Sequels and Fans

[RCIX]

It seems like the average lifecycle of a good game series is this:
 * Company X releases game Y
 * Game Y gets awards, fans, becomes successful
 * Company X releases Game Y II
 * Some fans (anywhere from a small minority to a large portion of the playerbase) throw a tantrum, ragequit, and forever boycott games from Company X
 * (If the company is lucky) a new influx of fans and awards show that the game they made is still successful and good
 * Lather rinse repeat for as many sequels as you want or till the company moves on

And from my observations, this happens everywhere. Supreme Commander 2, Civilization 5 (and 4, and 3, and 2), i'm betting multiple new versions of DOTA, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, i could go on...

My question is why? Virtually every game I listed is good in it's own right, but when the nostalgic fanboys (and girls ) compare it to version X - 1 it always seems to fall short to them. :S

[BobTheJanitor]

I would've gone with the L4D/L4D2 split as the perfect example of this. It also contains some of the best answers to your question. People said it was too soon for a sequel. People said it would split the fan base. People said that there's no way that Valve would continue supporting the original game as well as they would without a sequel. And now in retrospect, we can see that the people were basically correct. The original hasn't had nearly the support that the sequel has (and even support for the sequel has been weak at best). The mapping community was fractured between the games (although some recent updates have finally made it easier to rebuild maps from one version in the other). And soon all the original maps will be ported forwards along with the original characters, completely obsoleting the original game. Any die hard fans still boycotting L4D2 will be left in the dust. (I personally have both and enjoy playing either)

[Otagan]

I think the main issue with some of these sequels has to do with changes to core gameplay that change some fundamental aspect that has defined the game or series in the past.  In the case of Supreme Commander 2, for example, it took a very serious barrage of criticism from the fans based on the economic tweaks (going to a more standardized resource stockpiling, paying for your units up-front system instead of the old flow-based economy where you spent as you built) that hugely changed the way the game played, as well as a streamlining of the units available to the factions.  They cut out a huge amount of variety and distilled the armies down to a core group of clearly defined units with very specific purposes, which ruined a big portion of what people see in games like SupCom1 and Total Annihilation.  Furthermore, they trivialized the concept of the experimental unit, which was a huge part of SupCom1's appeal to many people.  Building a Galactic Colossus basically ended the game if your enemy had nothing with which to counter it.  It cost as much as an entire conventional army and was as powerful.  In SupCom2, the Universal Colossus costs considerably less and is, accordingly, less effective.

I was on the fanboy hate train for SupCom2 for quite a while before I finally accepted the following: even if it is not a worthy successor to SupCom1 in my own eyes, it is still a fantastic game in its own right.  It's not Total Annihilation.  It's not Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance.  It is its own game that offers a far more accessible gaming experience than its largely impregnable predecessor.

Command & Conquer 4 is railed on for abandoning Tiberium harvesting and implementing population caps and territory control victories.  Modern Warfare 2 is despised for consolizing the series and taking a more arcade-like, fast paced, close quarters view of combat.  Civilization V is hated (by some, including myself) for its brain-dead AI and oversimplification of many of the core systems of the series (such as happiness).  The list goes on and on.  People come into the game expecting one thing, only to be sharply disappointed when the game turns out to be something else.  I've experienced this plenty of times and have just had to come to accept it in most cases.  For the record, I do own and have played every sequel I referred to in this post.  My opinions on them vary, but I can see why others would be frustrated.

It should be noted, though, that not even StarCraft 2 is immune to this, despite ignoring most RTS conventions of the last decade and being one of the most faithful sequels (from a strictly gameplay perspective) in quite some time.  It still is criticized by people who both say it changed too much and those who say it didn't change enough.  I think the easiest answer to this question is simply that people are fickle.

[RCIX]

I'm wondering if it doesn't point to a more fundamental mismatch between the concept of a sequel as seen by consumers and the concept of a sequel as seen by game developers. I'm thinking that consumers see sequels to be bigger, shiner versions of what they know (warts and all), and devs see sequels as an opportunity to patch holes in gameplay, smooth out kinks, and innovate.

[deMangler]

There seems also to be a creep away from core game originality towards common demographic generic-ness.... type thing, across sequels.

When a game is in its first iteration, there was an idea that was more exiting than the other ideas that came out of the 'what game shall we make' brainstorming session. Other exciting ideas get bolted on to it and the core principles of what make this game worth designing are near the top of the priority list - because they are why the game is being made.

Often these ideas may make into the mix not only because they are exciting but also because they are seen to be marketable as 'new', and 'buy this because it is not being done like this by anyone else'

The game is released.
Then there are loads of reviews and customer feedback, wish lists, complaint lists, etc.

Because this feedback is coming from a sample that includes :
People writing a generic game review with a checklist of goods and bads that is generic.
Lots of players that bought the game because they wanted to see if they would like this new concept, and didn't like it.
Lots of players that bought the game because they like the artwork.
Lots of players that bought the game because it was a new game.
Anyone else who really wanted another gameplay experience or is just unhappy these days....
etc, etc...
And a few players who actually enjoyed the game because the intention of the designers and the game concept were what they wanted.

It will be biased towards the generic.


Mostly a sequel is made so that more money can be made with less outlay than designing a whole new game, with a customer base for this brand already established.

So they say - lets make a sequel, we need to change it like this (referring to the feedback and reviews) so that lots of people will buy it.

Unfortunately the result of this approach to sequel design is to make sure that with each sequel the game approaches a generic.
The Bethesda Arena/Daggerfall/Morrowind/Oblivion series is a good example. Original, clearly defined core concepts that gradually get compromised to player feedback until you get a P.O.S like Oblivion. At least it was very mod-able.

EVE online,by CCP is an example of a poplular game where the devs have stuck to their idea over many upgrades and it has worked (arguably). Incarna may change that though, but considering the history of patches and DLC I have high hopes.

A worse design philosophy is to just have the 'We will design a game that players will want to keep playing and paying for" as a primary design concept.
I won't mention the worst offenders by name, because I will start ranting, but one popular game has become very successful because over the upgrade cycle it has stopped being a game and become a 'skinner box' disguised and sold as a game instead.
This is just EVIL, it is bad enough doing this to rats in cages never mind getting people to pay for it to be done to them.

Usually the creep towards generic is relatively innocent common demographic creep though.

dM

[Echo35]

I'm wondering if it doesn't point to a more fundamental mismatch between the concept of a sequel as seen by consumers and the concept of a sequel as seen by game developers. I'm thinking that consumers see sequels to be bigger, shiner versions of what they know (warts and all), and devs see sequels as an opportunity to patch holes in gameplay, smooth out kinks, and innovate.

Doesn't stop people from complaining about both outcomes though. If you release the next game as a more shiny iteration of the first, people will complain that it didn't change enough, and if they change too much people will complain that it's too different.

[Sunshine!]

Oftentimes, developers go too far in their attempts to fix whatever problems they have. 

Deus Ex -> Deus Ex: Invisible War is the big one for me.  For all its flaws, Deus Ex was, and remains, pretty much my favorite game of all time.  Part of that was its endearing bugs (especially in online multiplayer initially), the verisimilitude of the world by leaving around news articles and whatnot, and the amount of discovery of bizarre little tricks that was possible (making a ladder out of grenades?  who knew?).  Also its no-nonsense approach to multiplayer that was unique for the time - it wasn't a simple shooter in the sense of a normal deathmatch game like Quake, Unreal, or even Counter-Strike, because of the inclusion of augmentations, skills, and environment interactivity.

Invisible War had pretty much none of that because of the limitations of making it initially for a console as well.  Add in Universal Ammo to go with the no multiplayer, no skills (and to go with it, no accuracy mechanic), much more limited inventory system, and less-compelling characters, locations and story among other things, and you can see why original players would have problems that it's still being called "Deus Ex." 

I've talked to a few people who are excited for Deus Ex 3, and I ask them if they've ever played the original Deus Ex.  They say "no," and I have to wonder why they're excited for it - is it the graphics?  Usually it's the graphics, because they see it as just another shooter with a little more variance to it.  Which means these people have no idea what the legacy of Deus Ex actually is, and these are the people that most of these sequels are being made for - the new blood to expand the market.  Honestly, I think Deus Ex 3 looks pretty good in concept, if a little flashy, so I'm not too worried.  If I had the computer to run it I'd be buying it not too long after it comes out (pick it up on sale after reading some reviews - $50 or $60 is far too much these days).

On the other hand, evidence has repeatedly shown that your typical PC gamer is an ungrateful, whining loser who is impossible to please.  So while some gamers may have legitimate concerns that the legacy* of a series is being forgotten, I think most are raging just because they've got nothing better to do and they feel personally slighted by any small discrepancy between their view of a game and the final product.  Nerd rage and all that.

*Sequels need to consider their legacy, but also be willing to innovate.  It's a narrow line to walk, and the effort required is not always worth the expense, hence the tendency towards more generic mass-market games.  Invisible War was an effort to make Deus Ex more palatable to a larger market of people, and it failed.  Human Revolution, on the other hand, so far looks promising by maintaining what made Deus Ex Deus Ex (that hacking mechanic they have looks awesome).

[Ozymandiaz]

A lot of players notice the fact that Game Y is often made by devs that desired to make a good game. And devs wanting to make a good game for the sake of making a good game, and hopefully some cash on the side, is noticable.

Game Y II however is often made with making more money in mind. And when money is the overall goal, the substance is not so important. Just as long as you sell enough copies and make your buck. Many notice this, and its understandable that they get angry.

The differnece, at least to me, is big. I know I have used SupCom2 as an example before (I really hate it, and I know I have made that point to you more then once as well ), but it used the name of the previous game, and thus caters to the fans of the first game. However, when playing it you notice it is nothing at all like the first game. It has no RTS scope like the first one, it makes a mockery of the old expereimental units making them now seem trival, it has a horrible single player mode (worst story and voice acting I have seen in a game), it sells the old expereimentals as DLC in an attempt to milk even more money out of the customers and it has bad AI (it also had very few maps imo). To me it comes off as an atempt to make some more moeny out of the title before it is forgotten, and hopefully make the quick buck as a StarCraft 2 placholder until that game gets released. As a pure tactical game, it was ok enough, but thats it. It added nothign new and interesting. And when marked as something else, people will look down on it.

As for the Civ games, I started out during Civ3, but I liked Civ4 a lot more, it had some changes I liked, and had some streamlines and depth to it that was good. Civ5 however seems like a reduced version of Civ4, with some more pretty graphics and mroe focus on comabt tactics. Civ5 was also released with the worst multiplayer code I have seen and it crashed every time me and my frinds attempted to set up a game. One should expect multiplayer games to work now a days, and even more so in a Civ game obviously desigend for long term multiplayer (cause lets face it, the AI bots suck).

I have not gotten aorunf to playing Dragon Age II a lot yet, but currently it seems to be the same. Just an attempt to milk more money from the title name (and I think Zero Punctuation nailed that one well).

Then there are the smaller game companies, that live of the quality of their games, and who love their games and want to make them the best they can. Guess thats why I play more indie games then I play big studio games. The quest for the big dollar really ruins it for me, and the games seem cheap and hollow, and tbh I can spend my time better then playing crappy games.


Another factor is expectations. If you make a really good game, and people like it, they will naturally expect the same form teh next game with the same title. Some mange to pull it off, for example Fallout 2. It lived up the the expectation of the Fallout fans, and then some. Same woith Baldurs Gate II. It is also cases of the devs really liking what they are doing, and it is noticable.


So I guess it boils down to something like this: Sequals are often bad because the players have the same expectation from the first game, but the makers often have different goals in mind and just want to milk the name for all its worth.


Of course, there are exceptions, sometimes a sequal just suck becuase the devs suck, or is made by an entire new team of devs with no connection to the game world at all.

[RCIX]

See, if you look at your post, most of it was "X sucks because it wasn't like the original".

Like with Civ5, it took a massive beating for "reducing the complexity too much" when if you look at it CivIV had an absurd amount of complexity in the first place. I'd bet you anything that CivV is still very deep and complex. I'll grant you the issues with stability, but sometimes that happens when developing code with a deadline; things happen and for whatever reason some parts of the code don't work well at launch. Nothing to get horribly upset about (unless you're not a coder ).

So as far as genericness, point out all of the games that CivV is like or SupCom2, or CoD:MW2, or Dragon Age 2.... You can't be generic if you're not actually like a lot of other games

[BobTheJanitor]

See, if you look at your post, most of it was "X sucks because it wasn't like the original".

That seems like a valid argument to make, though. Sure, it might be unreasonable to compare two totally different games. Saying checkers sucks because it's not like water polo is a bit nonsensical. But within the same genre it's more reasonable. Checkers sucks because it's not like chess is an argument that holds more weight. And comparing sequels to originals is the most apt comparison of all, in my mind. When you put that '2' on the end, it's like an unwritten advertisement that this game is going to be a continuation of the things that you enjoyed about the first game, along with new technical upgrades or improvements. It generally doesn't mean they're going to remove things (unless they were bad design decisions from the first game) or downgrade the graphics or change the genre or swap out all the characters or whatever. There's nothing wrong with some of those things. But if that's what you want to do, don't call your game a sequel: call it a new game.

I've only played a tiny bit of Civ IV and none of the others, so I can't really add anything to that discussion. But in general, a sequel failing to be like the original (at least in some ways) is probably going to upset people.

[Sunshine!]

SupCom2 is like every other RTS ever, because the major thing SupCom1 did differently was the scale, and how electronic warfare comes into play.  If you had boiled SupCom1 down to a smaller scale along the lines of most other RTS games, it would be, at best, something like the very first few Command and Conquers.  Not that those games are bad, but there's no real place for a game that's that far behind the innovations that have been made in RTS in a modern RTS market.

To put it another way, how would you feel about the Lord of the Rings trilogy if the first one was written by Tolkien, and it was amazing, and then the second was written by the lady that wrote Twilight (what was her name again) and the third was written by Glenn Beck?  You'd have such a jump in styles (as well as in quality and how they frame the content of their books) that it would be difficult to consider it a trilogy even though the overarching setting and plot are still the same.

Or if, instead of George Lucas directing Empire Strikes Back, you had Michael Bay.  And then for Return of the Jedi you've got Uwe Boll.

The above examples aren't necessarily the case for gaming, since it sometimes is the same design studios and same people working on the next game, but it should serve to illustrate the point of how people are connected to a certain well-established style once they've gotten access to the first in a series.  Starcraft 2 kind of breaks this with regards to single player, but they were always up front about how the campaigns for the three different races will be completely different from each other, so players will have a certain different expectation going in.

[Commiesalami]

[/quote]

Or if, instead of George Lucas directing Empire Strikes Back, you had Michael Bay.  And then for Return of the Jedi you've got Uwe Boll.

George Lucas didn't direct the Empre Strikes Back, that was Irving Kishner.  A difference can be seen in that the Empire Strikes back is a bit more character-driven.

[Sunshine!]

Okay okay, so the example doesn't hold up exactly, but the premise still should if, say, you took the Star Wars franchise entirely away from George Lucas and gave it to Michael Bay and Uwe Boll.

[gamerman]

It seems like the average lifecycle of a good game series is this:
 * Company X releases game Y
 * Game Y gets awards, fans, becomes successful
 * Company X releases Game Y II
 * Some fans (anywhere from a small minority to a large portion of the playerbase) throw a tantrum, ragequit, and forever boycott games from Company X
 * (If the company is lucky) a new influx of fans and awards show that the game they made is still successful and good
 * Lather rinse repeat for as many sequels as you want or till the company moves on

I fully agree, RCIX. It's fairly annoying, but you have to put yourself in their things on your feet. Let's say you make a table and it's great and you sell it for $1000. Of course, you're going to make another one. People expect it to be better though, and that might be hard to do.
My point is, they can't just pass up an opportunity to make a sequel to a popular game, but they can't just make the game the same. It has to be better and innovation doesn't usually happen when you have something that you're basing it on.
I like your explanation though. It's exactly how the system works and pretty predictable.

[eRe4s3r]

Why make a new table when the old one is perfect? Theres no crime in selling a perfect product, in fact, you can reduce production costs over time (theoretically) and increase profits from an ever increasing demand.

For games thats more true than ever, although to make a timeless classic it'd have to be fully procedural, and for now these games suffer the "lack of depth" syndrome because we can not yet make story procedural (well) nor voice synthesis or graphics.

I highly disagree in any way that games can not always be improved. But what usually happens is that they don't improve, they just change. And change for the sake of change is an absurd thing. It ruins franchises. Dragon Age 2 comes to mind, which goes 100% against everything Dragon Age Origin setup, they even do 2 ret-cons right in the beginning of the game, and thats the stuff that splits "inside" communities.

Also Supreme Commander 2 -> They changed the only thing that made SupCom 1 different from all those others RTS games - the scale.

Gothic 3 -> They changed what made Gothic 1 and 2 cult classics

Etc. Pp...