Sequels and Fans

[RCIX]

Like with SC2 -- It was still several orders of magnitude bigger in scale than any other "conventional" RTS. The complaint seems to be that it was changed at all, when there were real issues with the scale (you couldn't realistically have a game > 2 players go less than 30 minutes even on the "small" maps). Toss in an economy that took significantly away from the actual combat and strategy part, and a super-leaky engine with somewhat dated graphics shortly after release, and you have plenty of reason for change.

Or with Civ5: Civ4 was dominated by religions, crazy amounts of nearly meaningless number balancing, and a tough to balance combat mechanics. Civ5 updates graphics, resolves (largely at least) the combat issues, removes the extraneous number balancing. The reaction of fans? They acted as if Firaxis personally reached through their computer screens and collectively tossed them against the wall for liking what they did...

I don't see what's wrong with change for the sake of change. Without complete procedural generation, a game would stagnate after a period of time, and would need more than what amounts to just a fancified expansion pack. It might be that these releases are coming before the fanbase is ready for such changes, but still.

[eRe4s3r]

Actually the points you listed are all things that made SC1 unique, fixing them made SC2 a clone. People who liked SC1 would NOT like those things fixed in a sequel But i guess the main reason why nobody liked SC2 was the total retcon of the races they did and the dialog of the Aeon campaign was so hilariously crap that i cringed every time a cutscene came. I even regret playing it now that i think about it...

In fact, the main reason why i absolutely detested SC2 was the completely broken campaign. I mean broken as in, written by an ADD patient. Just start SC2 and listen to the Aeon dialog in the campaign. 

So bottom Line: SC2 wasn't an improvement, it was just change to move closer to CnC3 / CnC4 completely obliterating any uniqueness it had in the process.

[Sunshine!]

With SC2, I liked the diversification of the factions, in a sense.  Adding in the jump jets for Cybrans was a nice touch, the teleport for Aeon was a little funky, and I guess the speedboost for UEF was okay, but the Aeon and UEF mobility bonuses just seemed like "we have to give them something because the Cybrans got something." 

What they did to naval combat was terrible, where UEF was the only team to get non-experimental submarines (and the Cybran experimental sub was terrrrrrrible), and the Aeon didn't even get a navy.  Boiling air units down to a fighter, bomber, and gunship for UEF, and a fighter/bomber and gunship for Cybran/Aeon really made me scratch my head, because it completely takes any thought out of it.

What they did with the units was severe homogenization, compared to SC1's overload of largely useless units.  They tried to boil the tier system down into a research system with more longevity, but they really failed because they lost a lot of the special abilities and ideas that went into a lot of the units in SC1. 

The problem with a game like SupCom, however, is because of the scale they necessarily can't give each unit the personality it should have.  They're pretty much limited to adjusting based on damage, range, fire speed, hitpoints, AOE, and mobility, and there's only so many ways that can swing within a certain balance equilibrium than if you added in armor types, damage types, unique unit special abilities (activated or passive), and if you're eschewing a tier system then your total feasible unit unlocks are drastically more limited.

[RCIX]

OK, this is absolutely nuts. Look at the Metacritic page for Portal 2. like half the users are tearing it apart. Why?
 * They got hyped up for a weekend release despite no official evidence confirming this, then melted down when they saw that they weren't gonna get it as soon as they wanted
 * There's a TF2-esque store in it, that _has no gameplay influence whatsoever_, but is somehow totally ruining the experience (you also apparently can unlock the stuff for it via playing singleplayer, but that doesnt matter or something )
 * Valve messed up on one freaking string and now it's a "console port" (it would take someone with complete ignorance of a game development cycle to claim this)

Sorry if that sounded extra rage-y, its just totally confounding me how people can melt down about what has to be one of the best sequels produced to date.

[eRe4s3r]

For reference -> http://steamcommunity.com/id/eRe4s3r

I got the golden potato (36 of em) ;p So i got the Valve Complete pack for free. (I had Portal 2 pre-ordered though) I loved the ARG. The game is extremely fun as well. In coop its a downright mind-bending experience.

Only 1 Dislike
Hat store with prices that only complete crazy people would pay (5€ for a skin?)

It confuses me that people didn't like the ARG - i guess its really a matter of expectations, many people had the wrong ones about the ARG (That you get Portal 2 + Complete pack for free was unknown).

The only thing where its obviously console port is the lack of quick save. But its short enough, with enough autosaves not to be a bother.

[zoutzakje]

I'm enjoying Portal 2 a lot. Much better story, lot of new funny comments from the all the robots, much more varying surroundings instead of just the usual test chambers, trickier puzzles with complete new features (propulsion gel, repulsion gel, etc) and the game is much much bigger than the original. And I haven't even tried co-op yet.
To me, that's what a sequel should be like. Preferably a continueing story and just all the rough edges of the original being polished. Take the Dead Space games for example. the original was great. I enjoyed the strange 3rd person view of the game. I enjoyed the cool  weapons (Line gun any1?) and I loved the fact that you could upgrade your weapons with the scarce power nodes. The way of killing enemies was awesome. You could literally tear them to pieces and if they would die while they still had some limbs, you could stamp on their bodies to tear them apart in a rain of blood. Always enjoyed doing that lol. The different ways you could die were awesome too. you could get hit by an asteroid or get ripped to pieces by something called a Regenerator. There was even one little guy that would rip your head off so that it could manifest itself inside you and take over your body. but the game had a few minor issues in my opinion. Moving with the mouse for example was delayed 1 or 2 seconds, which would take quite some time to get used to. This wasn't just because I have a crappy laptop, I've heard a lot of people talking about this issue as well. Next we have the almost impossible to beat asteroid minigame at 1/3 of the game. shooting down asteroids with a laser to prevent them from hitting the ship is very very annoying with a 1-2 sec delay. then there was the lack of creative missions (repair this, fix that, etc), and the fact that the main character can't run and reload his gun at the same time for some reason. Which is probably realistic, but a very big pain in the ass nonetheless.
In dead Space 2 they fixed all this. No more delay, no annoying minigame, somewhat different objectives and the main char can reload while running. they added a lot more cool cutscenes as well. the main character can even speak now, an ability he lacked in first game. And for the rest the gameplay remains the same. The same creepy sounds of approaching enemies, the same brutal ways to kill enemies and get killed by them. Just smoother.
the only issue I had with Dead Space 2 was a gamekilling bug at nearly 3/4 of the game (getting stabbed in your eye with a screwdriver in chapter 11 if any1 kows what I'm talking about. Awesome way to die btw lol) but that bug got fixed in a patch.

but don't get me started on the left 4 dead games.... I own both but I only ever play the first one. The only thing I like about l4d2 is the improved gore. The characters, campaigns and defenitely music of l4d1 is much better in my opinion. What's with the music played in the dark carnival campaign for example when a horde approaches? that aint scary, that's childish lol. at least the horde music of l4d1 would get you all "ahhh crap, zombies are coming!! must find shelter!" .

[Mánagarmr]

As far as SC2 goes I think that the big difference was that the first expansion (Forged Alliance) really improved the old concept of SC1, which was already living up to the Total Annihilation legacy, while SC2 just went out of its way to change the entire scale and core gameplay. To me SC2 is nothing but a Command and Conquer with robots. It's absolutely uninteresting and the arguably dumbed down gameplay and lack of scale just removed everything that was genuinely unique about the series. I HATE RTS games, except for TA and SC. SC2 was your generic RTS and therefore didn't appeal at all to me.

It also felt rushed and sloppy with the downright terrible voice acting and story.

[RCIX]

Oh gawd, there's a whole trope about this...

[eRe4s3r]

I am Level 1 Nostalgic ,)

[Otagan]

Oh gawd, there's a whole trope about this...

I'd go with this one, instead.

[Echo35]

That's the key, isn't it? To make a sequel outside the comfort zone, beyond the "do the same thing, only bigger" attitude, you have to grab hold of what lies at the heart of a game property. And what lies at the heart isn't necessarily its mechanics, its characters, or its graphics. It can be, but every property is different. At the center of each game universe lurks a unique feel, a kernel of origin that, when maintained, can grow a whole separate game that still feels like a proper scion of the original.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_304/8843-Evolution-Not-Deviation