Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Creativity in Game Sequels 63

Posted by Zonk from the it-does-happen dept.
The New York Times (reg. required) has a look at two sequels that manage to recapture some creativity from the original games. Resident Evil 4 and Mercenaries aren't just knock off money makers, a refreshing note in a rehash heavy industry. From the article: "Capcom's invigorating leap into 2005 includes tossing out what had been the basic premise of the series, which centered around a manmade virus that destroyed Raccoon City."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Creativity in Game Sequels More

Creativity in Game Sequels

Comments Filter:

  • also (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pluke ( 801200 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @05:38PM (#11567349) Homepage
    see nintendo games over the last 20 years. Pumping out sequel after sequel but never resting on their laurels. It is not sequels that characterise stagnation in the industry, but tarting up old games, you hear me EA?
    • Quite possibly the worst example of this is sports games (Madden, The NHL/NBA/MLB YEAR line, etc.). Same game year in and year out (mostly) with major revisions/revamps happening only every few releases.

    • Re:also (Score:5, Interesting)

      by UWC ( 664779 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @05:50PM (#11567473)
      Though I'm a Nintendo fan, and the Gamecube was the first console of this generation that I owned, I was about to mention that I reluctantly disagreed with your assertion there.

      Until I realized that for the most part, it may be that there just aren't many core game types out there, and true innovation in gameplay is rare. What Nintendo manages to do is hold on to those core game types, making some changes and additions, and still keep them engaging and fun and at the same time technologically competitive with the games that get by on newness alone. And if you have a context (franchise, etc.) in which a particular game type works, there's not necessarily a reason to abandon it. The reuse of franchises allows them to refine the gameplay experience instead of having to worry about both creating a new brand and delivering good game mechanics.

      Granted, there are new and original games out there. Pikmin, for example, managed to make RTS-style gameplay playable on a console. And the gaming snobs' favorite this year, Katamari Damacy, is indeed unique and delivers both a world and gameplay experience unlike any other game.

      • Re:also (Score:3, Insightful)

        by snuf23 ( 182335 )
        "And if you have a context (franchise, etc.) in which a particular game type works, there's not necessarily a reason to abandon it."

        True. But if you never create new worlds and characters, you will never come up with a new Zelda or Mario. Pokemon almost single handedly rejuvenated the Gameboy market, not so much because the RPG was totally revolutionary, but because the new characters struck a chord with the players.
        In the case of products such as Star Fox adventures, wouldn't it have been better to intr

        • Re:also (Score:2)

          by UWC ( 664779 )
          Totally agreed. I guess I was just saying that sequels don't necessarily mean stagnation, even if the properties are as old as the Nintendo staples.
          • I agree with that too. I like seeing Mario and the gang in games. I just feel sometimes that Nintendo needs to strike a better balance between "upgrading" their existing franchises and introducing new characters and play styles. We need more Pikmin and maybe a little less Mario Tennis.

  • Sequels are *ALWAYS* less creative. No exceptions. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Simply because they have to be related somehow to the previous version, so by definition they cannot be as innovative and original as the first version in the first place, which--aux de counturiarie--had to be different from anything else that came before. Ergho, if anyone says that the sequel is more crea-/innova-tive than one is lieing, simple as that.

  • Does simply the name define the sequel? (Score:4, Informative)

    by SansTinfoilHat ( 759207 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @05:43PM (#11567394)
    Enemies that drop ammo and stores is not something that I would normally equate to a Resident Evil game. If they dropped Raccoon City AND they dropped most of the old play mechanics, what exactly is 'Resident Evil' to RE4 but the name?

    BTW, Mercenaries is not a sequel, so I don't even know why it is being discussed unless the thread really isn't about sequels and rather about interesting shifts in gameplay.
    • Yeah...what exactly was Mercs a sequel to?
    • They might be referring to Mech Warrior 4: Mercenaries, but I don't know because I won't register to read NYT articles.
    • If they dropped Raccoon City AND they dropped most of the old play mechanics, what exactly is 'Resident Evil' to RE4 but the name?

      An aggrivating control scheme which requires you to drive your character like an RC car.

      • An aggrivating control scheme which requires you to drive your character like an RC car.

        To me, that's what defines Resident Evil. I have the RE Remake, but I've never gotten very far into it before giving up due to the frustratingness of the controls.

        That said, I've heard that RE4 changes the control scheme. No idea how much better it is though. Anyone with the game want to comment?

        I'd love to see a Resident Evil game built off the Eternal Darkness engine. Eternal Darkness had a very RE like interface,
        • First, I'd like to tell off the people who have problems with RE's controls. They're not as difficult as everyone claims, and they're likely the best available with the cinematic camera angles used in the games (until RE 4).

          Anyway, I have RE4, and the controls are fantastic. They're pretty similar to the old ones, but much more action-oriented and faster to use. The aiming in particular is very natural, and all the times I've died, I've never felt it was the fault of the controls/camera. One of my only com
        • I griped to my son about the fact that you couldn't strafe in RE4, and he pointed out that if you could, the game would be far too easy to beat. Which, thinking about it, I guess is true. That certain amount of non-control makes things a little harder, and a little spookier. Similar to the earlier games, the very lack of control over view actually heightened the fear factor. I wish they could make a game where you moved naturally and could still be spooked, though.

    • Re:Does simply the name define the sequel? (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I emailed the daddypants@slashdot.org address before this story went live and informed them of exactly that point regarding Mercenaries. Looks like, as per usual, the Slashdot team treats its readers like a burden.
    • Mercenaries does run on the same engine as a previous Lucasarts game, Armed & Dangerous. Pretty funny too.

  • Reg-free link (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Pan T. Hose ( 707794 )
    Why does Slashdot always post those annoying "reg. required" links? Not everyone is willing to give up privacy, waste time and get spam just to read a stupid article. Here's a Google News link [google.com]. Enjoy.

  • Difficult To Come By (Score:4, Interesting)

    by White Roses ( 211207 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @06:05PM (#11567615)
    The gaming industry is increasingly motivated by profits for major conglomerates (the EA sports deal comes to mind), not even just little publisher shops anymore. In an environment like that, you have to have companies that are willing to use the profits from a major hit series to fund development on more groundbreaking items. Better yet, support a studio with a history of groundbreaking games (Bungie anyone?) and let them keep doing what they do best. Even then, what the masses want is what's going to fill the shelves in most cases. We're lucky to see any creativity at all sometimes, and creativity in a sequel, well, that's just unheard of in many cases. Scott McCloud [scottmccloud.com] wrote about this in the context of comics [scottmccloud.com]. Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com] covered some [penny-arcade.com] of [penny-arcade.com] this [penny-arcade.com] in [penny-arcade.com] a series a few years ago.
    • Bungie? Groud break? More like evolutionary. Their games aren't a terrible leap ahead of what is out there. Or what was out there.
      • If you're referring to Halo, then, well, OK, to some extent. But immersive, complex, and compelling storylines to match the pace and excitement of the game play is something that Bungie as a whole excels at. And Oni, for instance, is a phenomenal combination of FPS and fighter (a la Tekken), and a far cry from the Lara Croft of the time. The Marathon series is widely hailed as the gold standard for early FPS storylines, even if the gameplay was rather standard. Marathon had network play available, as we

  • I stopped reading... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03, 2005 @07:06PM (#11568061)
    ...when the article claimed that Resident Evil invented the survival horror genre.

    Resident Evil: third-person survival horror game, using polygon graphics on rendered backgrounds, where a lone character wanders around fighting zombies. Key scene that sticks in everyone's memory: the bit at the beginning where the dogs jump through the window. Published 1996.

    Alone in the Dark: third-person survival horror game, using polygon graphics on rendered backgrounds, where a lone character wanders around fighting zombies. Key scene that sticks in everyone's memory: the bit at the beginning where the dogs jump through the window. Published 1992.

    Question: which of the above was innovative?
    • Alone in the Dark may have been one of the first survival games to have come out (I played that game on the PC), but it came out at a time when the gaming population was small compared to the overal population.

      Resident Evil 1 came out in the Playstation era, with a much larger number of gamers. The game came at the right time, and it won the mindshare.

      There is a difference between who came first and who was able to get "on the map." Invention history has shown that being first does not always get you rem
    • How about Haunted Freaking House [atariage.com] for survival horror? Published in 1981! A game so freaking scary they were going to call it "Nightmare Manor" but that was just TOO scary!!

      Don't believe me? Check out the EVIL bat: spooky screen shots! [atariage.com] (possibly not safe for work, kids or elderly with weak hearts).

    • Alone in the Dark is a movie now.

      If you want true nightmare wake-up-sweating horror, go see that movie. It is that bad.

      The acting was bad, the plot was full of holes, the characters were pretty archetypical and dumb, and the music reeked. The creatures were cool, but in this movie, they were like a candle in a windstorm.

  • Sequel == Game by same publisher? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Osty ( 16825 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @11:49PM (#11569575)

    Since when is Mercenaries a sequel? The article calls it Pandemic Studios' [pandemicstudios.com] follow up to "its innovative strategy game Full Spectrum Warrior." Since when is a "follow-up" game a sequel? And what makes this a "follow-up", other than being developed by the same studio? Is Full Spectrum Warrior a follow-up to Pandemic's earlier games like Clone Wars [lucasarts.com] or Triple Play [easports.com] Does that mean Full Spectrum Warrior is a sequel to a baseball title? By that rationale, id's Doom 3 is a sequel to their previous title Quake 3 Arena. Does this seem silly to anybody else?

  • Not always (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @12:54AM (#11569827) Homepage
    Metroid Prime is the most radically changed sequel I can think of, except possibly Mario 64.
    • How so? I mean, Metroid Prime is a great game and all, but part of the reason folks were celebrating it when it was released was because it was so similar to previous Metroid games, and how the developers managed to transfer the basic gameplay of the series to 3D. Other than being transposed into the third dimension, it's not radically different from previous games.

      To be sure, the shift to 3D is a pretty big change, but it's hardly unprecedented (and therefore not particularly "radical"): Legend of Zelda,

  • I like something shiny new just as much as the next guy. But when i really enjoy a game, i don't mind if there's a couple of sequels that are pretty much the same thing.
    I guess it's because i play FPS games mostly. UT2004 is cool, but i still enjoy regular UT as well.

    Same with music. New music can be refreshing, but when i like some artists' music a lot, i'll probably like the next album as well, even if it doesn't have any shiny new innovative sound/songs

  • Sequel? Bring on the good ideas... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MiceHead ( 723398 ) * on Friday February 04, 2005 @05:02AM (#11570515) Homepage
    The notion that a game in development may one day spawn a sequel can have a positive effect on development of that game. Knowing that we don't have to fit absolutely everything into that initial game makes it easier to focus on providing a solid product without feeling that we're trashing our great ideas forever.

    By way of example, during development of Inago Rage [dejobaan.com], it was clear to us that players might enjoy a multiplayer mode. This is natural for an FPS, but in Inago, since players also create their own arenas, the idea of collaborative building made it doubly interesting. But it was not something we felt we could do in the time we had. A half-assed multiplayer compontent would disappoint players and diminish the single-player component. So, we didn't add it. What kept this from becoming a disappointment to us (enthusiasm counts for a lot in game development) was the knowledge that we could always add it as part of a sequel, an expansion, or even a version update.

    During the development of a game, there always comes a time when you lock down the features and put the pages of brilliant concepts and great player suggestions away. I think that some of the greatest elements in a sequel come about when developers are given the chance to implement ideas they were passionate about in the first game, but had to tuck away for later.
    ________________________________________________
    Inago Rage - A first-person shooter where you build and fly [dejobaan.com]

  • I'm surprised no one mentioned this game. I assume it's because it was released about the same time as Halo2, GTA:SA, Half-Life 2, WoW.

    I expected MGS3 to be a run-of-the-mill sequel. I was wrong. It's excellent. The enemy AI and gameplay have been vastly improved. The final boss battle scene is beautiful, and there's a boss battle that takes place over a huge area.

    On top of this, the game story is excellent. Seriously, check this game out.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close