[POLL] Are you a SEQUEL CONSERVATIVE?

[Eyestabber]

Much like other forms of media, games get sequels all the time. Some sequels are praised for improving its predecessor in every possible way like Civilization 4, Age of Empires 2, Jagged Alliance 2 and Shogun 2: Total war, while others just **** everything up and **** up a good franchise like Diablo 3, FEAR 2 and the biggest curse upon gaming of all time, Civilization V. The quality of a sequel seems to be an independent factor on how innovative it really is. Some sequels receive praise, despite not really adding much to the original, like Doom 2 while others fully revamp a formula AND succeed in doing so, like Warcraft 3 did when it became hero-centered. On the other end of the spectrum, I think "conservative" sequels, due to their very nature, are less likely to fail spectacularly, but more likely to lead to stagnation. The prime example being Call of Duty, but on a somewhat-higher-IQ front you have the Galactic Civilizations series, which is well known for its hardcore "change is bad, mkay" policy and basically reselling the same game over and over with a new coat of paint.

So how do you people feel like sequels should be primarily handled? Do you want developers to take risks or do you prefer certainty that your favorite game isn't getting gang raped by a new team?

Inb4 ******* ask for a fence sitting option: there isn't one. Be a man, make a choice and stick with it.

[orinEsque]

Why change what made a game a success to begin with? Expand the universe (without adding ****) using same tools, I'll play.

[Finarfin]

If the first game is already perfect in most regards, the only things I want from a Sequel are:
Continuation of the Story
New Weapons and Armors
Completely new areas, old areas revisited
New Companions
Quality of Life additions that the first game lacked and collected through feedback from players.

[asf]

Galciv is an interesting example, since first game was quite bland and boring, so they made an entire line of boring games.

I reckon it is always a gamble to change things. Sometimes the first game isnt that great to begin with and then it becomes better with changes, like the warcraft games. Of course, when the first game is already quite good, changing things likely end to poorer results, but you can get lucky I guess. Naturally this was about more civilized times, these days the quality of the people behind games dropped so much that any sequel with changes is guaranteed to be total garbage.

The few people with talent should start working on sequels without changes, though, instead of keeping whatever they are working on in perpetual early access, with infinite changes until they turn the entire thing into crap.

[Tangerine]

I don't trust gamedevs to make the same game, why would I trust them to innovate?

[DecadeRiptide]

Devs used to innovate and come up with new ideas but now it's all backwards. Each game is a stripped back watered down version of the previous one. In a lot of games you can't even break glass anymore by shooting it.

I also don't care much for games that don't improve over the previous and instead keep things exactly the same. I might still buy them if they're good but don't expect me to think of them as a masterpiece.

Devs should be innovating not serving the same slop or dishing out watered down sequels. When they do this it's obvious they're only in it for the money.

[methoxetamine]

This is kinda poetic

[Tweed]

More of the same, but better is always the best design philosophy. Naturally, this means that developers are always try to innovate, which means completely ruining their game.

[Tadeusz]

I want to see more content and improvements over existing mechanics and concepts in sequels, not something completely new. Good innovations exist but they are a gamble.

[Vaako]

Best solution to that is really being mod friendly. So the players can pick and choose what to improve. Take for example lockpicking in fallout4 they removed the option to force locks open in a ******* loot game where you have thousands of closed containers. That option was there in some of the earlier games I think.

[TKVNC]

If DA:2 was just a new story with the same mechanics (fundamentally) as DA:O, it would simply have been better than what we got.

It's a shame there was writing on the wall with Awakening, when they utterly raped Oghren's character.

The same goes for Mass Effect. It's also generally true for the Elder Scrolls.

Why do developers have to completely start new with every title, why not just fix the bugs, and improve graphics in line with new hardware. That's all it really takes.

[maidenhaver]

Option one. I'd want the genre to be the same, tone, the story to be congruous, but otherwise do whatever.

[Stack of Turtles]

Much like other forms of media, games get sequels all the time. Some sequels are praised for improving its predecessor in every possible way like Civilization 4, Age of Empires 2, Jagged Alliance 2 and Shogun 2: Total war, while others just **** everything up and **** up a good franchise like Diablo 3, FEAR 2 and the biggest curse upon gaming of all time, Civilization V. The quality of a sequel seems to be an independent factor on how innovative it really is. Some sequels receive praise, despite not really adding much to the original, like Doom 2 while others fully revamp a formula AND succeed in doing so, like Warcraft 3 did when it became hero-centered. On the other end of the spectrum, I think "conservative" sequels, due to their very nature, are less likely to fail spectacularly, but more likely to lead to stagnation. The prime example being Call of Duty, but on a somewhat-higher-IQ front you have the Galactic Civilizations series, which is well known for its hardcore "change is bad, mkay" policy and basically reselling the same game over and over with a new coat of paint.

So how do you people feel like sequels should be primarily handled? Do you want developers to take risks or do you prefer certainty that your favorite game isn't getting gang raped by a new team?

Inb4 ******* ask for a fence sitting option: there isn't one. Be a man, make a choice and stick with it.

I wouldn't pay for it regardless.

[J1M]

In gaming the appeal of a sequel is the promise of largely the same team that made something good making something else. In that regard it doesn't matter if the sequel is innovative or largely the same. The quality of the product should be similar to the previous game.

This is why both StarCraft and Warcraft 3 are acceptable sequels to Warcraft 2.

This obviously doesn't apply when 5 years pass between entries in a series.

[Roguey]

All my favorite sequels are simply iterative and don't rock the boat too much, though eventually they do have to evolve or die. The Ship of Theseus approach seems less risky than making giant changes from one title to the next.

[rusty_shackleford]

Idk just make good games man

[Norfleet]

Idk just make good games man

I think that's the Sequel Lolbertarian position.

[Oyster Sauce]

Inb4 ******* ask for a fence sitting option: there isn't one. Be a man, make a choice and stick with it.

bad choices

[Maledict]

What's the point to a sequel if it is completely different? Use a different IP for a different game.

[maidenhaver]

Inb4 ******* ask for a fence sitting option: there isn't one. Be a man, make a choice and stick with it.

bad choices

Like the rest of my life.

[Vergil]

So many people who picked option 2 have favorite games and franchises that they only ended up loving because of option 1.

[Tangerine]

So many people who picked option 2 have favorite games and franchises that they only ended up loving because of option 1.

Devs were competent back then.

[Vergil]

So many people who picked option 2 have favorite games and franchises that they only ended up loving because of option 1.

Devs were competent back then.

Okay but if we ground every poll or hypothetical in practical real world terms this is all pointless because either option would suck because every video game and sequel sucks.

[rusty_shackleford]

So many people who picked option 2 have favorite games and franchises that they only ended up loving because of option 1.

Devs were competent back then.

Okay but if we ground every poll or hypothetical in practical real world terms this is all pointless because either option would suck because every video game and sequel sucks.

Fallout 2 > Fallout

[Vergil]

Devs were competent back then.

Okay but if we ground every poll or hypothetical in practical real world terms this is all pointless because either option would suck because every video game and sequel sucks.

Fallout 2 > Fallout

Obviously referring to the modern day with my post.

[rusty_shackleford]

Okay but if we ground every poll or hypothetical in practical real world terms this is all pointless because either option would suck because every video game and sequel sucks.

Fallout 2 > Fallout

Obviously referring to the modern day with my post.

Outerworlds 2 > Outerworlds

[Vergil]

Fallout 2 > Fallout

Obviously referring to the modern day with my post.

Outerworlds 2 > Outerworlds

Nobody has played Outerworlds 2

[rusty_shackleford]

Obviously referring to the modern day with my post.

Outerworlds 2 > Outerworlds

Nobody has played Outerworlds 2

I played it until my save bugged out

[Vergil]

Outerworlds 2 > Outerworlds

Nobody has played Outerworlds 2

I played it until my save bugged out

This is a dementia apparition brought on by old age I promise.

[rusty_shackleford]

Nobody has played Outerworlds 2

I played it until my save bugged out

This is a dementia apparition brought on by old age I promise.

It was . . . f u n