How much innovation do you expect in a sequel?

[ZedClampet]

Do you expect true innovation or just changing things up a bit and adding some improvements? This was a sore point for Brian. I'm afraid I would misstate his position, so I'm not going to try, but I think his opinion was similar to mine, which is that basic changes (like location) and improvements (QoL) are really the only justifications I need to play a sequel. In fact, QoL improvements are some of the most satisfying changes that I remember from one game to the next.

Valve thinks differently, which probably means that I'm wrong, but their stated reason for not having done HL3 was that there was no purpose to it. They couldn't think of a satisfactory way to move the gameplay and tech forward. I imagine most gamers would respond with "Who cares? Just make HL3 already!" VR gave them a new toolbox to play with, so they made Alex, but that kind of sweeping advancement in regular flat-screen gaming seems unlikely, so we may never get an HL3.

Valve may be right to an extent, but if everyone thought this way, there would be drastically fewer new games each year, and I kind of like it this way. Would there have been 20 new retail sims last year? Of course not, but I played a bunch of them and enjoyed most even when the main difference was only the product assets.

 

[BeardyHat]

I don't particularly care about innovation or additive stuff; in fact, I think the entire idea of going bigger and more dramatic leads to an unending cycle where we need to be bigger and more bombastic and where does it end? Look at the graphics race and where we're at now; AAA games look the best they ever have, but they're hard to run, hard to optimize, budgets and teams are bigger than ever, games take years to make and what do we really get out of them? Pretty much the same old.

I'm happy for an iterative approach. I'm excited to play Kingdom Come 2 because I'm eager to continue Henry's story and explore more of 15th century Bohemia, not because there's three thousand more weapons and Henry gets to travel to year 2245 where he battles Cyber Cumins. I mean, that might be innovative, but it's not the draw.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

I think iteration is totally fine, what bores me after a while is the Mcdonaldization of franchises that Ubi and Bobby Kotick brought about with COD, Far Cry and so on. The same franchise every 2 years with minor changes is a no from me after a couple. But if you go with iteration every 5 years on a formula that I enjoyed maybe its been enough time for me to want to go back there.

 

[ZedClampet]

I think iteration is totally fine, what bores me after a while is the Mcdonaldization of franchises that Ubi and Bobby Kotick brought about with COD, Far Cry and so on. The same franchise every 2 years with minor changes is a no from me after a couple. But if you go with iteration every 5 years on a formula that I enjoyed maybe its been enough time for me to want to go back there.

Hey, Ubisoft made significant changes to FC6. They left stuff out. Character progression with skills and such? Gone. Wide array of weapons to choose from with consistent progression throughout the game? Gone. NPCs for hire? Gone. Sense of humor? Gone. Hurk? Gone. Encampments to take over? Gone. Towers to climb? Gone since 5. Side activities like racing or tactical missions on new maps? Gone.

I'm expecting FC7 to be an open world boomer shooter with one gun.

4 & 5 were awesome, though.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Hey, Ubisoft made significant changes to FC6. They left stuff out. Character progression with skills and such? Gone. Wide array of weapons to choose from with consistent progression throughout the game? Gone. NPCs for hire? Gone. Sense of humor? Gone. Hurk? Gone. Encampments to take over? Gone. Towers to climb? Gone since 5. Side activities like racing or tactical missions on new maps? Gone.

I'm expecting FC7 to be an open world boomer shooter with one gun.

4 & 5 were awesome, though.

Brian posted a video of a guy who obviously knew the games inside and out busting camps or outposts in 3-6, I could barely tell the difference between them. I'm sure there are different weapons or companions or whatever but it looks the same.

I played about 15 hours of each Assassins Creed Odyssey and Far Cry 5 more recently so I think Ive given them a fair shake. They just dont feel much fun to play moment to moment, they hit the hours/dollar metric pretty hard though.

 

[Pifanjr]

It depends on the game and if there have been other games in the same genre that have introduced great innovations.

If a game has a solid gameplay loop and the genre has no serious competition, I'm fine with each sequel just adding a new location and story as justification to do the exact same thing again. I played all of the Assassin's Creed games until Black Flag and while they did definitely change stuff up, the core gameplay was pretty consistent. The ship combat in Black Flag was a pretty major innovation of course, but it did not change the core gameplay as much as Origins did, which I have not played but does not sound like an Assassin's Creed game to me.

On the other hand, SimCity has been pretty much eclipsed by Cities Skylines. I wouldn't play a sequel to SimCity if it didn't try to learn from what made Cities Skylines so great. The same is true for Harvest Moon which was eclipsed by Stardew Valley.

For both of those examples it also doesn't help that the games have a lot/decent amount of replayability. Assassin's Creed games don't have a lot of replayability so the old games don't really compete with the new games, but for series like Civilization I think you'd need to innovate if you want to convince players to buy the new game, even if you risk changing too much and putting off players entirely.

 

[Colif]

I think iteration is totally fine, what bores me after a while is the Mcdonaldization of franchises that Ubi and Bobby Kotick brought about with COD, Far Cry and so on. The same franchise every 2 years with minor changes is a no from me after a couple.

EA Sports did it first, they still doing it now. New uniform every year is all you need. Other games just wish they could get away with so few changes and still sell a new game... When really, uniforms should just be DLC or an expansion pack.

Are we up to COD 40 yet? They almost as bad as GPU makers, every time they hit 10 they start again. Why are they so afraid to show their real age? I guess cause they haven't really changed a lot. Everything just looks better but deep down, is it any better?

Innovation: I don't know, I am happy if the game feels like the previous one. Having the name alone isn't enough. Don't release number 3 and just use the name of the franchise to sell it. Don't change so much that the people who played your previous games in series reject it.

Maybe its just ARPG that all fail at number 3. Movies seem to be able to make it to 3 without collapsing, its getting past and keeping the audience that can be a test.

Titan Quest 2: for example, I don't have any expectations beyond the game being the same idea as Grim Dawn and TQ1 when it comes to character creation. I don't know much more about game until its actually closer to release. Videos show it looks similar. I am hoping they have new classes in the wings as 4 may not be enough to keep me interested for long.

 

[Johnway]

tough question, every game and each persons tolerance is different. Some games were better then others and set a bar so high that people would be satisfied with the same game with a new lick of paint. Other games were absolute dogs dinner that the barest of improvements would be a leap forward.


TLDR: give me the previous game but address the issues and add some more features without sacrificing years of time.

my criteria would be the following (in no particular order):


1. how high was the standard of the last game? is there room for improvement?
2. How long will it take to make it?
3. How long was the previous games?
4. how many iterations of the series have we had?
5. how much did i like the last few games in the series?
6. How much of a cash grab is the game (MTX, multiplayer etc)?

if the bar was raised super high, i can't expect that much more from the game without a total reinvention. if they maintained that super high standard i'll more then be happy. But they can't do it forever though (stagnation). Games that were good but room for better, i expect more as there are things they could address and add more to win kudos.

Take the Mass Effect series. changed from KOTOR style to full blown 3rd person shooter and it was better for it. Whereas half life was a brilliant game that set the bar incredibly high yet HL2 was even better, perhaps due to technical limitations at the time, there was room to grow. But HL3 it can't rely on tech or graphics anymore it needs to rely on something else and a trickier prospect for that.

On the other hand, Resident evil series was slowly going down hill from RE4 onwards and low point was RE6. it really had to reinvent itself to survive and fast if they were to stay relevant. RE7 onwards were great with RE2 remake being a real winner. But thats not to say there weren't any stinkers.

i could go on forever, suggesting the roller coaster tycoon series, duke nukem forever etc but you get the idea.

 

[Frindis]

Depends on the game they are building upon. Take Uncharted 2 for example. Grinding Gear Games Naughty Dog improved upon most aspects from the original and did so without removing the core of what was good with the first game. They made the combat better, climbing smoother with more holds to grab, better AI, larger and more complex puzzles, more open areas and more cinematic -all while keeping true to the original.

Then take games like Divine Divinity, Beyond Divinity, Divinity 2 and Divinity: Dragon Commander from Larian Studios. The first two isometric top down hack&slash and the others with 3D RPG and/or RTS elements. A total change in style, but while keeping some of the lore and with Divine Divinity and Divinity 2 becoming cult classics. So you can definitely say that Larian Studios did a much bolder move with their series, but it worked out for them and probably also what spiked them into combining the best from each game into the Divinity: Original Sin series.

 

[ZedClampet]

Brian posted a video of a guy who obviously knew the games inside and out busting camps or outposts in 3-6, I could barely tell the difference between them. I'm sure there are different weapons or companions or whatever but it looks the same.

I played about 15 hours of each Assassins Creed Odyssey and Far Cry 5 more recently so I think Ive given them a fair shake. They just dont feel much fun to play moment to moment, they hit the hours/dollar metric pretty hard though.

Well, I don't know what you were watching but they don't have outposts in 6. There are plenty of places to fight and liberate, but that's different from an actual outpost. Instead, you had resistance centers which you did gain through fighting, but there were only a handful of those and they didn't have any of the challenges that you normally get from outposts. They were just like any enemy area, unlike outposts, and there were only 5 or 6 of them compared to dozens of outposts in the previous games.

In any event, I was giving my opinion on them. I don't really care if anyone else likes them or not. No one here would spend more than 5 minutes in most of the games that I play, so if I got offended when someone didn't like a game that I liked I would be perpetually offended.

 

[ZedClampet]

Take Uncharted 2 for example. Grinding Gear Games improved upon most aspects from the original and did so without removing the core of what was good with the first game....

I believe you are either talking about Naughty Dog or Path of Exile because Uncharted 2 doesn't go with Grinding Gear. You must have borrowed my brain and forgot to give it back

 

[Frindis]

I believe you are either talking about Naughty Dog or Path of Exile because Uncharted 2 doesn't go with Grinding Gear. You must have borrowed my brain and forgot to give it back

Fixed *tips hat*

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Well, I don't know what you were watching but they don't have outposts in 6. There are plenty of places to fight
and liberate, but that's different from an actual outpost. Instead, you had resistance centers which you did gain through fighting, but there were only a handful of those and they didn't have any of the challenges that you normally get from outposts. They were just like any enemy area, unlike outposts, and there were only 5 or 6 of them compared to dozens of outposts in the previous games.

In any event, I was giving my opinion on them. I don't really care if anyone else likes them or not. No one here would spend more than 5 minutes in most of the games that I play, so if I got offended when someone didn't like a game that I liked I would be perpetually offended.

Just giving my opinion as well

The video was just a guy killing dudes using explosives and different guns/weapons and landing cars on them and stuff in all the games, maybe I shouldnt have said outpost or camps.