExMalex ( 776652 )
    i can't wait for duke nukem: forever...
  • The huge difference between movie & game sequels is that, for the most part, gamers will accept (and very often WANT) basically more-of-the-same, often with simple graphical or other updates. Myself included.

    Take a look at these sequels. They were very similar to their predesessors, with graphical updates or other updates and changes that keep it very similar in overall feel to the winning original's formula. And in doing so, they were hugely fun and entertaining:

    Doom 2

    Madden Football series (and most other "annual" sports games)

    Mortal Kombat 2,3

    Warcraft II

    Commander Keen games

    King's Quest games

    Battlefield: Vietnam

    Super Mario Bros to SMB: The Lost Levels ("SMB2" in japan - almost identical game but new maps)

    • There's a flipside to this. Some games are changed drastically in the sequel and the fanbase evaporates and/or complains very loudly. For example, Unreal Tournament 2003 didn't go over well because most UT players wanted UT with updated graphics. I know I did.

      You'd think they'd learn. Don't use sequels just to slap a high-selling name on something that isn't proven. It's the same problem Hollywood has. They raise expectations by namedropping, then let the fans down by making something inferior or just plai
    • Many of the popular gaming sequels are more like updates than true sequels, only with updated technology and gameplay tweaks. And even the ones that are actual sequels benefit from not only the better graphics and computing horspower but also such things as improved interfaces. To make a Hollywood analogy you'd have to have Star Wars made in 1908, and then again with a tweaked storyline with sound in 1932, and then in colour in 1964, and then with CGI in 1996. But still be Star Wars.
    • The Battlefield series never even pretended to *have* a story, other than the fact that the levels were based on real-life battlefields. So BF:V is not really a sequel.

      der Joachim
    • Your use of the word "formula" is interesting, as movies that are primarily focused on a "formula" (and I mean in a positive way) are the ones that are most likely to have a good sequels of the sort games have. The best example would be the James Bond series: we don't want anything stunning or new from these movies, because they have a winning, well-honed formula (read: gameplay). We'll accept a new James Bond movie every couple of years that may be very similar to its predecessor with minor technological

  • Programming and Movie making is different (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TechniMyoko ( 670009 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @04:57PM (#9045454) Homepage
    When you make a sequal to a program, you can take all the original code and either leave it, or make it better (no programmer purpously makes it worse) (any effing trolls even think of suggesting MS does can go impale themselves on an iron poker) thus making the minimum quality the same as the original. Movie making, you have to start from scratch on the sequal for the story (games in general dont require a story to be good, coughMiyamoto) So the quality can go down unlike programs/games

  • Interactivity vs novelty (Score:5, Insightful)

    by perlchild ( 582235 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @05:06PM (#9045548)
    In an interactive situation(like a game), being in a familiar setting/knowing familiar characters/objects is an advantage, as it reinforces the "I can do this" feeling, important as you start a game. This is especially visible in games with online communities, where each player can build something, either his reputation(most combat games), or some sort of character(Diablo II), or a collection of objects(The Sims and similar games).

    Most sequels/expansion packs allow you to improve what you've already built. And since expansion packs reuse game engines, your investment in the expansion usually comes either a little cheaper(you pay less for an expansion) or you get more game for your money(you get the game, AND the expansion, which is less than two games, usually)
    Watching a movie isn't a "challenge" except for the odd movie about investigation(where the plot is the challenge, but your actions aren't as much your responsability as in a game(you connect plot elements you're given, but you can't see them in more detail, etc...), and your investment is always a full movie ticket... You don't get a "frequent movie fan" type ticket that costs less if you went to see the other movie. Games also get played longer(not many people still go to a movie that came out the time diablo ii was released, yet the online us east item trading is still doing brisk business)

    So basically, it's easier to make a quality game sequel from the point of view of the consumer(who gets value from owning two games) than from the producer(who gets a little bit less from an expansion than a truly new game, but also can find ways to invest less).
  • A scan through the thousands of postings on the "Half-Life 2" boards at www.gamefaqs.com reveals titles like: "that means im happy," "is it a hoax or is hl2 final almost here???" "Anger ... Rage ... Hate," "Very very VERY ANNOYING BUG!" and "I Feel Like Going Insane!!!!"

    Funny stuff. I can almost believe that Pong beat River City Ransom on their "best game ever" poll (not to mention that lamer from Shenmue beating Guybrush Threepwood in their "best character ever" poll some years ago).

    Rob

    P.S. I had to

  • They're all sequels you idiot! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Fucking every game that comes out anymore is a remake or a sequel. There's nothing TO anticipate except for sequels.

    Quite frankly it's annoying, and this gamer hasn't bought a video game in over two years and hasn't played one to completion since 1999.

    It's all recycled trite and if you're buying into it then it's your own damn fault.

  • It's more about the dearth of *good* video games (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Richard Jones ( 28382 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @05:44PM (#9046001) Homepage
    I reckon people avoid sequel movies because in general they're by a new director, and hence the style and substance will be quite different.

    I think the point with video games is that *most* of the time, sequels are produced by the same company / team. You can be fairly sure that if the first game was really good, then the follow-up will be good too.

    I think that if Valve decided to produce a game that wasn't called "half-life 2" but with the same gameplay emphasis, then people would be just as eager to play it.

  • Can't see forest through trees... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @06:20PM (#9046334)
    We don't like game sequels, we like good games.

    We don't hate movie sequels, we hate bad movies.

    When game sequels become nothing more than milking a cash-cow name, we won't like them.

    When movie sequels stop being nothing more than milking a cash-cow name, we'll like them.

    How much money do these people get paid to give us this "enlightenment?"
  • There is much variety in movies and little variety in games.

    Therefore, in movies, we wish to see something fresh, something new, and not the same shit we saw before.

    Contrariwise, in games we are happy to see the same successful thing we saw before, only brought up to date with the latest technology.

  • Worthless comparison (Score:5, Insightful)

    by borisbfurry ( 738057 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @06:41PM (#9046504)
    From the article:
    It would appear that the relatively small game development houses know something that the film industry giants don't.

    ...

    The Hollywood behemoths can't compete with the gaming company guerrillas because they've forgotten who pays their bills. Fans get a nod at test screenings, but the movie already has been made. The most that's going to happen is a new edit.

    Is the author honestly suggesting that movies be made with the same degree of consumer feedback as games? Movies are bad enough when the script has passed through five sets of hands who all think they know best. How could 500 or 5000 possibly be better?

    The author misses the point that the vast majority of community feedback on games is about gameplay, not plot or character development. I doubt many people on the WoW boards are upset because the Horde backstory isn't fleshed out enough.

    • Movies are bad enough when the script has passed through five sets of hands who all think they know best. How could 500 or 5000 possibly be better?
      May be some of the fans will be able to point out how lame the script is before it is turned into a movie? Nobody is giving customers creative freedom, neither in game developement, nor in movies, but it is always good to listen to the customer.

  • He speaks the truth (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jorkapp ( 684095 ) <jorkapp&hotmail,com> on Monday May 03, 2004 @06:44PM (#9046536)
    We are super-involved in the community that has sprung up around our games. Whether through e-mail, the forums, the fan sites, or calling my house at 3 a.m. in the morning...

    I have emailed Game several times, and recieved a reply almost every time (1 didnt get a reply). He's a really funny guy who delivers information straight out with a good amount of wit. Here's a sample:

    Me:
    I've noticed lately that you (read: Valve Software) are affiliating with 2 canadian based businesses (Softimage in Quebec and ATI in Ontario). Not to generate a conspiracy, but could this be a sign of things to come (Valve software moving to Canada?), or do canadians just kick ass with the technology playground?

    Gabe:
    Where do you think the G-Man is from?

    Not exactly the information I was seeking - but it made me laugh for a few minutes.

    As for calling him at 3am - Its on my todo list.
  • Personally, I like sequels, as long as it doesn't interfere with original. I'm a little worried about EverQuest II coming out for that reason -- I don't want it pulling away current EverQuest players, making the game less fun to play -- but I'm sure it'll end up like Asheron's Call and AC 2 in the long run.

    Besides that though, I look forward to sequels all the time, mainly to reexperience what I first got with the original. The major sequels on my list that I'm currently waiting for are: Half-Life 2, Doo

  • Games cost more (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Colazar ( 707548 )
    A game is a larger investment of time and money for the consumer, so you should expect that they would be less willing to take a chance on an unknown quantity. That has to be at least part of the equation. You just lose more from buying a bad game than from seeing a bad movie.

    Of course, it is arguable that a game sequel is really a "known quantity," but that's a different discussion...

  • Two exceptions (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @08:27PM (#9047353) Homepage
    Two pairs of works that are exceptions to the rule:
    • The original The Thing From Another World [imdb.com] and John Carpenter's The Thing [imdb.com]. The two movies tell essentially the same story, but they are very different from each other (and indeed the latter is usually classified as a remake or "reimagining" rather than a sequel). This is the current state of sequeling in games, where the sequel has to balance the right amounts of "familiar" and "evolutionary" even if everything about the games is totally different.
    • The games Marathon 2 and Marathon Infinity, from Bungie. The two games use exactly the same engine, which is rare among game sequels (and which is why I didn't start with Marathon 1), and share a great deal of content, but their experiences are quite different and each can stand on its own merits. This is the current state of sequeling in film- the underlying special effects technology is virtually unchanged between movies, but how it's used differentiates them.
  • Everytime this guy does an interview, HL2 goes back a month/Alternatly it's not done because all he does is give interviews.
  • In my opinion computer game sequels are almost always better and movie sequels are almost always worse.

    The reasons are obvious to anybody who's played computer games and watched movies for years. In the case of a computer game the developer receives feedback on the original game, gets feature requests, tweak requests, etc. and eventually uses this feedback to develop a second, even better game. Also don't forget that the developers are fans themselves so they want nothing more than to improve on their orig
  • ..and applied it to his movies. If he had included even a tenth of the things people wanted to see in the prequels, or thought they would see, or had speculated about...these movies would have been insanely incredible.

  • Wing Commander
    2 was basically the same as 1 so it didn't really get better just consistent 3 hower was the best game of the series, even without Mark Hamill. After that sequelitis set in big time. 4 was a let down, Armada rasised the bar back a little, all and all was little more than a blip.

    Diablo
    2 was awesome, but really just a very large expansion and extention of 1's concepts.

    Warcraft
    Just keeps getting better...

    C&C
    The first is still the best of course after the number of expansions I'm not sure

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close