Slashdot Mirror
Unlike Movie-Goers, Gamers Love Sequels?
Thanks to EvilAvatar for pointing to a Seattle Post-Intelligencer article discussing how gaming sequels tower above most movie sequels in terms of desirability and quality. The piece argues of movies: "Sequels suck, right? For every 'Godfather 2' and 'Aliens' there are hundreds of horrendous rehashes clogging the video store shelves. Hollywood wants your money; quality control be damned", before contrasting them with games: "Fans chomp at the bit for a few screenshots from the next installment of beloved games such as 'Half-Life' and 'Halo.' When the games arrive they rarely disappoint. Gaming franchises get better and better while their celluloid cousins go straight to video." Valve's Gabe Newell also comments on feedback for sequels: "We are super-involved in the community that has sprung up around our games. Whether through e-mail, the forums, the fan sites, or calling my house at 3 a.m. in the morning, we have a pretty good idea what they are thinking. And it absolutely factors into our decisions."
I considered the matrix 2 and 3, as well the star wars prequels to be borderline blasphemous. All the while I'm waiting for the next Legend of Zelda to be released...I'm just finishing up the windwaker now. This will make me sad when the game ends...what will I get?
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
Are you a crazy? Aliens was a thousand times better than the first movie. A classic masterpiece!
What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
When you've got the first game, a lot of the effort can be reused for the sequel - especially the engine and graphics / sound. You've read reviews of the first title and got feedback, so you know exactly what people liked and what they hated. Even just fixing a few hundred lines of code (say, changing the way the player chooses the active weapon) can make the game dramatically better. And it's probably a good game, if a sequel is considered. You know what you need to do to make it at least as good as the first one, and you probably will.
With a movie, you want the same characters in a different setting, with the same feel and a different plot twist. You want it fresh enough so that viewers aren't bored. You can't let them carry over their saved games from the first title.
Bottom line: sequels make more sense for media that relies far more on technology than on artistic merit.
You are probably going to buy Halo 2 because you enjoyed Halo 1 and are expecting a better version of "more of the same". In contrast, you don't go to "Batman 5" expecting a version of "Batman 1" to see the same battle between Bats and the Joker with the latest new effects added that they didn't have in 1989.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Sequels are a great way for developers to take a great existing game and make it even greater - as long as the game itself evolves and doesn't feel like an expansion pack ie. GTA:VC, Advance Wars 2. A sequel needs to bring a lot more to the table than just more missions, and it must fix the most common complaints/bugs from the previous game.
When you make a sequal to a program, you can take all the original code and either leave it, or make it better (no programmer purpously makes it worse) (any effing trolls even think of suggesting MS does can go impale themselves on an iron poker) thus making the minimum quality the same as the original. Movie making, you have to start from scratch on the sequal for the story (games in general dont require a story to be good, coughMiyamoto) So the quality can go down unlike programs/games
In an interactive situation(like a game), being in a familiar setting/knowing familiar characters/objects is an advantage, as it reinforces the "I can do this" feeling, important as you start a game. This is especially visible in games with online communities, where each player can build something, either his reputation(most combat games), or some sort of character(Diablo II), or a collection of objects(The Sims and similar games).
Most sequels/expansion packs allow you to improve what you've already built. And since expansion packs reuse game engines, your investment in the expansion usually comes either a little cheaper(you pay less for an expansion) or you get more game for your money(you get the game, AND the expansion, which is less than two games, usually)
Watching a movie isn't a "challenge" except for the odd movie about investigation(where the plot is the challenge, but your actions aren't as much your responsability as in a game(you connect plot elements you're given, but you can't see them in more detail, etc...), and your investment is always a full movie ticket... You don't get a "frequent movie fan" type ticket that costs less if you went to see the other movie. Games also get played longer(not many people still go to a movie that came out the time diablo ii was released, yet the online us east item trading is still doing brisk business)
So basically, it's easier to make a quality game sequel from the point of view of the consumer(who gets value from owning two games) than from the producer(who gets a little bit less from an expansion than a truly new game, but also can find ways to invest less).
Fucking every game that comes out anymore is a remake or a sequel. There's nothing TO anticipate except for sequels.
Quite frankly it's annoying, and this gamer hasn't bought a video game in over two years and hasn't played one to completion since 1999.
It's all recycled trite and if you're buying into it then it's your own damn fault.
I reckon people avoid sequel movies because in general they're by a new director, and hence the style and substance will be quite different.
I think the point with video games is that *most* of the time, sequels are produced by the same company / team. You can be fairly sure that if the first game was really good, then the follow-up will be good too.
I think that if Valve decided to produce a game that wasn't called "half-life 2" but with the same gameplay emphasis, then people would be just as eager to play it.
We don't like game sequels, we like good games.
We don't hate movie sequels, we hate bad movies.
When game sequels become nothing more than milking a cash-cow name, we won't like them.
When movie sequels stop being nothing more than milking a cash-cow name, we'll like them.
How much money do these people get paid to give us this "enlightenment?"
It would appear that the relatively small game development houses know something that the film industry giants don't.
The Hollywood behemoths can't compete with the gaming company guerrillas because they've forgotten who pays their bills. Fans get a nod at test screenings, but the movie already has been made. The most that's going to happen is a new edit.
Is the author honestly suggesting that movies be made with the same degree of consumer feedback as games? Movies are bad enough when the script has passed through five sets of hands who all think they know best. How could 500 or 5000 possibly be better?
The author misses the point that the vast majority of community feedback on games is about gameplay, not plot or character development. I doubt many people on the WoW boards are upset because the Horde backstory isn't fleshed out enough.
They are very different kinds of movies, so it is understandble that you could like the first one better. But calling the second "weak" is just ridiculous. This is one of the great action/ war movies of all time (for those who haven't seen it, it is essentially a Vietnam War movie set in space).
I'd rather be lucky than good.
The problem with the Alien & Aliens debate is that many fans of Alien wanted another horror/suspense movie, where the Aliens fans enjoyed the action more. They really are two different movies and isn't fair to judge one of them by the goal of the other.
There's a third group, of which I am part, who enjoy both, or most, or all of the movies. While I wouldn't go out of my way to see 3 or Resurrection again, I didn't regret having seen them.