Make It Again, Man - bit-tech.net Forums

Tim S · 11th Mar 2008, 07:51

http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2008...it_again_man/1

Cliff Harris, ex-Lionhead AI coder turned indie developer, talks us through why he thinks sequels are actually a good thing. Is it possible that EA's endless sequels are a good thing? Cliff thinks so, pointing to his experience at Lionhead as an example...

zelox991 · 11th Mar 2008, 08:17

You didn't mention GTA a bit! I was like...eh...wth.......
but true, i can see some of those remakes/seqeuls can be much better and have a better chance of getting a greater profit.
The thing is PPL dont want to put money into something that they think was a failure.
There are so many investments that can be made out there that they dont have to stay with one.
Good luck.
nice article.

iwog · 11th Mar 2008, 08:36

Lies Spore will be perfect! But on serious note it generally doesnt make economic sense to reinvest in a "failed" project due to the nature of an IP. I mean why is everyone so excited by the latest Duke Nukem when its not being made by the same people that made the first? Its because it has the Duke Nukem brand and if that brand starts off badly (either a total failure or not that good) it gets tainted and public opinion is semi set about it. So this will in turn increase the risk that people will view it negatively and that subsequent sequels will under perform.

culley · 11th Mar 2008, 09:13

I agree some games should have sequels and trequels and even prequels, though some should not, but it's the way in which we live and if people stoped buying things because there will always be a version 2.0, 3.0 & 4.0 which will be better, faster and more intelligent then we would stop inovating.
Games come out and we play them, if we enjoy them we decide what we liked and what we didn't and what we would like to see in the next title or in a the new title, or we buy the sequel in believing that the game has been improved only to find out that its improvements are minor and are barely noticable from the previous version! and our pockets are £30 lighter

Zurechial · 11th Mar 2008, 09:49

Great article, I find myself agreeing with much of what you've said, but it's hard to shake off the dislike of sequels sometimes.

Some of my favourite games of all time are sequels (System Shock 2, Baldur's gate 2, Fallout 2, X3 Reunion, amongst others), but some of the biggest disappointments in gaming to me are also sequels that didn't quite improve on their predecessors (or completely failed to meet even the fair expectations of fans) in my eyes - Deus Ex Invisible War, BioShock (for all intents and purposes), Oblivion, Black & White 2.

Your main point of sequels being part of an iterative process of improvement is something I agree with, but I think there's another factor to the process than just the developers being given the chance by the publisher to try a sequel.

I think it takes another kind of development 'vision' for a developer to see where they can improve on their IP and actually take on-board what they've learned from the original, while I believe it takes developer-integrity, a lenient publisher or existing funds to make an exceptional game that may not necessarily have mass-market appeal.

All too often we see sequels that dumb-down the concepts and gameplay elements of the original, for the sake of greater mass-market appeal but to the detriment of what actually made the original great.
Deus Ex Invisible War and Oblivion are my prime examples for that point.
It's rare that we see a masterpiece sequel to a mediocre predecessor, while we often see mediocre sequels to masterpiece originals which ride on the commercial success of the original but effectively kill off the IP.

Obviously I can only speak from the point of view of a games-appreciator and consumer, but I'm aware, at least, that developing games (particularly of the exceptional, intelligently variety) is not as easy as we'd like to believe. Kudos.

mrb_no1 · 11th Mar 2008, 10:41

Second to last paragraph, typo in the first line, 'interative' should maybe read interactive.

Other than that an interesting article all the same

Tim S · 11th Mar 2008, 10:45

says iterative here...

Bluephoenix · 11th Mar 2008, 13:46

iterative is a branch off of the word iteration, meaning a different version of the same root idea.

so an iterative process is one where new ideas are tried and then improved upon by examining their different variations.

Tim S · 11th Mar 2008, 15:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluephoenix

iterative is a branch off of the word iteration, meaning a different version of the same root idea.

so an iterative process is one where new ideas are tried and then improved upon by examining their different variations.

Absolutely, and that's what Cliff is saying

CardJoe · 11th Mar 2008, 17:03

Yes, I think the point has been made now Tim - you don't need to keep re-iterating it!

...I'll get me coat.

genesisofthesith · 11th Mar 2008, 17:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by iwog

it generally doesnt make economic sense to reinvest in a "failed" project due to the nature of an IP.

But you can always take your game format, improve on it and rebrand it as a seperate entity if you need to distance yourself from a dissapointing original. To put the collective knowledge built up from the development (and failure) of a game to waste, when you could make a good game, for a relatively small investment by leveraging the experience gained from the original seems odd, after all sequels draw on the budget of their predecessors and their own individual cost. On the other hand if a team didn't live up to their original promises the first time around it's hardly suprising theres some caution about potentially repeating the same mistake.

I just hope there are studios willing to fund such efforts though, otherwise we'll be left with an endless parade of 'known investments' such as the 300th incarnation of FIFA, or a generic FPS that plays the same as all the others.

Theres a difference between making sequels to improve on the original concept, and the cash in sequel that for example just updates the players in a football game, or is a rehash of the previous game in a new setting.

Kipman725 · 11th Mar 2008, 17:48

Quote:

I'm typing this wearing some l33t Bose QuietComfort 2 headphones and I am pitying the poor schmucks who were conned into buying the QuietComfort 1 model because of all the things that weren’t fixed until the second set. Except – hang on, there’s now a QuietComfort 3? Damn.

nah you are the poor smuck who bought bose....

anyway some sequals are very good, gta has consistantly got better and so have the halflife games (EP2 is a master peice). I think when people talk about there hatered of sequals they are refering to disapointments like deus ex (although its nowhere near as bad as made out) or endless sports games.

widmod · 11th Mar 2008, 19:10

Nothing about gta

i was really longing for that game
i think i will buy a new computer when i know the games specs

Cthippo · 11th Mar 2008, 19:24

It sounds more like an arguement for patches and new versions, rather than sequels.

Sequels have a place, namely when they carry the story forward. Otherwise it just turns into "Spaceballs II, the search for more money"

Brett89 · 11th Mar 2008, 19:59

Usually I'd agree, Doom 3 was too linear for my taste, and the sequel was even worse. Half Life gets better and better with each sequel, and I'm eagerly waiting for GTA IV, I can't say all sequels are bad, because it's not true in my opinion, but it takes a lot more work to get it right.

wuyanxu · 11th Mar 2008, 20:33

as long as sequels have a purpose (eg, most story forward, or introduce a lot of new stuff to a game universe) it's good.

but i hate expansion packs, eg, Command and Conquer 3: Tiberium War: Kane's Wraith. talking about the attack of two dots

Sandwich · 11th Mar 2008, 23:01

You are completely right, usually the original can't be horrible. It has to have at least some good elements that the developer and can help mature. A shitty and dumb and spoiled child isn't going to mature into some magically amazing world leader, its just not going to happen. A talented genius kid who is applauded and revered isn't going to change much as he gets older; you can only go downhill from perfect, right? The same goes for games, it's gotta have some major draw.
Some I can think of:
Fallout -> Fallout2
Burnout -> Burnout 2, 3
NFL 2K -> Rest of the Series until killed by EA
Tomb Raider -> Up till 3 and the one after that
GTA -> GTA 2 (a huge improvement)
GTA3 -> Vice City
C&C -> Red Alert
Warcraft -> WC2
... and probably more

but this is part of the reason I'm not looking forward to Starcraft 2, even though they've been working hard on it for a long time, I'm pretty sure its not going to be the awesome sequel people are making it out to be; it could just be i never liked starcraft all that much either but i still knew it was "perfect". The same is true for Fallout 3, there is nothing Bestheda could possibly change from Fallout 2 apart from the graphics to make it better, no other combat system or voice acting or view perspective would ever capture the raw nature of Fallout.

Krikkit · 11th Mar 2008, 23:12

A good point, well made. The difficult bit is discerning the good games that are a bit flawed and could do with a sequel from the games which aren't worth the effort of propping up with v2.0...

Tyinsar · 12th Mar 2008, 21:24

I agree with the author that many of those "almost a hit" games should be given a second chance. The thing I disagree with is calling it "____ 2". If you plan to change it greatly call it something similar but not "____ 2". My reasons are: (1) If version 1 wasn't a hit why would I buy version 2? & (2) If the game has major differences it's no longer the same game. One example of the latter is the Age of Wonders series; I loved the first (which was a lot like the Warlords series) and wanted more but 2 & 3 changed the formula (it was all about your wizard) and play style too much for me to even think of it as the same game.

paulwebber · 17th Sep 2008, 16:08

i wander if they use the saying in some computer design offices (especially the gta office??) of 'if it aint broke dont fix it' this clearly works for them all their gta games/sequels are massive hits, even though they are so similar. hell they even went to the same city 3 times!! and are still taking our money for it!! it sounds ludacris when you think about it, but you just cant help but to keep buying them!!

11th Mar 2008, 07:51	#1
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	Make It Again, Man http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2008...it_again_man/1 Cliff Harris, ex-Lionhead AI coder turned indie developer, talks us through why he thinks sequels are actually a good thing. Is it possible that EA's endless sequels are a good thing? Cliff thinks so, pointing to his experience at Lionhead as an example... __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

11th Mar 2008, 08:36	#3
iwog Linux cursed Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: IoW, UK Posts: 712	Lies Spore will be perfect! But on serious note it generally doesnt make economic sense to reinvest in a "failed" project due to the nature of an IP. I mean why is everyone so excited by the latest Duke Nukem when its not being made by the same people that made the first? Its because it has the Duke Nukem brand and if that brand starts off badly (either a total failure or not that good) it gets tainted and public opinion is semi set about it. So this will in turn increase the risk that people will view it negatively and that subsequent sequels will under perform. __________________ Welcome to bit-tech, watch out for thread drift Things can only get better

11th Mar 2008, 09:13	#4
culley Hypermodder Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Gloucester, UK Posts: 701	I agree some games should have sequels and trequels and even prequels, though some should not, but it's the way in which we live and if people stoped buying things because there will always be a version 2.0, 3.0 & 4.0 which will be better, faster and more intelligent then we would stop inovating. Games come out and we play them, if we enjoy them we decide what we liked and what we didn't and what we would like to see in the next title or in a the new title, or we buy the sequel in believing that the game has been improved only to find out that its improvements are minor and are barely noticable from the previous version! and our pockets are £30 lighter __________________ [Q6600@3.08GHz, 8GB RAM, 1TB HHD,Gigabyte 512MB 8800GT,700W PSU,Win7] [Xubuntu Home File Server] [CompTIA A+ Certified][75% Through Cicso CCNA]

11th Mar 2008, 09:49	#5
Zurechial Elitist Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Ireland Posts: 886	Great article, I find myself agreeing with much of what you've said, but it's hard to shake off the dislike of sequels sometimes. Some of my favourite games of all time are sequels (System Shock 2, Baldur's gate 2, Fallout 2, X3 Reunion, amongst others), but some of the biggest disappointments in gaming to me are also sequels that didn't quite improve on their predecessors (or completely failed to meet even the fair expectations of fans) in my eyes - Deus Ex Invisible War, BioShock (for all intents and purposes), Oblivion, Black & White 2. Your main point of sequels being part of an iterative process of improvement is something I agree with, but I think there's another factor to the process than just the developers being given the chance by the publisher to try a sequel. I think it takes another kind of development 'vision' for a developer to see where they can improve on their IP and actually take on-board what they've learned from the original, while I believe it takes developer-integrity, a lenient publisher or existing funds to make an exceptional game that may not necessarily have mass-market appeal. All too often we see sequels that dumb-down the concepts and gameplay elements of the original, for the sake of greater mass-market appeal but to the detriment of what actually made the original great. Deus Ex Invisible War and Oblivion are my prime examples for that point. It's rare that we see a masterpiece sequel to a mediocre predecessor, while we often see mediocre sequels to masterpiece originals which ride on the commercial success of the original but effectively kill off the IP. Obviously I can only speak from the point of view of a games-appreciator and consumer, but I'm aware, at least, that developing games (particularly of the exceptional, intelligently variety) is not as easy as we'd like to believe. Kudos. __________________ www.valyr.net Core i7 920 @ 4GHz <-> 8800GTS 512 @ 785/1946/1990 <-> GA-EX58-UD5 <-> 3GB Dominator 1600 <-> Xonar D1 Last edited by Zurechial; 11th Mar 2008 at 17:32.

11th Mar 2008, 10:41	#6
mrb_no1 Pie Eater Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Pyrford, England Posts: 365	Second to last paragraph, typo in the first line, 'interative' should maybe read interactive. Other than that an interesting article all the same __________________ Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3600Mhz ¦ Asus Maximus II Formula ¦ ATI Radeon 4890 (1000Mhz Core + 1200Mhz Mem OC) ¦ 2x2G Corsair Dom. PC 8500 @ 1080Mhz ¦ Aquacomputer WC ¦ Creative X-Fi Fatal1ty ¦ 150G Raptor, 2x1500 + 1x750 + 2x500 Seagate (SATA2) ¦ Pioneer DVD burner ¦ Lian Li - PC 73SL Aluminium Silent Server Case ¦ Dell 2007WFP 20" Widescreen ¦ Logitech Z-5500 5.1 Speakers ¦ Sennheiser HD270

11th Mar 2008, 08:17	#2
zelox991 Wanna-Be-Modder Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 77	You didn't mention GTA a bit! I was like...eh...wth....... but true, i can see some of those remakes/seqeuls can be much better and have a better chance of getting a greater profit. The thing is PPL dont want to put money into something that they think was a failure. There are so many investments that can be made out there that they dont have to stay with one. Good luck. nice article.

11th Mar 2008, 10:45	#7
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	says iterative here... __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

11th Mar 2008, 13:46	#8
Bluephoenix Spoon? What spoon? Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Daytona Beach, FL Posts: 936	iterative is a branch off of the word iteration, meaning a different version of the same root idea. so an iterative process is one where new ideas are tried and then improved upon by examining their different variations.

11th Mar 2008, 17:03	#10
CardJoe Player Character bit-tech Staff Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 8,010	Yes, I think the point has been made now Tim - you don't need to keep re-iterating it! ...I'll get me coat. __________________ this is joe's non-bit-tech blog

11th Mar 2008, 19:10	#13
widmod Stopp the Relix guy Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: AUSTRIA Posts: 382	Nothing about gta i was really longing for that game i think i will buy a new computer when i know the games specs __________________ Gaffa-Tape is a very simple modding device <sings>I'm from AUSTRIA</sings>and NO we have no kangaroos Microsoft NEVER stopped the beta phase of any of its operating systems i will not apologize for my language skills

11th Mar 2008, 19:24	#14
Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Bellingham, WA Posts: 4,475	It sounds more like an arguement for patches and new versions, rather than sequels. Sequels have a place, namely when they carry the story forward. Otherwise it just turns into "Spaceballs II, the search for more money" __________________ Notice: If we see you flaming we will assume you are on fire and take appropriate measures - The Bit-Tech Fire Brigade.

11th Mar 2008, 19:59	#15
Brett89 Ultramodder Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Grand Forks ND Posts: 1,084	Usually I'd agree, Doom 3 was too linear for my taste, and the sequel was even worse. Half Life gets better and better with each sequel, and I'm eagerly waiting for GTA IV, I can't say all sequels are bad, because it's not true in my opinion, but it takes a lot more work to get it right. __________________ C2D e6700 @ 3.25 Asus P5n-e SLi, 4GB of OCZ Platinum, Xonar D2, 320 and 160 GB Seagate, eVGA 8800 GTX and an Antec P182. C2D T7500 2.2ghz, 2GB DDR2, Quadro NVS 135M 14.1in screen

11th Mar 2008, 20:33	#16
wuyanxu quad fuelled, GTX200 powered Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: in a room near Soton Uni. UK Posts: 3,943	as long as sequels have a purpose (eg, most story forward, or introduce a lot of new stuff to a game universe) it's good. but i hate expansion packs, eg, Command and Conquer 3: Tiberium War: Kane's Wraith. talking about the attack of two dots __________________ Death to consolification !!!Core i7 860 @ 4Ghz Cooled by Corsair H50 // Asus P7P55D Deluxe // 8GB of Corsair Dominators @ 1528Mhz 8-8-8-24 // BFG gtx260+ OC2 MaxCore 216SP 896MB // Samsung 64GB SSD // WD Raptor 74GB + Black 1TB + Green 1TB // Corsair Hx620w // Antec p182 // Samsung 24" T240

11th Mar 2008, 23:01	#17
Sandwich Modder Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 54	You are completely right, usually the original can't be horrible. It has to have at least some good elements that the developer and can help mature. A shitty and dumb and spoiled child isn't going to mature into some magically amazing world leader, its just not going to happen. A talented genius kid who is applauded and revered isn't going to change much as he gets older; you can only go downhill from perfect, right? The same goes for games, it's gotta have some major draw. Some I can think of: Fallout -> Fallout2 Burnout -> Burnout 2, 3 NFL 2K -> Rest of the Series until killed by EA Tomb Raider -> Up till 3 and the one after that GTA -> GTA 2 (a huge improvement) GTA3 -> Vice City C&C -> Red Alert Warcraft -> WC2 ... and probably more but this is part of the reason I'm not looking forward to Starcraft 2, even though they've been working hard on it for a long time, I'm pretty sure its not going to be the awesome sequel people are making it out to be; it could just be i never liked starcraft all that much either but i still knew it was "perfect". The same is true for Fallout 3, there is nothing Bestheda could possibly change from Fallout 2 apart from the graphics to make it better, no other combat system or voice acting or view perspective would ever capture the raw nature of Fallout.

11th Mar 2008, 23:12	#18
Krikkit Don't panic! Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Lancs, UK Posts: 15,209	A good point, well made. The difficult bit is discerning the good games that are a bit flawed and could do with a sequel from the games which aren't worth the effort of propping up with v2.0... __________________ \|E8400 @ 4.4GHz\|WC: 2*120.1 GT's, MCP350, Storm G5\|4GB Dominators\|DFI LT X48-T2R\|8800GT\|74GB Raptor\|Chieftec BA01\|OCZ ModXStream 600W\|Dell 2208WFP\| The Good, The Bad, The Ugly, The LOL!!1!!1!, The Zlad!, The Kempness, The Braaaaaains...

12th Mar 2008, 21:24	#19
Tyinsar 6 screens / 1 card Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: AB.CA Posts: 2,005	I agree with the author that many of those "almost a hit" games should be given a second chance. The thing I disagree with is calling it "____ 2". If you plan to change it greatly call it something similar but not "____ 2". My reasons are: (1) If version 1 wasn't a hit why would I buy version 2? & (2) If the game has major differences it's no longer the same game. One example of the latter is the Age of Wonders series; I loved the first (which was a lot like the Warlords series) and wanted more but 2 & 3 changed the formula (it was all about your wizard) and play style too much for me to even think of it as the same game. __________________ It's not about how life treats you, it's about how you treat life.

17th Sep 2008, 16:08	#20
paulwebber What's a Dremel? Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 15	i wander if they use the saying in some computer design offices (especially the gta office??) of 'if it aint broke dont fix it' this clearly works for them all their gta games/sequels are massive hits, even though they are so similar. hell they even went to the same city 3 times!! and are still taking our money for it!! it sounds ludacris when you think about it, but you just cant help but to keep buying them!!