View Single Post

Default 

December 8th, 2007, 21:22
Originally Posted by magerette View Post
You've kind of hit on my personal theory of how to make a successful game: make it a great game first and know who you're making it for, rather than take a survey of ten thousand people playing all kinds of games and try to hit 99.625 % of all respondents tastes and desires.

Your examples—thanks for so many over such a broad range—seem to indicate that it's the actual quality of the sequel as much as anything else that makes the fanbase accept it. It can be a carbon copy, and if it's a good one, that will fly, or it can be innovative, but then it has to also be good enough that the fanbase can accept and enjoy the innovations, that is, actually do something better than in the original game. Makes sense.
To make a sequel right away just makes sense to me. Coming from a gamers view point if I play a great game (Like you said a game targeted at my genre not the mass market ex: The Witcher) then I don't mind in the least buying it's sequel even if it doesn't offer tons of new and exciting things.

The developer now doesn't have to concentrate so much on the engine and working out bugs. They can now concentrate on the meat and potatoes of the game, just making it even more fun to play. Also by this time bug squashing should be a bit easier since they've been playin around with this engine for awhile now (should be easier ) Then after two hopefully successful releases, you don't have to reinvent the wheel so to speak but the devs can try out a new engine to keep it modern or an engine that would let them do somethings they may of thought of for the first two but couldn't do due to limitations with the engine. One thing they shouldn't do is break the game. Change it so much that it is barely recognizable by the fan base. The biggest example of this would be Fallout BOS. There are others like Xcom: Interception but I think Fallout BOS outdid themselves when showing the world how not to expand on an IP.

Thanks for the praise by the way, I was just listing off games that had sequels off the top of my head. That's why my post is a bit unfinished and not too orderly. I didn't mention the fallouts or dominions or any adventure games. Old adventure games were great at keeping the same feel and being just as addictive while upgrading their engines. Kings Quests, Space Quest and of course Quest for Glory did this very well. With both the Space Quest and Quest for Glory series ending in a bang with an amazing update to the gameplay while keeping the same general feel of the game. Kings Quest didn't do this and went for the FPS crowd. I still don't know what they were thinking when they made that.

So I think your theory has a good basis in reality because it is good for the devs to be able to first concentrate on making their game and hopefully getting the bugs out. By the time they release it then if it is recieved well (doesn't have to be a blockbuster hit) then they can concentrate on just making it more fun to play, perhaps new skills, new monsters, add a romance or two in there and bam ship it within a year (hopefully). So the devs are happy, the gamers who enjoyed it are happy because they get to continue playing a great game with some new bells and whistle. Now this frees them up to really get into a new one

I think great minds think alike then, well your great mind not so much mine It is a wish of mine that devs and producers would stop and think how easy this would be to do. If they need examples, the above mentioned ones are there for them to look over plus many many many others from all genres Civilization, Dawn of War (3rd one would be Mark of Chaos) Doom 1,2 and then the total remake of 3, etc…

Despite all my rage.
I'm still just a rat in a cage.
skavenhorde is offline

skavenhorde

skavenhorde's Avatar
Little BRO Rat

#35

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 5,408