• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

What do you look for in sequels?

Sequels are often more of the same but bigger and hopefully better.

Sequels can feature the same characters and worlds and build upon them.
Or they could simply share the title, add new characters and build upon gameplay mechanics.

What do you look for in sequels?

Deeper character arcs? Building upon established worlds or polished and upgraded gameplay mechanics?
 

Castle

Ch!ld0fV!si0n
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Location
Crisis? What Crisis?
Gender
Pan-decepticon-transdeliberate-selfidentifying-sodiumbased-extraexistential-temporal anomaly
If there's an ongoing narrative, naturally a sequel should continue that narrative.

Otherwise, I expect any sequel to build upon the foundations of its predecessor without losing sight of the game's core concept. I often point to Arkham City as a good example of what a sequel should be. It added quick-fire gadgets to Batman's arsenal in combat which expanded upon Asylum's already stellar combat without detracting from it. It expanded upon the predator stealth system the first game established while maintaining the games' core stealth play.

Arkham Knight tries but mostly fails to do similarly. Rocksteady tried to integrate the Batmobile into stealth and combat and puzzle solving but did so in a haphazard way. Though they tried to, they also couldn't really integrate the Batmobile into hand to hand combat or predator stealth in consistent or useful ways, so the Batmobile ends up having its own separate stealth combat and puzzle solving. Ultimately this ends up making the Batmobile feel tacked on and distracting rather than a fundamental addition to the core gameplay. The rest of the game is basically just MOOAAAHHR BIGAAAHR!! with a load of extra stuff that just doesn't really add anything.

Arkham Origin (a garbage game you should never play) added a tether to Batman's arsenal which basically just allows you two free stealth predator kills for any encounter. It's more of a cheat than an essential addition to the gameplay. It doesn't do anything new. It even shallowly rips off gadgets from Arkham City. Instead of Arkham City's ice bomb, it's a glue bomb. :dry:

Zelda II is too different from the first LoZ game to make for a proper sequel. Of course the Zelda series is no stranger to straying too far from the series' core tenants, but instead of dumping on Wind Waker or BotW for the bajillionth time I'll find a new "victim." Zelda II adds some rudimentary RPG stat growth that has never returned to the series (though I do think it could be properly integrated) random combat encounters and a perspective change that changed the core nature of the experience too much. ALttP was the series' return to form, and an adequate sequel to the first game which built and improved upon the first game's foundations while remaining true to the series' core nature.

Riven, the aptly named Sequel to Myst, is also a good example of a proper sequel. It features more of the first game's striking visuals, world building, puzzle solving and narrative. Only the visuals are better, the world is better realized, the puzzles are better integrated into the world and trickier at that, and the narrative is richer. Anyone who has played the first Myst will feel right at home in Riven, only blown away by Riven's advancements.
 

YIGAhim

Sole Survivor
Joined
Apr 10, 2017
Location
Stomp
Gender
Male
Fixes t previous problems, such as BoTW's sequel having a bigger, better filled world, and something new and different like Majora's Mask
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Location
Australia
I look for fun. That's what everyone should be looking for.
Secondly I look for an improvement. Taking what the previous games did well and improving on it. Not stepping backwards.

Master of Orion 2 is a good example of this. It takes the core aspects of the first game and expands on them while making everything less obscure and hard to find for the player. Everything in game has informational text talling you what it does and the UI is very easy to navigate. The 3rd and 4th games are total garbage and don't follow the lessons learned from the second game sadly.

Zelda II is too different from the first LoZ game to make for a proper sequel. Of course the Zelda series is no stranger to straying too far from the series' core tenants, but instead of dumping on Wind Waker or BotW for the bajillionth time I'll find a new "victim." Zelda II adds some rudimentary RPG stat growth that has never returned to the series (though I do think it could be properly integrated) random combat encounters and a perspective change that changed the core nature of the experience too much. ALttP was the series' return to form, and an adequate sequel to the first game which built and improved upon the first game's foundations while remaining true to the series' core nature.

It's no different to Majora's Mask. Also very different to the previous game released on the same console. While you are correct, the fans prefered the first game's style, the 2nd game did a lot of things right. Many of them have returned in later Zelda games. Things like jumping and visiting multiple towns/ranches in Breath of the Wild. A magic meter in many Zelda games, having to do the dungeons in a mostly linear format, this linearity existed all the way untill Breath of the Wild broke the mold. Also the idea of a new game plus in the Zelda series started with Zelda 2. You can reply the game and keep the stats you earned in the previous run through. Great for NG plus 8/8/8 speed runs.

The one thing Zelda 2 did better than Zelda 1 is remove secrets with no hint as to their location. Where do you use the candle or bombs on the Zelda 1 overworld? Which walls can you bomb or walk through in the Zelda 1 dungeons? Unless you read the info up before hand it's all trial and error. Zelda 2 marked where almost every single secret is. ALTTP kept this as did almost every Zelda game since. All of the bombable spots are marked or you can hear them when you hit them with the sword.

Zelda 2 is not as bad as most people like to incorrectly think it is. It's just an experiement which many fans didn't like that much. However many of the elements within Zelda 2 were really good and have been reused over the following decades.

Riven, the aptly named Sequel to Myst, is also a good example of a proper sequel. It features more of the first game's striking visuals, world building, puzzle solving and narrative. Only the visuals are better, the world is better realized, the puzzles are better integrated into the world and trickier at that, and the narrative is richer. Anyone who has played the first Myst will feel right at home in Riven, only blown away by Riven's advancements.
Played both many years ago and I agree with you 100%.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom