It doesn't have to revamp everything. That is no the purpose of a sequel.

It just has to change things that could be improved or add things that could be added to make the game better.

The vision of a sequel should be the same as the original so if something was great in the original, it should be in the sequel unless the sequel can come up with something better that is mutually exclusive with that thing.

My point still stand: If the changes are very minor additions (new cars, new tracks for example), don't make a sequel when you can make an expansion (or even a patch).

The goal of a sequel or an expansion or a patch should still be to come closer to the vision that drove the original game (the difference between then lies only in the scope of the changes done to get the improvement).

If the sequel doesn't add or improve significantly on the original game though, it will be considered a lame duck sequel (reviewers will tilt the review score toward the negative, because the sequel failed to improve significantly on the original).

And yeah, many people are graphics crazy.

I showed Moto Racer to my friend weeks ago and he thought the graphics were NES level (apparently, he can no longer tell the difference, for him, it's all just old).

However, there is still an audience for games with older graphics.

That's the only way the success of many web games can be explained.

It gave me hope that development outside of the big corps can yield something worthwhile (at least, for some game mediums), because if all the games had to be as good looking as a contemporary shooter, there would be little hope for individuals or small teams to make something worthwhile.

Hate to beat a dead horse but thinking that a sequel needs to have more than minor changes or additions to the original formula is what got us Dragon Age 2 0=).... I'd have been happy with practically the same exact mechanics from DAO and Awakening (perhaps a little change in combat) and a continued/new story and have been happy... very happy in fact. But if that would have only been deserving of an expansion, imagine something that is equal to the size and scope of the original game yet is called an expansion. That'd just be silly, and perhaps irritating to me.

Of course this is just my opinion.


EDIT: It seems you added more before I had finished my response..... Damn haha

Well look at FO"3" and FONV... there isn't really too much that has been changed between the two if you really think of it. That hasn't stopped NV from being the superior product. Or Max Payne and Max Payne 2 both are largely the same and great games.

On the other hand look at Deus Ex and Invisible War. Invisible War changed a lot of things but Deus Ex is the superior. Even though I do like Invisible War (yeah I admit it sue me).

Granted there are example of both arguments but this seems to be the trend to me.

What does FO stand for (my apologies to fans)?

Yeah, Max Payne 2 was very similar to Max Payne. However, notice that they made 1 sequel. There is no Max Payne 5 that is essentially the same game as the original out there.

For Deus Ex, I finished Invisible War, but didn't finish the original (I know, shame).

But I agree, just because something was changed doesn't mean the change was good. The keyword here is IMPROVEMENT.

And yes, it's risky and it's hard. If it wasn't, you'd see more of it in the gaming industry.

It helps when you have a vision. Then, you can look at various aspects of the game and ask "Does it detract from what I wanted to achieve?".

Otherwise, you are left looking at the game, scratching your head and wondering what you can improve to make the sequel your company is pressuring you to make.

Obviously, if you have a vision though, it might not be conductive to an endless stream of sequels, because you might reach the point where you determine that you achieved what you set out to do.

FO is Fallout.

There actually is a 3rd Max Payne and Deus Ex coming out. And it's not as though people did not want another Max Payne. It just wasn't made due to low sales. That doesn't mean the game was bad.

ANd to be honest the sequels being so different seems more of a recent thing. Look back 10 years when video games were really starting to become big (Again) and the sequel tended to be like the first. Why change now? It's just business not improvement.

And one has to wonder why the sales were low or why the sequel was not as highly rated as the original... maybe because the original was a huge leap forward and the sequel was more of the same.

Yes, I know. This is the state of the software industry in general and I find it depressing.

It's not about making something great, it's about going for the easy buck.

When we were in univ, we tried (very briefly) to make a cell phone game and whenever we'd pin down an idea, the business guy of our group would just derail it with another idea that was easier to implement, because he wasn't really interested in making a game, he just wanted to make an easy buck.

Imho, too many business people have co-opted the creative drive of engineers.

I didn't say the sequel wasn't as highly rated as the original. In fact it was equally rated or only very slightly worse (as in like 5% lower out of 100 or something like that) All I said was that sales were lower. I said nothing of the ratings.

Ratings don't even matter look at Planescape, or Fallout 1 and 2 all rated extremely high, they just didn't sell for whatever reason.

Look at most any industry for your second point. When it started people were being creative and making good products that were impressive and polished. As soon as they became popular and profitable then the business people took control of the creative processes for most all of it.. Even thinkin of that is laughable in a realistic sense but it's what happens. And it really just comes down to that the business people have money and the artist don't. Their's a reason they calling them "starving artists".