Although one has to admit that such a drastic genre-switch in the sequel is quite rare in the world of video games, and mostly happened in recent years in mediocre cash-in reboots of old franchises like X-COM and Syndicate.
From E3 untill now, Can you honestly tell me what we know of Fallout 4 objectively?
- Thread starter TransgenderVaultDeweller
- Start date
Bubba Zanetti
I know what I'm doing
Maybe re-imagining would be a better term?
For example, in a vein similar to those Mummy movies starring Brandon Lee, or whatever the hell his name is.
They switched up genres, going from classic horror to action/adventure. They definitely weren't sequels, but weren't exactly remakes either so they often get the re-imagining label slapped on them.
For example, in a vein similar to those Mummy movies starring Brandon Lee, or whatever the hell his name is.
They switched up genres, going from classic horror to action/adventure. They definitely weren't sequels, but weren't exactly remakes either so they often get the re-imagining label slapped on them.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
They took isometric turn based and turned it into 1st person with a pseudo RTwP VATS mechanic. Super Mario Bros 3 to Super Mario 64 is one example I can think of that illustrates the changing of a series. The main change is the viewpoint and the way you interact with the environment whether that be combat or movement. The problem is with Super Mario 64 the changes improved parts of the game rather than strip them down. Other games have made similar jumps from 2D to 3D which some people viewed at the time as improvements. Resident Evil changed from survival horror with pre-rendered fixed camera angles into a 3rd person/behind the back action game. Not as drastic but it's a somewhat similar example. What they did to Syndicate is a prime example.
Last edited by a moderator:
What you forget with Mario though is that I would label it as one of the cases where the exception prove the rule.
Mario as franchise is so rich and so expanded by now that you can do litealy everything from Mario the sex game to TV shows, you name it. It's enough to throw that Mario face on it to be recognizable.
What's important though, is the jump from 2D Mario to 3D Mario on the N64 didn't kill the 2D Mario games which are still developed and released even to this day and age. And with quite huge success! Where the jump from Fallout 2 to Fallout 3 pretty much killed any chance of ever seeing a new top-down turn based Fallout game, not even as "spin-off" - as we have seen with New Vegas and Bethesdas tight leash.
But as far as 2D Mario goes, it still thrives and works, up to the point where you now have Mario maker online where you can create your whole own levels for you and others to play online, and what surprise? It's in 2D!
In that sense I would say that 3D didn't replace the older gameplay mechanics but rather simply adding new ones to the Universe, which is completely fine.
And I would assume that a mario game sold in the spirit of Super Mario World 2: Yoshi’s Island would still sell pretty well on certain platformers.
However things can turn very ugly when you start to sell one specific gameplay/change as a Sequel/improvement to the other. See Bomberman or Megaman. So far that those franchises almost died completely replaced by other ones that offer you the same experience in the typical 2D environment.
Yes, and you repeat that one ad nauseum without giving any ARGUMENT(!) why my assertion is actually incorect except for ... because you say so! Talking about dense here.
I am feeling like explaining the theory of evolution to a creationist at this point ...
It's not making sense to YOU, which is the problem, however I think it is not wrong to say that most posters here will understand my reasoning. But I will highlight the important part of what Toront said for you, maybe you missed that part:
"They should have been spin offs but they aren't"
Mario as franchise is so rich and so expanded by now that you can do litealy everything from Mario the sex game to TV shows, you name it. It's enough to throw that Mario face on it to be recognizable.
What's important though, is the jump from 2D Mario to 3D Mario on the N64 didn't kill the 2D Mario games which are still developed and released even to this day and age. And with quite huge success! Where the jump from Fallout 2 to Fallout 3 pretty much killed any chance of ever seeing a new top-down turn based Fallout game, not even as "spin-off" - as we have seen with New Vegas and Bethesdas tight leash.
But as far as 2D Mario goes, it still thrives and works, up to the point where you now have Mario maker online where you can create your whole own levels for you and others to play online, and what surprise? It's in 2D!
In that sense I would say that 3D didn't replace the older gameplay mechanics but rather simply adding new ones to the Universe, which is completely fine.
And I would assume that a mario game sold in the spirit of Super Mario World 2: Yoshi’s Island would still sell pretty well on certain platformers.
However things can turn very ugly when you start to sell one specific gameplay/change as a Sequel/improvement to the other. See Bomberman or Megaman. So far that those franchises almost died completely replaced by other ones that offer you the same experience in the typical 2D environment.
Yes, and you repeat that one ad nauseum without giving any ARGUMENT(!) why my assertion is actually incorect except for ... because you say so! Talking about dense here.
See, even you AGREE with my point ... but than you backtrack, maybe because it seems literaly impossible for you to even agree to the simplest of examples? Probably because you might have to acknowlege that my reasoning is correct? What do I know.
I am feeling like explaining the theory of evolution to a creationist at this point ...
It's not making sense to YOU, which is the problem, however I think it is not wrong to say that most posters here will understand my reasoning. But I will highlight the important part of what Toront said for you, maybe you missed that part:
"They should have been spin offs but they aren't"
Last edited by a moderator:
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
That Desperados game looks cool. I have been wanting to play a Western game that isn't a GTA clone.
I havn't played it, but if it really follows the spirit of Commandos, it should be awesome.
Battlecross
Banned
Yeah I doubt it seeing as there have been multiple posts disagreeing with your main point. "They should have been spin offs" says nothing about "Sequels can't be a different style of game".
You really don't seem to understand anything I'm saying and no, your reasoning is absolutely not correct and I do not agree with you. You also are so thickheaded as to not get that we are talking about something that comes down to "I believe X" and you're asking me for more arguments to refute it than telling you you're incorrect? Are you absolutely insane? You use his quote which doesn't at all back up your main point and ignore this?
I have to say the new Fallout games ARE sequels. They just aren't very good ones. They are sequels that stray from their roots. Claiming otherwise is arguing for the sake of arguing. They should have been spin offs but they aren't.
You're so desperate to be right about your opinion that has no basis in fact or reality that you ignore most of a paragraph that disagrees with you to pick the one part you think backs you up. You're off your rocker homie.
Sequels can be different styles of games. You're wrong. The end. Someone before even mentioned XCom and Syndicate which can be fucking sequels despite being totally different styles of games! You're proven wrong by reality and the fact that games exist as sequels that you're claiming can't be sequels!
Oh man. Talking to you is the worst. You've given me a headache.
And again repeating your "mah opinionz" instead of actually delivering arguments ...
Battlecross
Banned
Okay, what are you not understanding here? Everything you've said is your opinion. None of it is factual. You are saying you THINK it can't be a sequel because X,Y and Z and I disagree. I've told you there is nothing concrete to back up your assertion, this is true.
Holy fucking hell man. An FPS can be a sequel to an RTS, isometric game, a book, anything. There are comic book continuations of goddamn TV shows. You're proven wrong by reality, so trying to say that is just "my opinion" when all YOU have is your opinion is laughable. Just stop.
What did you just say ...
Do you actually know why I am so adamant about this? Because I had this conversation so many times with fellow colleagues in graphic design who don't understand why certain styles exist and are surprised why their client is so pissed at their work, because it is all opinion - I love this cop out, it's like the nazi-argument to emediately shut down every kind of argument. Because advertisment is advertisement right? Who cares what your poster looks like, its all the same anyway. But the reality is, it's not.
Does it really matter when the senior comes to you telling you that the client decided for a Bauhaus print, because their whole website and corporate design is based on it
But instead you deliver the poster in a retro style because it looks "better" in your opinion?
There are some shitty clients out there who will pester you with every detail and seniors that can't be satisfied beacuse they want everything to be correct to the last pixel. But if they tell you to create some advertisment, like a print for a magazine than you can't just always do what ever you want because it's all the same anyway and if they don't like it, fuck them! It's opinion! A modern website and modern company with sleek designs will not work if you create their print like in a 1950s retro/vintage style just because you like it better. If the client tears you a new one because of that it might have been the last time you did something for them. And they would have right to bitch about your work.
Is there a certain gray area when it comes to creative products? Like games or movies? But of course! But can I do everything just as how I please? Not if you're a professional. Sorry.
That is what seperates art from design. As artist you can do and declare every shit just how you feel about it, just like you say, you create a book just for fun and now you want a painting to be the sequel to it? Go ahead! Do what ever you want. But if you plan to actually SELL a design or creative work as product, than no, you can't always do what ever you want and you can't always label something as sequel just because it is your opinion. You have to meet consumer expectations here first and foremost, you can not just alinate your consumers and hope to get away with it all the time. If your fans and consumer expect the sequel of your horror movie to be a horror movie than you can not sell them a book about a romance as sequel to it. It just. Doesnt. Work.
There are very few exceptions where this kind of strategy actually is succesfull. And it only works if you really know what you're doing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Battlecross
Banned
You seriously must be trolling, I can't believe you could be this nuts on purpose. You're going all over trying to make comparisons to things that don't have anything to do with what we're talking about.
Yes, an FPS can be a sequel to anything. You can make a book and then make an FPS game that is a sequel to that story. Shit, this happens in The Witcher where books were written in between games! Jericho the TV show got cancelled and was followed up by comic books which made up the subsequent seasons! TV shows are followed up by movies and movies followed up by TV shows. There are a thousand examples that prove you wrong.
Your point has no merit. None, and trying to shut me down because all you have is your opinion is hilarious. You're trying so hard and failing miserably. If you're not trolling you just genuinely don't understand my point because no one would argue what you're arguing because it doesn't make sense.
Let us summarize:
I have reality and tons of series with different sequels made in totally different formats.
You think they can't be sequels.
That's it. That is this whole thing. Understand what I'm saying or stop responding because it's like watching a fish out of water flail hopelessly.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apples and Oranges! Expanding Universe =/= Sequel!
Was Andrzej Sapkowski selling the Witcher 1,2 and 3 games as a sequel to his books? Yes or no?
Was project Red selling the books/comics/what ever was created between the gameas as Sequel to their games? Yes or No?
Was the comic book of Jericho meant to be the next Season or was it meant as fan-service to give closer to a canceled show that would have otherwise never seen the ending? Yes or no?
Just because you name "something" doesn't mean that it is actually a point. And it is no surprise that so much entertainment these days, including franchises in games go down the gutter. Because it is exactly this kind of attitude that sometimes dominates the field where non-creative people tell someone, that if it makes money, it's a good decision!
You can not just create a TV series and say, OK we will make 9 seasons but season 4 and 7 will be only released as comic books and Season 3 as computer game and Season 2 as novella. It simply doesn't work that way.
Who in his right mind would do that? And sell that as a concept to Netflix or HBO?
Last edited:
Battlecross
Banned
Yes, the comic books of Jericho are literally the next seasons and are sequels.
noun
noun: sequel; plural noun: sequels
a published, broadcast, or recorded work that continues the story or develops the theme of an earlier one.
Halo has novels that continue the story. Gears of War does. The Witcher does. All sequels. All books and not games, disproving your entire point. Are we done now?
Have you ever designed something? I mean have you ever worked in a creative business?
Beaushizzle
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Technically, Battlecross is right. Ethically, spiritually, mechanically, and everythingelse-ically, he's wrong. Is FO3 and on a sequel? Yes, technically. Lore, canon, mechanics, spiritually? No.
Battlecross
Banned
No, and totally irrelevant to discussing the issue of not-exactly-the-same-sequels.
Last edited:
So than I have a we bit more experience than you in that field. As someone who has actually designed something. Like in a real company. Making designs and such.
Battlecross
Banned
Again, irrelevant to what you're saying about sequels. Now you're trying to win by claiming you must be a designer? You're making no goddamn sense. Just stop, this is embarrassing now. I should really not keep indulging this madness.
Last edited:
No, I am just saying that I am not trying to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs.
I do not claim to be a game designer, but I know people who are. And I am working as designer. I have an education which took me 3 years of my life. For example, the last thing I would do is tell Hassknecht how physics work, because he is a fucking scientist.
If you think that is irrelevant. So be it.
I do not claim to be a game designer, but I know people who are. And I am working as designer. I have an education which took me 3 years of my life. For example, the last thing I would do is tell Hassknecht how physics work, because he is a fucking scientist.
If you think that is irrelevant. So be it.
Battlecross
Banned
Except that design has fuck all to do with your original assertion, so it's absolutely irrelevant. Designing something and video games is not even close to comparing a scientist and physics. Not even close. You're really reaching. Are we done now?