Staredit Network

I've decided to bring discussions about issues about gaming. What will be talked about? Whatever comes to my mind, although whatever you suggest will most likely be accepted. When will they be hosted? Whenever I feel like it.

My response: They kill the industry. Madden, Tony Hawk, Mario Party, blah...

People unfortunately impulse buy these games, yet are reluctant to try new things and help the new guy. For every 5 Pokemons, we get a Killer 7 or a Psychonauts. We are rewarding lazy developers by letting them get away with some minor changes to the overall gameplay, rather than building it from the ground up.

As much as I respect Nintendo for bringing new concepts with the analog stick, rumblepack, gyro whatevers, they are caught red-handed with Mario Sunshine, Wind Waker or Metroid Prime 2. The reason why Metroid Prime did so well, was the same reason why Ocarina of Time and Mario 64 excelled in their times - it introduced an old series into the third dimension.

Of course I'm not saying it's easy to reinvent the wheel, create a new fire or other large steps in history. However, we need to praise those that attempt to.

Like eating your first cookie, driving your first car or getting new shoes, we thrive on stimulation. As the same stimulation gets repeated, the effect wears off.

I usually am prejustice about sequels before I even play them. It really depends on how great the previous game was. I loved Final Fantasy X and just had to try X-2, I just had to know what happened to Tidus. Even though it was a semi-sexist and feminine game, I still liked it, unless that's why I liked it. It had very different experience systems and the game layout was also suprisingly different. I was disappointed with the areas being the same, but then again, where are they going to go, Detroit?

Tomb Raider II and III were both awesome sequels. I could still play them today. I am into the puzzle type games like that...but man, is it freaky playing that game at nighttime (both). TR III had new weapons and a whole new engine to the game...and monkeys, fun killing them too.

Any sequels I didn't like? Twisted Metal Black. I was a HUGE fan of the Twisted Metal during my elementary school years, mostly Twisted Metal I and II. I never got to try III or IV, so I decided to skip to try Black four years ago. The game.. SUCKED. The levels were all too, boring. Yes, they may have been 15x the size of TM I's levels and 5x the size of TM II's maps, but dang, they were just too boring. The music was..chunky, and the overall gameplay is not very fun at all. Twisted metal I and II both had an awesome variety of levels, not just dumps and landfills. Twisted metal II had an antartic level, a skyscraper-filled-with-ramps-connecting-buildings level, a hong-kong level, just a variety of themes to play through.

But yeah... sequels for me, just a chance I'll take once in a while.

Sport games will exsist for as long as sports do. Hell, if Madden 2007 sells 0 copies they'll make a Madden 2008 anyway. As for Tony Hawk and Mario Party, they're only staying with what they know. Do you really think Tony Hawk will one day decide to make an elebrate platformer or thick plot like Killer 7? I doubt it. The only reason there are sequels is because people ask for them. If you don't want to play them, then don't.

And it's not sequels fault for not having "innovative" games. What do you think Sequels are?! They try adding new things that are interesting or change gameplay. Also sequels are almost always better. Jak and Daxter was a great game, but Jak 2 and 3 were even better ones! They opened there doors to a wider area with open enviroments, new stories, better characters, non crappy health systems, etc.

At this point I'd like to compare sequels to your little metaphor:


If that's the first game then then second game would be like, eating another cookie, getting a new car, and newer shoes. Believe it or not Sequels are not just the same exact game mechanics in a different place. But even so, that'd still make a good game. When I finished Zelda: OOT I just wanted more, sadly neither Majora's Mask or Wind Waker made me feel content. Your going with the idea "All good things must come to an end" or it's better to stop then burn out. I'd much rather play Zelda again but in a new world and new features then get some new game that's nothing like what I use to love.

And as I've said before, it's not sequels that are stopping creative games, maybe the devolper just isn't creative? Or maybe there's something called marketing. You have a successful franchise on the playstation 2, things are rising and you might even become a big devolper with your next release. Now are you going to take a huge chance of getting a completely new series with compeltely different ideas, settings, characters, just because it MIGHT (20% chance) make a few people from Texas or something happy, at the expense that you might lose your entire company all together. Remeber that little company called "Atari" that tried doing a bunch of new games like Enter the Matrix and Test Drive, both failed miserably? And now the company is losing money rapidly, cutting employees, and lowering everyones pay. That one sure did turn out nicely didn't it?

It's safer for devolpers to go with suceeding franchises, and I'm glad they do it. I wouldn't be the game I am today if I hadn't played GTA: SA, Jak 3, Metal Gear Solid 3, Final Fantasy X, Devil May Cry 3, and a bunch of other games! There are rare times when sequels don't work out like Driv3r, Devil May Cry 2, or Medal of Honor: Rising Sun. But most of the time they do, and it's better to keep a steady fan base then risk everything to make a small group of people happy. There are innovative games because all devolpers have to start somewhere, so they risk the most since that's all they have. It might work like Retro Studios, or fail to the public like whoever made Killer7 and those other games.

Sequels are ok...If they don't go off the story. Like Mario started with him saving a princess from a big fat, ugly, and mentally retarded ape, into a side scrolling plumber, then a plumber with a big water bottle on his back...And now Super Smash Bros. This is fun, and the story they create is good, btu they don't flow...They just make up whatever to get money for the company.

That's probably why I don't like the game industry in general. It is far too risky to try something new, rather than stick with the tried and true. A lot of people don't realize this and continue buying sequel after sequel. Killer 7, arguably one of the most plot-driven games of all time, was poorly received by the public. Likewise, Psychonauts, a well-designed platformer was also shunned by the masses.

As much as there are some innovations that fail, there are those that set new standards. As gamers, we must be willing to try new things. Our world thrives on difference. And a large part of why OoT was so successful had to do with the fact that it WAS the game that brought Zelda into 3D. Look at Mario 64 or Metroid Prime.

Perhaps the problem lies with both the consumer and the game industry. Hopefully, the next generation will change the way games are made, so ideas can be expressed more freely, rather than being restricted by so many rules.

I think that as a general rule sequels are a bad thing, but certain examples of sequels (for example, Mega Man 3 was my favorite of the entire series) can surpass their predecessors, and even introduce entirely new gameplay elements (Half-Life 2 with the Gravity Gun).

Halo 2, Half-Life 2, Diablo 2, Warcraft 3, and many more sequels are great becuase they expand the game play and engine without ruing the fun. But, most sequels do actually ruin the game since the company churns it out so they can make some few extra bucks.

Jak 2, Jak 3, Dynasty Warriors 5, Prince of Persia: Two Thrones, Rachet and Clank: Going Commando, Rachet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal, True Crime: New York City, Devil May Cry 3, Driver 2, Final Fantasy 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, Grand Theft Auto 3, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Call of Duty 2, Quake 3, Half Life 2, Age of Empires 2 and 3, Metal Gear Solid 3, Resident Evil 2 3 4, Sonic Adventure 2 battle, Super Smash Brothers Melee, Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3, Max Payne 2, and basically every single sequel but Halo 2 (Which was still an incredblie game, but not as good as Halo 1).
Yeah that rule really does work out.

Acutally it's the stock market's problem and whoever collects taxes which makes people acutally want to keep money. Would it really make you feel better if Activision or something made a completely new creative game, but no one played and the cost was everyone's jobs at activision so the company would go backrupt? That doesn't seem like a great scenerio for me. Also there are only so many creative things you can do.

Like how you keep mentioning 3D transformation. I'm not sure if you realized this but:
3D IS THE BIGGEST CHANGE IN THE GAMING INDUSTRY, THERE IS NOTHING BIGGER OR MORE COMPLEX THEN GOING 3D
There is NOTHING else that you can do after 3D that will make the other ones look inferior compared to a new version. There is no 4D to be reached, you can get really good looking graphics that they look real, but nothing is bigger then 3D. Perhaps fully touch ablity, like the DS but x20. Also adding scents, and tempature. But you'd have to wear a huge suit and it'd cost hundreads of dollars to make.

Maybe you haven't thought of this but maybe the devolpers might acutally try to find out new innovative things. But gaming is old now, it's reaching 25 years old. Everything has been used, the people who find something new are LUCKY. Seriously, try sitting in your room for 3 days and try to think of a completely new and fun system for a game. It's next to impossible. Gaming has already passed it's gamplay innovation and it now going techical. No load times, realistic graphics, partical effects, how many things can be on screen at once, or how much havoc can be put on screen.

People who can make huge long in depth but simple plots are gifted. You don't find them left and right, and even so there's a 80% chance that person will go to movies or books and not games. It's not the industries fault, it's just that so many things have already been tried and done.

Going from simple 3-dimensional representation to true virtual reality would be a pretty big step too.

Sequels are good in way, but are also bad. There are good sequels for example like Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Half-Life, Halo and many others. A lot of sequels though are just a way to get extra money, or to get bad publicity.

Yeah but that would only change what you can DO in the game and not what you can SEE. It'd still be a big jump and would be cool in horror games, but 2D to 3D is massive for any series.

It depends...sequels can be good or bad...depending how people like the first one and how the sequel is made. Games like chrono trigger for the snes and the sequel chrono cross for the ps...i think those gmaes are some of the greatest(in my opinion).
Back on topic...for sequels to be good i is think is what people liked in the first series and something new. Pros and cons of staying the same style is why tarnish a good thing people enjoy?or if people didn't like the style they could change it. People that like the games would want them to have a sequel...such as a sequel for sc...or sc2?

I agree with Revelade, but that's just how the marketing works. Sports games in general are all so boring, coming from an avid sports fan. They're the same thing every year, with one or two added features.
It all depends on what you're getting. A sequel could be 10 new stages or a whole new games. Most of them happen to be 10 new stages, but whatever.

A good sequel adds much to the gameplay yet keeps the style the same.

I really like a good Madden game from time to time.

the unfortunate thing about run on games. (E.X. Dynasty Warriors 4, Dynasty Warriors 5..etc) is that they dont change much, enhance a graphic here. put a new move in their, make a few more useable characters here, remodel all the areas..blah blah you get the point. is that its the SAME THING! What's up with that? And why do people like them and buy them anyway? Die-hard fans? Can't get enough of the game? No that cant be it! I think that its really because we expect it to be different! when it's actually the same.

Humans and animals alike tend to view new and different things in a negative way.

But then it would be a risk for the consumer as well as the producer. Either buy something you know and can rely on, or jump into an entirely new boat.

And it doesn't help when people try something new and fails. Like out of the car movement from Driv3r which was horrid. But you can't compare games like Dynasty Warriors to all sequels, Dynasty Warriors is probably "no change at all" at it's worst. Differences ebtween DW4 and DW5, all the stages are nwe (All 15 of them) and there are 5 new characters, whoope doo? Same formual, no gameplay elements added, and they don't even try to improve the things they are cristisied for.

Which is probably what most designers think of "Don't fix what isn't broken" I'm sure Halo could somehow smash in a FPS RTS hybrid in an odd way but what's the point? It's not like anyone was complaining there weren't any RTS sequences.

I liked the older generations like PSX/N64. Sure, they don't have the ability of systems today, but at least I saw more original titles back then. Today, development costs are so high...

I guess it's really the structure of the gaming industry that rewards clones and makes new franchises risky.

New franchises however have a better shot when they are launch games.

Whats your view of an origional title?

Of course there is going to be more originals back then. Everything's been done now, so it's just a remake.
My view of an original title would be like Zelda: OoT, one that started the franchise of those type of games.

What everyone's is:
Definetion
But of coure that's hard to come by now that gaming is in it's 20s for age. You can only go so far, basically we already had all the ideas. But because of graphical improvements everyone is trying to make a dramatic movie out of a game (Which I acutally like, if done right you can really attach yourself to a game). Plus good games have changed, back in NES and SNES it was only gameplay, because that's all you could base it off. You can't say "The graphics were good" because in general they sucked. You can't have good soundtrack or sound effects, the catrigde is stuggling enough just supporting 3 things moving on screen.

But now because of technology gaming is evolving into many different strands. Music, Graphics, Script, Atmosphere, of course gameplay hasn't been forgotten completely but many people are trying to conquer new ground since the old ground is obviously ruled by certain people. And as stated by everyone at least once, marketing also comes into play. I'm sure if the devolpers had the freedom to make everyone not care about graphics and soundtrack and focusing all of there work towards gameplay they would. But they can't and since gaming has expanded so has the audience. Which can be seen as a good thing.

I'm sure there are plenty of people that hoped gaming stayed away from mainstream and was only for GAMING and not movie like sequences or drama. But it means more people are likely to be game devolpers, and live on. And as seen before they might get lucky and make a really good game.

I keep making 3 paragraph long posts...

I guess an truly original game would start its own genre.

I think that putting in the money to make a totaly orginal game would be worth it. Since many of us are borded of remakes... All of the gamemakers in this world seems to be out of ideas also most of the genres go around the same sort of structure, for example, mmo: you go around kill, get money, upgrade, and its the whole cycle agian.

It will take a while for people to come up with a new genre of games

The can be put to ANY game with a few words switched. Liket his:


It can even be put to cooler games with more sense of style. Obviously when you kill stuff upgrade, solve puzzles in God of War it's a lot more creative then things you'll see in Dynasty Warriors or other games.

There is a difference between slashing monsters by selecting attack versus choosing the best piece to move in chess or gaining the lead in a race because of a tight turn.

One game is determined by stats (RPGs).
One game is determined by logic (puzzle/strategy).
One game is determined by reflexes (FPS/racing).

The fourth factor in gameplay is chance, such as having a 50% of getting poisoned, etc. Very few games bother to make this the major part of the gameplay (WAR for example).

I'd like to see more games that use all the categories, though I'm not sure if any more categories can be created...