[artwking4]

It would be a shame to waste Tim Schafer's talents on a sequel doing the same thing, when he could be creating something completely new and wonderful. Like he did with Psychonauts. It was wonderful, but there doesn't need to be another one.

[Spiwak]

I thought the ending was a clever spoof of action movie endings, which always have the perfect tidy closure and then suddenly the hero is wrapped up in more action. I don't think there's going to actually be a sequel; I just figured Tim was poking fun at the very nature of the game he created, more action-oriented than his adventure games.

That study you posted, insane_cobra, doesn't make sense to me. While I agree that Psychonauts fits in the "mildly innovative" mold, I don't think that alone condemns games. Nintendogs wasn't really that innovative, as it's basically a clone of all sorts of raise-the-animals games, but it included the ability to touch and interact with the animal. Sounds mildly innovative to me. The Sims also I don't think was all that innovative. His whole approach to making games seems lame, too, as by the end he seems to promote simply choosing an approach to innovation, and that story should serve the gameplay....but that's only true for some games. He can't seriously try to tell me that there aren't games where the gameplay serves the story, or that there aren't developers who first start with a story and then consider how the gameplay can best achieve that story. I'd be willing to bet that Tim Schafer approaches his games like that, not simply "how can I make this game innovative?" in which case the tone of the whole essay is unnecessarily condescending.

I say you reserve your feelings for after you play the game, as I think you'd really enjoy it, and maybe appreciate the humor of the ending that I saw.

[Phantom]

That study sucks.

In a real paper or study, the writer wouldn't just produce a chart and give some samples of sales figures at the bottom of his page. He'd reference where he got all sales figures from, he'd mention how many samples he'd taken, he would give lists of all the games in each category, and so on.

This is just unreliable nonsense, backed only by the word of the writer. Until he gives good references, the "study" is worth nothing at all. Maybe he just took the chart from the academic paper about real-world products? Either way, it just doesn't map on games as easily as the guy describes it.


Aside from that, it's obvious that some of the most succesful games of the last couple of years fall squarely in the moderate innovation category. Blizzard Entertainment, probably the most succesful developer ever, has only made games that fall into that category.

[insane_cobra]

People, people, you haven't read the comments, have you?

Anyway, I think the theory is flawed, that's why I said you should take it with a grain of salt. Besides, the author himself admits it in the comments.

[Aj_]

Some of my favourite games are sequels, Red Alert, Rogue Spear, and Diablo 2 are great because of the little improvements made, they're all very similar to the previous games. Probably should mention Fallout 2 aswell.

The developers of those games then spent time making some of the best games that I consider innovative, Tiberium Sun, Ghost Recon, and Warcraft 3. Pretty unique and fantastic games. Of course, three developers of Fallout 2 went on to make Bloodlines, which I consider very innovative.

I'm talking about gameplay, the stories and other elements weren't always successes the originals were.

My point is, sequels are necessary, so is innovation, the majority of the time is going to be spend on sequels, revisions to the original. When a total revision is needed, good developers know, you can make two sequels in the time it takes to innovate. Expansion packs and sequels have a purpose, and it's a good one. Games are software, not movies, tv, or novels.

[Karmillo]

Dont forget Monkey Island 2

[insane_cobra]

I'm not arguing against sequels, I'm just saying not every great game needs a sequel. It doesn't. I find it refreshing when I finish a good game and don't feel like a need to play 4 more afterwards just to get the whole story. Marketing issues aside, there's no reason why there should be a sequel to every successful game. You can reiterate and refine your ideas with a new IP, it might even help you to see things from a different perspective.

[avatar_58]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

I'm not arguing against sequels, I'm just saying not every great game needs a sequel. It doesn't. I find it refreshing when I finish a good game and don't feel like a need to play 4 more afterwards just to get the whole story. Marketing issues aside, there's no reason why there should be a sequel to every successful game. You can reiterate and refine your ideas with a new IP, it might even help you to see things from a different perspective.

Fully agree, if only because I'm sick of seeing FF30 and Megaman XVIIIX 40. If less games had sequels maybe we'd see more interesting unique stories and characters, rather than just 'another mario' or begging VUgames to make more quest games.

You don't need a successful IP to make a successful game.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

You can reiterate and refine your ideas with a new IP, it might even help you to see things from a different perspective.

Perhaps, but generally you build the gameplay around the theme, you can't so easily shoehorn a different IP into a game engine. Sometimes it works, Red Alert, Tiberium Dawn/Sun, or Dune, share the same gameplay/game engine. Sometimes it doesn't work, Total Annihilation: Kingdoms. You have to have the same core elements, sometimes you try to disguise that they're the same, but you're very limited in terms of creativity.

Originally Posted by avatar_58

Fully agree, if only because I'm sick of seeing FF30 and Megaman XVIIIX 40. If less games had sequels maybe we'd see more interesting unique stories and characters, rather than just 'another mario' or begging VUgames to make more quest games.

You don't need a successful IP to make a successful game.

Are you sure the Final Fantasy series is a good example in your argument? Plus we're talking about gameplay, not content.

[avatar_58]

Originally Posted by Aj_

Are you sure the Final Fantasy series is a good example in your argument? Plus we're talking about gameplay, not content.

I believe they sell the FF series based on name, not content, so yes it fits in well. I loved FF1-9 but the whole time I was well aware that the name was what triggered me to even give the games a try. Had each FF game had its own unique name like Cecil's Quest for FF4 and Apocalypse for FF6 or something maybe they would have been receieved a little differently?

After all I doubt anyone would care less about FFX if you removed the name and called it Yevon or something. Food for thought.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by avatar_58

I believe they sell the FF series based on name, not content, so yes it fits in well. I loved FF1-9 but the whole time I was well aware that the name was what triggered me to even give the games a try. Had each FF game had its own unique name like Cecil's Quest for FF4 and Apocalypse for FF6 or something maybe they would have been receieved a little differently?

After all I doubt anyone would care less about FFX if you removed the name and called it Yevon or something. Food for thought.

Perhaps, hopefully Square would get a following, but don't see how renaming the series would make the characters better or more original.

[Karmillo]

IMO most things should have a sequel if theres room for it. Not saying there should be sequel after sequel for everything, but if there looks like the story or characters could have further development then there should be a sequel.

I dont really see how Final Fastasy has come into this...none of them are really sequels...FF is really just a Brand name, FFX is the only one thats had a sequel and that didnt really go under a new number, its X-2

[Spiwak]

I agree with insane_cobra. But it's different with videogames than, say, movies or books. Books are allowed it and no one really cares too much either way. For movies, sequels generally seem to be frowned upon (I'm referring more to afterthought/sales sequels). But with games it's pretty much expected to have a sequel and only games that sold poorly or games by developers that focus more on story and see no reason for a sequel, don't have one. Just an interesting trend.

[Starflux]

On the topic of a sequel for Psychonauts; in my review on Captain August (Click here) I state that the game doesn't need to have a sequel that's a game, but that it has perfectly paved the way story and premise-wise for a really awesome cartoon show. The game serves as a great setup, you've got all these outrageous characters and great rules of engagement and where a second game would only offer more of the same; a cartoon series would be the perfect outlet. It enriches the Psychonauts world by offering a range of plots and stories in a way another game could never do right now.

A cartoon would work so beautifully. If it'd be well-written and designed with an eye for the mad creativity of the game... wow.

[Spiwak]

Originally Posted by Flux

On the topic of a sequel for Psychonauts; in my review on Captain August (Click here) I state that the game doesn't need to have a sequel that's a game, but that it has perfectly paved the way story and premise-wise for a really awesome cartoon show. The game serves as a great setup, you've got all these outrageous characters and great rules of engagement and where a second game would only offer more of the same; a cartoon series would be the perfect outlet. It enriches the Psychonauts world by offering a range of plots and stories in a way another game could never do right now.

A cartoon would work so beautifully. If it'd be well-written and designed with an eye for the mad creativity of the game... wow.

Somehow I don't see Tim allowing his material to become a cartoon, though.

[Starflux]

Why not? If he'd keep close eye on it or even co-write it, why shouldn't this happen? Hell, Double Fine could even just create a small division for producing it! They've got models and an art-department there already, it's really not a terribly large or unthinkable step. And I'd say at least pretty healthy businesswise.

[Spiwak]

I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense from a business perspective or anything like that. But this is the man that doesn't even like to make sequels of his games. A cartoon show seems like the very last thing he'd be thinking of working with.

I for one would be very surprised if Tim schafer ever agrees to a cartoon based off one of his games.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I seriously doubt Schafer's even remotely interested in cartoons.

[Starflux]

You think so? That's funny, I'd think someone who made stuff like this would love cartoons. He did make a few comments about Family Guy on DFAC though.

[Kingzjester]

I don't know man. Maybe something will click in him and he will abandon the self-destructive, Orson-Wellesian MUST-MAKE-MOVIES*-IF-IT-IS-THE-LAST-THING-I-EVER-DO loop and go on to create some other properties, that would generate some real dough.

*) In Schafer's case it would be games, naturally.