Slashdot Mirror
How To Make a Good Gaming Sequel
Kantor48 writes "In today's world of unimproved gaming sequels and saturated franchises, Arthur Kabrick looks at the best and worst sequels in recent history, and compares the changes they've made to the formulae of their franchises. By doing this, he comes up with a list of lessons that any game developer creating a sequel should follow, if at all possible, to ensure that the new game is a step up, rather than a step sideways or, as in some cases, a step down. The criteria include ensuring the game does not spend too much time in development, updating technology, and trying not to change the development team, as well as being wary of changing the basic formula so much that fans of the franchise are alienated."
"The criteria include ensuring the game does not spend too much time in development"
I'm looking at you Duke Nukem: Forever...
Good Sequels: Mass Effect 2, Starcraft 2, Thief 3
Bad Sequels: Deus Ex 2, Fallout 3 (though Fallout: New Vegas is on the good-ish side)
The trend is that good sequels are true to the original format while only fixing things that are genuinely broken, while bad sequels piss in the face of the fans of the original games by deviating from the original format so much that the connection to the original game(s) become questionable.
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Sorry, but this article is crap. It just mentions a few things without proper reasoning. What makes a good sequel is not an exact science, trying to reason about it in a generic what is just unfounded.
Lesson 1: Starcraft 2 took a long time, and it's considered to be a good sequel. Same for Half Life 2. Development time is a dumb reason. Does it matter is a sequel needs 6 years of development, or simply 3 but still released 6 years after the original?
Lesson 2: The gamebryo engine was also used by Morrowind, and Oblivion before it was used for Fallout 3. A lot of games use the same engine, and it generally leads to better software, but it has nothing to do with game quality. Story and game content don't have much to do with the engine.
Lesson 3: BioShock 2 was made by a completely different studio, not just a different lead desginer. StarCraft 2 and Diablo 2 both had different lead desginers. There are also numerous examples of bad sequels that had the same lead designer.
Lesson 4: Yes... obviously. But what exactly was that, people can tell you that the change you made is a bad one, but they can't beforehand tell you what they liked and why? Also, not everybody is the same. Putting the exact game out doesn't result in a good sequel either.
Lesson 5: Don't evolve too much? What's too much? Also, doesn't have some overlap of lesson 4?
Lesson 6: Improve everything? But, doesn't that violate lessen 4 and 5?
But the worst part of the whole article, it doesn't even mention what defines a good sequel. He uses 4% difference in review score as listed by Metacritics. But reviews are not objective, review scores of games are also influenced by other games that were release before it. and of course, the reviews are generally written by different people, and different people tend to judge differently.
1) Don't spend too much time on development.
I'll agree AND disagree. Mostly because I'd like to not have to play some recycled piece of shit every 2 years. If there's enough re-playability in the game, then yeah, shoot for 5+ years, nothing wrong with that. BUT, because this is business we're talking about, we all know that shit ain't gonna happen...for the most part.
2) Change your engine every so often, and if you can, use one that you've developed yourself.
Agreed.
3) Try to keep the [dev] team the same, especially if the original was good.
Also agreed.
4) Don't get rid of the parts of the original that people loved.
This should go without saying, but it needs to be said, sadly.
5) Don't try to evolve too much and forget what made the original great.
Addendum to #4
6) Improve everything, because one bad aspect can bring the whole game crashing down.
I can only conclude that "improve" means "don't change it, only make it better." Unfortunately, this gets lost in translation at times.
Don't. You know that the whole thing is going to boil down to "Video Game 2: The Search for More Money". Upper management will be pressing so hard to get the game out while the original is still fresh in everyone's mind that plot development & bug testing go right out the window.
I am sick and tired of all these damn sequels and remakes and rehashes. When are we going to see something original for a change damnit! This game 5, Another game 3, some movie 7, Some other movie remade for the 5th time. I understand the motivation behind one or two sequels but are things really that bad that we need to go beyond 2 or three? Are we all out of damn ideas? Now forgive me as I go off and play Gran Turismo 5 while watching Police Academy 8 on my other TV
I'm a wanker.... and loving it!
Step 1: Make a Good Game.
If the game can't stand on it's own as a Good Game then it's not a Good Sequel.
Splinter Cell, Splinter Cell Pandora Tomorrow, and then Splinter Cell Chaos Theory. Story is a bit abismal, but gameplay wise it is very solid. Like Solid Snake. Anything afterwards, is crap...
There's really only one rule about failed sequels:
1) Don't ruin the parts that make it fun.
Like for example recently in Civilization 5 one of the things that made it fun in Civ 1-4 was to go on military conquest. A war could be led roughly as long as you had troops, though you did have to deal with riots and rebellion and occupied cities liberating themselves. In Civ 5, they pretty much killed it. If you "charge up" your military to go on a large campaign, you'll go so far into unhappiness which kills all your production in your entire empire that you'll never recover. Everything became a tedious balance of not being able to attack enough even though the enemies defenses had crumbled and their cities were ripe for the taking. It doesn't even remotely come close to reality, if you played WWII in Civ 5 then Nazi Germany would have collapsed under it's own unhappiness before they even reached Paris. Your empire doesn't become happy by victories, they become depressed. What the fuck? The more I've played it, the more frustrating it becomes. I really hope that for Civ 6 they return to a sane model of war, because that sucks. They did make many other improvements to impress the reviewers, but in the end it's just not that good.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Trouble is, remakes sell, even for diminishing returns. To the creators, thats the safest route, kinda like betting on the favourite in a horse-race. There's a lot of talent out there, but they're often unwilling to take a punt on it, just in case its a dog.
The original 2 sequels were absolute improvements on the preceding version. Even in Warcraft III where they not only added more content, but *removed* some annoying features that slowed down gameplay (like ship building). The Warcraft sequels were more like full-blown improvements than "sequels," but they've always been my benchmark on how to do it right.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Two things I loved about these sequels were you didn't need to play preceding version to jump in on Half-Life 2 (which I played first), and for a while the story was very original and unpredictable. But, the luster was lost with Episode 2. I was waiting the entire series to Rescue the damsel in distress who turned out to be a self-reliant killing machine. And, her father was about as big a sacrificial-lamb-for-cheap-drama as you could ever find, but they never killed him. Of course, they ran out of ideas and did both in Episode 2.
Lastly, they didn't know where to quit. The storyline was effectively done at the end of episode 2, but they added a lame "But, wait there's more adventure to be had!" fork with the clumsily slapped on Borealis storyline. Then, at the same time they've waited an intolerable amount of time to wrap up the story they were so desperate to extend.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
1: Make an interesting game, with or without the first game, the second one has to stand on it's own feet.
Especially true if it comes out years after the original since most of the buyers will in fact be too young to have played the first game.
2: Analyze what made the first game great, think about which of those aspects are still in demand today.
3: Think about whether the sequel should be an actual sequel or if it instead should be a different games, there are many games that where quite excellent but failed miserably since they are something entirely different from the rest of the series.
Note that these point in a way contradict each other, especially 3 vs 1, and that is intentional, the point is that there is no winning recipy for any game.
Note that creating a good game isn't the same thing as creating a commercially viable game either.
Personally, I've noticed that creating a really fun game isn't what makes game popular these days, it's creating games which takes forever to finish for as little development time as possible.
People refuse to replay good games which is really sad since most of my favorite games ever are defined by the fact that one run-through isn't by any definition of the word enough.
The bad part is that I know people don't agree with me and prefer lame stories and lame gameplay that is built to be more repetitive than replaying the same game over and over.
It's not one of the game listed in the article, but my favorite example of a shitty sequel has to be Deus Ex 2 (Deus Ex - Invisible War).
The original Deus Ex was, and still is, a masterpiece. Good storytelling, good dialog and writing in many areas, plus an immersive environment which rewarded exploration of every nook and cranny with extra equipment, datapads providing even more literature, and so on. The game is still fun to play because of its depth and the player's ability to explore and try out different wants to accomplish a task, whether it be via the "rambo" approach, a silent-but-deadly assassin, a non-lethal stun prod master, or just a guy who wanted to avoid combat as much as possible so that the enemy never even knew he was there. Of course it has its problems. The AI is crap, the stealth is fun but flawed; if you are seen for a moment but then hide behind a desk, so long as you were only visible for a brief moment the enemy will forget you were there and not even bother to investigate. The graphics are OK but were somewhat dated at release, however all of its flaws don't take away from the quality of the game's design.
All people really wanted in Deus Ex 2 was more of the same as the original, but with the flaws removed, the graphics updated, and so on. What did we get? A game which was a shallow, pale imitation to its predecessor with all the heart stripped from it. The lead platform was the original XBox so levels had to be made far smaller. Some people would say this meant level design would be tighter, with more stuff densely packed to get rid of the empty large areas, but there was enough dense level design in the original that I don't see such qualities as being mutually exclusive. The game was streamlined to require less items overall, but there were other rubbish designs. You couldn't lean anymore, cameras showed a clear beam where they were looking which made them far easier to avoid (as if real cameras would do such a thing anyway), etc.
Making a game more accessible to people is not a bad decision in theory, but if it makes the game way too easy then where's the challenge? There's a reason why people remember the original game and not its sequel. Here's hoping Human Revolution will not make the same mistakes. It's still primarily a console game for the current generation of gamers so I don't expect it to be exactly like the original, but so long as they add enough depth and challenge to make it interesting, it should turn out alright.
Here is my advice on how to make a good sequel: figure out what people like about the original, and make sure not to strip out those parts.
You might think this is totally obvious. But I'm not much of a gamer, and I can still think of several cases where this simple rule was not followed. Here are a few:
Doom vs. Doom 3: In Doom (and Doom II), most of the time you were surrounded by large numbers of monsters, sometimes ridiculously large numbers of monsters. Also, if you played it right, you could often get that ridiculously large crowd of monsters to start fighting amongst themselves, and I took an evil joy in doing that. Doom 3? Advanced 3D engine with detailed monsters, i.e. not very many monsters. It was a totally different game.
Battlezone vs. Battlezone II: (These are the 1990's hybrid FPS/RTS games.) The most basic thing you had to do in Battlezone was send out "scrap collectors" to pick up "scrap", which you could use to build stuff. Also, when you blew up the enemy's stuff, it would turn into scrap you could collect. (But of course not at a 1:1 exchange rate; it would take about 3 enemy tanks to get enough scrap to build one tank.) In Battlezone II this mechanic was totally discarded; now your build units would drill into the ground and extract all the scrap they needed, making scrap just a function of time and not a resource you had to really manage.
Spy Hunter vs. Spy Hunter 2: (These are the hybrid racing/FPS games, not the arcade games) The original Spy Hunter game was a blast. You really were racing the clock; you were shooting lots of bad guys, but you had to do it quickly. Your car was tough, so you could afford to focus on the racing and the killing. Spy Hunter 2 changed the gameplay completely: now your car was very vulnerable, and you had to focus on carefully keeping yourself alive. You also, inexplicably, now had to run over power-ups, and there were lots of boss battles.
In both Battlezone and Spy Hunter, I really wish someone could take the original game engines and just make new maps. I would pay full price for sequels that were really just more maps for those game engines.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Start with simple games on a sheltered, captive known platform - Mac.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathways_into_Darkness
Get more creative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_(video_game)
Publish Weekend Warrior and get into 3D Myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_(series)
Think big structures with Oni and consoles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oni_(video_game)
Finally sell out to MS and dumb down to the reality of console hardware.
Bungie offers a developer the vision of plot, keeping up with new tech and keeping a captive fan happy.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Then you can definitely compute the relative marketing costs for each game - reviewer bribery included of course.
Reading this article made me cringe in much a similar fashion to how I respond to any particular artistic or entertainment based journalism; they are simply full of bullshit. The arts and enterinment industry in general have so little objectivity to comment on that anything but recitation of the facts is akin to heresy.
Baldur's Gate 2
I don't think any other game to date has as much depth and immersion as BG2.
- It took me two months (playing almost every evening) to complete.
- It gives the player endless possibilities in character development
- Seriously good storytelling
- Open world, no artificial boundaries (i.e. it never tells you you cant go there because you need to level up or some shit)
- Everyone could be turned to stone
- The game was pretty difficult if you'd never played it before.
If the original game is entertaining and popular, you can pretty much develop bug fixes and an expansion pack for it, add a number or surname and release a groundbreaking sequel. Article should be about rules for good games and not for successful sequels, the concept is quite ridiculous. Bigger, better, more features, better graphics; They all mean diddly-squat if the first game was puke and you're working around it. The only exception to this rule is adding multiplayer, since you can pretty much play a game of rochambeau with friends and make it enjoyable.
There, I said it. Sequels fucking suck. Quit doing them.
Well! That's easy. Just sit in front of his monitor, or steal his mouse/joystick/inputdevice.
Easy!
(Or was I the only one who with a sick and tired brain misread that headline?)
Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
While the article showed some good examples of things that worked, one thing that is missing is WHY things either work or do not, and an understanding about why any given game is popular is more important than pointing out examples of good and bad sequels.
In games that are clearly story driven, a key to making any sequel work is making sure the sequel has a good story. This may seem like common sense, but many games(and movies) have a great story for one game, but the sequel does not have a great story, so there is less interest in playing through to the end, or there is less satisfaction in playing due to the player not getting involved.
You have the basic "is the game fun to PLAY" issue, where if the game isn't fun to play, it can drag things down a lot. First person shooters for example tend to have very similar gameplay mechanics, with ONLY game engine improvements to keep people interested, because when it comes right down to it, the games are very similar. This links to how good the story in the game is to keep some players interested, but if the engine isn't better, then why not keep playing the older generation of the game? Some games use mini-games that are not very good that cause people to be annoyed, and if the same ones are used over and over again, that does not help.
You also have the issue where a game MUST have acceptable graphics and sound at the time it is released. It is typical that a full game, including engine will take four to six years to develop. Now, for a sequel, if the primary draw is the engine, it had better be more advanced and include improvements in ALL categories. Better here but worse there will end up with a lower score than the previous game in the series. Graphics and sound that is more typical of a game released in 2004 will result in lower popularity as well. For new games, DirectX 10 support as a minimum, taking full advantages of the technology is something of a requirement for graphics.
There are some games that have been released in the past year that failed these things. Civilization 5 is the perfect example of better graphics and better maps not being enough to compensate for poor AI, poor diplomacy options, and a reduction in complexity in many areas(including the tech tree and number/type of units). The main draw in the SERIES has always been DEPTH, combined with how easy it is to learn and understand the basics of gameplay, and when a sequel goes away from that main draw, you end up with a failure.
Now, game developers should not be afraid to try new gameplay elements, but DESIGN experiments can be done without spending all the time needed to perfect the graphics and animations and such, so it should not take four years of full development to discover that certain basic design elements will NOT be fun for players. Some things are fine in moderation, but don't force players to play a weak mini-game 200+ times in one playthrough since that detracts from the enjoyment of the game. Mass Effect 2 is a great sequel, but the mini-games get old VERY fast since the game does not increase or decrease difficulty based on advancement or character/party selection, so there is less of a point to them. The combat areas also are very linear in ME2, but at least the combat itself wasn't worse, and in some ways is better. The reason Mass Effect 2 didn't lose too many points due to the mini-games and poor combat areas is because the primary reasons for ME1 being popular are the characters and story, and the negatives do not cause the game to NOT be fun.
So, to sum all of this up, look at why any given game is popular, and make sure you make those areas the top priority. No one cares if a game has better graphics if the gameplay sucks.
Especially in the 1st URL below:
---
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34734160
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930330&cid=34737526
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34719276
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930330&cid=34737308
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34647708
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1931788&cid=34747678
---
(ROTFLMAO!)
I seriously wouldn't listen to "pwufessuh haiwypheet" guys, he's only an ITT Tech student.
It's not like it's in any way complicated anymore, you have the internet, creating a board for people to come up with pipe dreams is trivial, DO IT!
Allow me to use my sore points of the last year to demonstrate what I mean, i.e. how NOT to do it: Supreme Commander 2 and Perimeter 2.
Both of their prequels managed to do something that hasn't been done by more or less major studios for a while: They dared to create something that's pushing the envelope more than just a little. Both games are real time strategy games. Nothing new here so far, but they both had a very unique way of incorporating it. SC was a game where you built with your "income", not your stockpiled resources. You could start any project at any time, build time was determined by whether your production kept pace with your use. They created VAST maps that made air transport feasible for maybe the first time in RTS history. It was no twitch game like most RTS are today (Starcraft, I'm looking at you!), it was not how well you memorized the keyboard shortcuts, it was whether you knew how to plan and whether you managed to decypher your opponent's plans in time. Recon was the key to success (and avoiding enemy recon in return).
Now, a lot of people liked that approach and SC was a hit. You can see that by the sales of its add on (addons are usually a good measure of how well the game was received). It had its weaknesses of course. First, the factions were too similar. Of course it's easier to balance if everyone gets the same units, but it's also fairly boring. That was one of the things that people pointed out on their boards numerous times. A hint better graphics would have gone a long way too. Some "research" options that allows you to put strengths (and maybe buy them with weaknesses) into your units and allows you to customize your army a little. More (multiplayer) maps maybe and a map editor. That's pretty much it, don't change anything else and you have a killer!
SC2 was announced. I was floating on air. If they only took a few of the ideas that were tossed about on the board and built them into the game, I'd have probably lost my job due to a lack of commitment.
SC2 came out and ... it was a weak C&C copy. Nothing left of the original SC spirit. It was NOTHING like the original. It was dumbed down, watered down and in general, at least for me and most other SC enthusiasts I play with, a huge disappointment. Of all the ideas on the boards, only research was added, but in a way that could not have been done worse. There is now one single path to victory (build bombers, research the crap out of them, let them rain on the enemy commander)... Strategy? Not even tactics are necessary anymore!
Let's look at Perimeter. An interesting concept. And the cuteness factor of the little nanobots building those shiny surfaces! Awesome! It was a new approach to the "build up, shoot down" genre. The units could have been done a bit better, a little more variety in your options, and we have a really new game here!
Perimeter 2... let's better not talk about it! No balance, questionable map layouts and "physics", generally a "WTF???" experience.
Listen to your players! Don't give in to all of their pipe dreams, but if you manage to pull of a hit, there is usually a reason, something that makes people like your game, something that makes it stand out against the rest of the genre (especially if you build a game for a flooded genre like FPS or RTS). If you have a hit in such an area, there's usually something about your game that people really like and that they didn't get in other games of the genre. Your sequel MUST have that feature!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Great observation, those rules clearly apply to another great example, Mass Effect:
1) Only 2 years from the original to the sequel.
2) Complete game mechanics overhaul. While retaining the third person shooter aspect, the game drops clunky and tedious inventory management also streamlines skill leveling. Addition of heat pack "ammunition" is a case of YMMV over the use of weapon overheating, though it is rarely cited as a negative beyond in-game physics.
3) Bioware kept control through and through, with Casey Hudson as lead designer on both games.
4) The game is still essentially story-driven. While focusing on the Collectors rather than the Reapers, they are still Reaper puppets and the initial story from the first game continues. Better yet, a multitude of decisions from the first game return to either help or haunt you if you import your original Shepard save file.
5) All of the changes did not modify what was at the core of Mass Effect - a space opera about Commander Shepard who discovers the horrible truth of an impending galaxy-wide omnicide and being stuck as "the Jor-El" whom authorities in charge refuse to believe. And yet he/she must stop the incoming apocalypse somehow.
Why do these web sites have to have a formatting that sucks so much? Just cut the useless sidebars and silly backgrounds, and format the text in a normal way. This is way beyond annoying. And these people try to give lessons to others?
The article suggests the longer you wait for the sequel, the higher the expectations. The problem is that a rushed time-table can be even worse. There is a reason some of the worst video gaames of all time are movie tie-ins. They are all on a rushed schedule to get the game out the same time as the movie. But while the movie has a lengthy pre-production process, the game isn't often green-lit until the movie starts filming because many movies never escape the pre-production development hell.
A sequel needs time to develop. KOTOR was a great game and KOTOR:2 was almost a great game, except Obsidian basically had 9 months to do the sequel. They were initially given 12 months, but then Lucasarts ran out of money and basically shipped an unfinished game.
In theory they could have taken their time with a third game and made up for the whole mess, except it looks like that will never happen now.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Sure, they're right that sequels need to be done right. however, I don't think it's possible to quantify how to make a good sequel other than, "Don't make a game that sucks."
For instance, some games, namely music games, largely, don't need innovation. We want more songs(Guitar Hero/Rock band could stand to use music that isn't rock though; I know "Rock" is in the name of RB, but, jesus the guitar and drums were used for more than just top 40's). Period. New mechanics are nice, beatmaniaIIDX's charge notes from Sirius are fun, but absolutely not necessary. Sure RB3's Keytar is nice, but, it wasn't necessary to make it a good sequel.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
A good sequel avoids MOTS (more of the same) gameplay. After playing any one of the tens of RTS games of the mid/late 90s, all the sequels were just MOTS with better graphics. I really need to try Starcraft II to see if it breaks from the MOTS mold.
Whereas WoW built greatly on the lore of Warcraft II, one needn't know a single thing about Warcraft II to enjoy WoW. This is the opposite of MOTS. The flipside to this sort of progession is Age of Empires type games where they do not capitalize on interesting historical stuff nor do they make the tech trees staggeringly complex...they just make prettier houses and faster clicking game-play. Shame, really. I don't blame the game copmanies though. Gamers want fast frenetic mindless game play most of the time and can't be bored with lore.
I *loved* ME1 (played it through three times to get the insanity achievement and try out different characters). I played through ME2 once and have absolutely no desire to do it again. The thought of scanning another planet or dealing with that annoying ammo system again would be enough to discourage me. Add in the "on rails" nature of ME2 (felt more like an annoying JPRG than a western RPG), and there's just no point in it. Would playing as a Renegade vs. Paragon really make that much of a difference, even close to enough to justify putting up with pain-in-the-ass stuff like those planet scans? Doubtful.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Or... gaming is really, really subjective. Personally, I loved FO1, FO2, FO3 (and every DLC) and FO:NV. Currently enjoying the Dead Money DLC.
The FPS in the 3D games is just a little extra edge to do some damage before going into VATS, especially when sneaking and sniping a target where VATS gives me something around 20% for the best body part. I think that mix of FPS and RPG is perfect. If someone is trying to play it pure FPS, well, as a famous cat once said, "THEYR DOIN IT RONG", but at the end of the day, if they have fun doing it that way, more power to them. I tend to not use VATS for melee and hand-to-hand attacks.
I never understood the war between Morrowind fans and Oblivion fans, either. I loved both and played both multiple times. Looking forward to Skyrim. Hopefully we can get an entertaining war on three fronts.
My secret is to just care about whether or not I'm having fun with a game. I might opine once in a while about how I might have tweaked something here or there, but not much. It's a hobby I pursue to escape life's bullshit. All this analysis and spreadsheets and hand wringing people get into over games is some of the silliest nonsense I have ever seen.
Increase the size of the main character's boobs. Duh!
1) Don't spend too much time on development. This may be true for sequels. It isn't necessary to spend a whole lot of time (5+years is a long time) provided that the original was coded well and can be re-used for the most part. 2) Change your engine every so often, and if you can, use one that you've developed yourself. This goes against #1 to some degree. I can't see any good reason to create a new engine unless you are developing on a new platform which the existing engine doesn't like. A really good modular general purpose engine can evolve to take advantage of new platform features (theoretically). 3) Try to keep the team the same, especially if the original was good. There are two sides to this. Some of the original team members will have a context for improving the game. They obviously will understand the design better than noobs. Bringing in new blood is usually a good idea, especially if it refreshes the team and doesn't create harmful tensions. I don't have much to say about the rest of the points. Yes, keep what's good, what people like, improve everything else.
Study everything the Duke Nukem Forever team did, and then do exactly the opposite!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Most basic reason, don't aim to just make a sequel.
There is a such thing as setting your goals too low. Setting them too low purposefully just so real life can come chip away at them isn't a ideal strategy. Sequels should be original in their own way and add to the overall experience, not be designed to milk more money out of users (like almost all sequels are now days).
So the question shouldn't be how to make a good sequel, but how to make an original game that takes after the first one.
I think, the throwing away the old game engine was something only done by Origin and Squaresoft before their mergers/acquisitions and then whoever was in charge wanted to save money/speed-up-development and started reusing the game engine.
There really is no reason to start a game engine from scratch anymore except when a new console comes out (Seriously, Nintendo seems to know what the hell they are doing, just not always in expected ways.) Where as both Microsoft, and Sony (and even Sega before them) kept changing the hardware architecture, which means re-development and re-optimization of existing game engines, if they are even doable at all.
Indie developers can't develop for all the available platforms because they are too different:
iPad/iPhone - ObjC , no input devices (Touch screens and Gyro's limit game play to "on rails" , and games that are more like click-n-play)
Android - Java, some native C/C++, no input device standard gaurantee. (which means you have to support all possibilities)
Xbox360 - C# (C/C++ is possible), DirectX api
Playstation2/3 - OpenGL, C/C++
Gamecube/Wii - OpenGL, C/C++
PC/Mac - OpenGL, C/C++, DirectX, C#, and ObjC
Everything else - Flash or Java.
The fact that there is no standard, means that you're going to develop a C/C++ version that uses both OpenGL and DirectX (See MacOS/Linux ports of PC games), to support everything but Android, and then at the compiler tool level, don't compile in code the target platform will not have. As for input, you need to write a separate input scheme for every single platform.
It is in the "next generation" consoles best interest to work together on the next (hardware) platform while supporting backwards compatibility with the previous. What I see down the pipe is:
TV STB's running Android or some variant of iPad/iPhone's iOS.
iOS handhelds and Android handles, and the 3DS
People aren't going to want to buy 6 different gaming devices especially if they have most of the same features.
Apple, Sony and Nintendo, and Microsoft should work together on the next hardware platform (and not fail like the 3DO did) and have that hardware developed as a STB,
as soon as said device is "jailbroken" or hacked (and can't be patched in software,) new hardware revision comes down the pipe. We're talking about a product cycle closer to Apple's.
The hardware would then, like iOS and Nintendo, have a "channel view" that supports downloading games/applications via the internet into "channels" (I'm sorry but Playstation 3/PSP and XBOX 360's dashboards are way too fucking horrible.) So every vendor simply writes their own security/DRM/backwards compatibility emulators at this level.
The separate hardware vendors (eg, those that make the devices) at their option then:
Must include one bluetooth/USB game controller (Xbox, PS3, Wii+classic controller) type that has all the same buttons in the same places.
Must include the current version of the hardware (which is standardized)
Must include one Ethernet port and current 802.11 wireless standard.
Must include USB3 ports of which SDXC (or future type) is supported.
Optionally include removeable media (largest expense)
Optionally include hardware (cable/aerial) HD tv-tuner (The Xbox currently does this in software for TV over IP ISP's)
Optionally integrate into a 1080p HDTV
All new revisions of the hardware+software must support use of all previous revisions 100%.
All purchased software, movies, music is tied to a standardized online profile, which allows use of purchased licenses anywhere, on any device
All purchased software, movies, music, can be "given away/borrowed/rented/re-sold" by having both profiles login to the same device and the online service moving the licenses and the physical data.
Allow the install of other OS, access to all hardware (no stupid tricks that would cause the install of Linux to compromise the platform.) "Other OS" doesn't necessarily need to be able to decrypt the included hard drive or it's p
I second that - a Remake of Battlezone 1, (not 2!) is sorely needed. What a game.