View Single Post

Default 

December 7th, 2007, 17:14
Originally Posted by doctor_kaz View Post
Why do people always say this? The gaming industry constantly makes sequels and spiritual sequels to great games with rabid fan bases, and they do it with resounding success. They make more great games and satisfy those fan bases by adding some new elements here and there, removing stuff that didn't work, and emphasizing what did work. That's what Bungie does with each Halo game and, not surprisingly, that's why it gets bigger each time. It's not exactly rocket science. But with PC role playing games they simply strip out 50% of the gameplay regardless of whether or not it worked. Any fanbase would react negatively to this type of change, regardless of the genre or platform. PC gamers are thought of as elitist snobs but I guarantee you if Bungie made a Halo sequel with the same philsophy that is used to make PC RPG sequels nowdays then there would be riots in the streets.
Thanks for bringing in the examples from other genres, which I don't play much. In your opinion, are the successful sequels you mention not updated carbon copies, then( adding a few new elements, removing stuff that didn't work and doing again what did work)? And I'd argue also that a few PC rpgs have decent sequels that were well-received by fans( BG2, M&M series) because they pretty much did the same thing.

My point being that a passionate fanbase really demands the same experience from the game they got initally—and I'm not implying that's wrong, but it does impose some restrictions on the developer—and thus if a sequel falls too far from the original premise and execution, it no longer has the qualities the fans are expecting, causing bitterness and rejection.

My question then becomes can a sequel or spiritual successor really break new ground without losing the original fanbase?

Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
magerette is offline

magerette

magerette's Avatar
Hedgewitch

#23

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,929