Sequels

[tolik]

I just wonder, how many of you have thought about making sequels to your games.

Seeing Bejeweled 2 and Cubis 2 going out makes me :confused:

[Coyote]

Absolutely.

I use to loathe sequels. But to a degree, sequels are the opportunity to do all the things you wish you could have done in the first game. Or to act on customer suggestions or requests if they were out of scope for a simple update.

I think having an entire series of games with a common thread / universe / style / storyline is great from a business standpoint, and can serve the customer really well.

What I disagree with is the 'churn' attitude that you get in Hollywood and the games industry, where they simply milk the old cash cow dry without really improving the experience for the customer.

[princec]

Yeah, I had this brilliant idea to do Alien Flux 2, in 3D, and spend 3 years developing it.... and sell another 100 copies ;)

Cas :)

[Rainer Deyke]

Sequels are an opportunity to create something big because you don't have to start from scratch with each game. I'm working on a sequel right now.

[svero]

Aargon deluxe is a sequel to the original Aargon that first came out. It's quite different in many respects. Probably should have called it Aargon 2. There will most likely be an Aargon 3.

[Hamumu]

My customers constantly pester me for sequels to Dr. Lunatic and Loonyland. They would much rather get that (even if it was virtually the same game, as I understand it) than all these other wacky things I try. I guess when you like something, you want more! Someday I intend a Loonyland 2, but they'll all hate it because it'll be totally different than the original. It's funny how people get attached to the characters and setting even in games like mine which have zero thought put into either of those, and are just a random assortment of junk. Maybe spending 100 hours staring at the same guy gets you identifying with him. Seems like it should make you sick of him.

[PoV]

Yay... A conversation that isn't already 20 posts dead.

Erm.. Yeah. I'm not a huge fan of doing sequals, but there have been a lot of fine ones done recently, Halo 2 being the latest good example. From a business standpoint, sequals make sense. In the past I've always liked the progressions that show games making radical changes. Like Super Mario Bros. to Super Mario 2 (though technically there's that whole Doki Doki Panic scandal, but still, the point is a new feel), or to Super Mario 64. Though recently, I've bought and enjoyed all 6 Tony Hawk games, and I can't wait for #7, which boggles my mind. :D

[James C. Smith]

I think it can be a great idea to fallow up a successful game with a sequel or another game in the same product line. The danger is that you may cannibalize sales of the original. If you come out with a new game today, many people who come to your web site will be first time visitors. Let’s assume they saw your new game on the what’s new section of download.com and now they are coming to your site for the first time because of your new game. The may have never played your older games. When they buy the new game, it would be nice if they would also buy some of your older games. But if the new game is called “Cow Wrangler 2” then you have almost 0 chance of selling any more copies of “Cow Wrangler [1]”

Ricochet Xtreme was more than two years old when we considered making a sequel, but the original was still selling very well. We didn’t want a sequel to take sales away from the original game. Instead, we “extended the Ricochet brand” when we made Ricochet Lost Worlds. We went out of our way to NOT call it Ricochet 2 and NOT make it replace Ricochet Xtreme (the original game). Ricochet Lost Worlds is NOT everything from Ricochet Xtreme plus more. It is bases in the same foundation as the original, but it is different in many ways. Same of the most loved feature from the original (rail ball and chain reaction change effects) were intentional not used in the new game. Our goal was that if you play Ricochet Lost World first, and then you were introduced to Ricochet Xtreme, you would think Xtreme was a cool sequel to Lost Worlds even though Lost worlds is actually a sequel to Xtreme. It was hard to not make Lost Worlds so great that it would completely overshadow the original. But we still had to add cool new stuff to Lost Worlds to excite the people who already owned the original. It was a balancing act but I think we pulled it off. Lost Worlds sold at an incredible pace when it was first release. The owners of the original loved the new game. But the original Ricochet Xtreme is still selling almost as many units per day as it was the day before we released Lost Worlds. In other words, the “sequel” didn’t reduce the sales of the original.

Sequels can be great but it may be better if you can position it as a sister product rather than sequel. Otherwise, you may be better of making a completely different new game rather than making a new game that will reduce the sales of your existing games.

[svero]

My customers constantly pester me for sequels to Dr. Lunatic and Loonyland.

So when do you think these sequels will be available. Is it soon? I like to think of it in terms of hours and not so much the longer less satisfying "Days" measurement.

[svero]

I think it can be a great idea to fallow up a successful game with a sequel or another game in the same product line. The danger is that you may cannibalize sales of the original.

That was one reason there wasnt an Aargon 3 earlier. Sales of Aargon Deluxe are starting to die down now after quite a few years. It's showing it's age a bit too I guess. Starting to think of version 3.

[PoV]

Sequels can be great but it may be better if you can position it as a sister product rather than sequel. Otherwise, you may be better of making a completely different new game rather than making a new game that will reduce the sales of your existing games.
That's a very interesting point. A sequal seems to always a good thing for brand. Ultimately, despite how different an original game is from it's direct sequal, by the name alone, the previous game will suffer. As far as indie games go, many developers rely on selling games years after they are released, and given the choice of Fun Game 1 or Fun Game 2, a consumer would almost for sure take the newer sounding one.

Mind you, looking at the games that are the same and choose different names to (dare I say) confuse an unsuspecting customer seems rather underhanded, but I commend you for noticing and pointing this out. And I expect to some day exploit this to it's fullest. :D.

[Mike Wiering]

I think it's usually a good idea to do a sequel when you have a successful game. Most of your existing customers will probably buy the sequel right away and it's likely to easily attract many people who once played or heard of the original game. But don't think of it as something you can do very fast, make enough changes and improvements so that it's like a complete new game, not just a new version. I think making a good sequel is just as much work (or more) as creating a complete new game, because customers will expect it to be better/larger than the original.

[James C. Smith]

Mind you, looking at the games that are the same and choose different names to (dare I say) confuse an unsuspecting customer seems rather underhanded, but I commend you for noticing and pointing this out. And I expect to some day exploit this to it's fullest. :D.

I don’t see what is underhanded about it making two games which each have unique features but a similar foundation and then giving them unique names with the same foundation. Especially when the player gets to try before they buy. I was not talking about putting different names on the same game. In my example, the two games have different music, environments, power-ups, and levels. The only part that is the same is the core game mechanical, the "main character" design, and some of the power-ups.

[BongPig]

Isnt all marketing underhanded to some degree? hehe. :)

Anyway, I dream of doing an Xbox only sequel to Space Tripper. Highly unlikely though. We will probably just end up doing a straight conversion of the current version. Still, its a dream though.

What about you James? Assuming Live Arcade does quite well, would you be tempted to make Xbox only sequels/games?

[James C. Smith]

What about you James? Assuming Live Arcade does quite well, would you be tempted to make Xbox only sequels/games?

I have very low expectations for Xbox Live Arcade. But if they start selling enough games to justify the development costs, I will make more games for it. They wouldn’t necessarily be sequels to my existing games. And I don’t see a compelling reason to make them exclusive to the Xbox. In other words, if I am going to make a new game, I want to run on the biggest market I know if which is Windows. If Live Arcade is extremely successful it wouldn’t stop me from making Windows games but it could strongly influence the design on my new games. I would probably start relying and 3D hardware acceleration and target the game play at Xbox gamers (or whoever is buying Xbox Live Arcade Games) I would then release the same game for Xbox Live Arcade and then still make a Windows DirectX version of that same game. Even if I sell fewer units of the Windows game, my profit margin there is much higher than for Live Arcade.

[david_nixon]

Speaking from the a publisher/distributor/"game store" prespective - I've seen a number of sequels released over the last 6 years, but found it rare for the sequel to "out do" the original in terms of the games overall success - particularly when the original was a truly "hit" game.

These sequels did pretty well, undoubtedly raised visibility of the franchise, re-inspired interest as sales of the original tapered off, and captured repeat purchase from previous customers...but I don't think I've ever seen one actually reach the "glory levels" of the original's success.

Perhaps its a timing thing? Or perhaps, like movies, a sequel has to be groundbreaking or it falls into the shadow of the memory of the original?

Should be interesting to see how Bejeweled 2 does. If ever there was an anticipated sequel...

--David Nixon
Director of Publishing
Oberon Media, Inc.

[PoV]

I don’t see what is underhanded about it making two games which each have unique features but a similar foundation and then giving them unique names with the same foundation. Especially when the player gets to try before they buy. I was not talking about putting different names on the same game. In my example, the two games have different music, environments, power-ups, and levels. The only part that is the same is the core game mechanical, the "main character" design, and some of the power-ups.
No disrespect. My point of view on games is despite how you package it, weather it's a new name, new box art, new graphics/audio, new content, new renderer, it's the mechanics that are the game. A variation of this I watched first hand was the trasition from Battlefield 1942, to Battlefierd Veitnam. It's a new setting, guns, vehicles and everything, but bottem line it's still the same basic 3d shooter with vehicles. Because of the lack of distinct "Veitnam was #2" (or 1.5 to some), the chances of new #2 players playing #1 on top of the normal transition of #1 to #2 are much higher. In the independant gaming space, it's a clever psychological marketing tool that can be exploited by those that want to, I just want to identify it as such. For me however, in my 'skool' of game development, it does strike me as a tad underhanded. Given other examples of brand strengthing transitions, like Bubble Bobble to Puzzle Bobble, Super Mario Bros to Mario Party to Paper Mario, or Donkey Kong to Donkey Kong Country to Donkey Konga, those to me feel 'right'. But it's all in the eye of the beholder 'eh? :D

[mkovacic]

No disrespect. My point of view on games is despite how you package it, weather it's a new name, new box art, new graphics/audio, new content, new renderer, it's the mechanics that are the game.
So I guess that all of those AD&D-based RPGs out there are all the same game to you, eh? ;)

[PoV]

So I guess that all of those AD&D-based RPGs out there are all the same game to you, eh? ;)
Haha, lol... that's probably why I don't care for them. :D.

[BongPig]

PoV,
What about machanics that have been *tuned*.
The most obvious example would be a car racing game. Ok, the basic mechanics remain the same time after time. Accellerate, brake & gear changes. However, each sequel would improve the feel and dynamic feedback, which in turn improves the gameplay greatly without any obvious changes to mechanics.

The same applies to all games. Just because Battlefield 1942 plays with the same basic mechanics as the others, it doesnt mean it is the same. In some games, alot of effort is put into subtle layers of gameplay mechanics that effect the feel of the game.

You cant say, well they both use a crosshair, and you have to shoot stuff, so the are the same. Thats a much too simplistic way to look at it. After all, do all FPS play the same? Hell no! Some feel like lead, whereas others feel much more intuative, even though they share exactly the same *basic* mechanics.

The subtle layers to the mechanics are the most important in my opinion.

[PoV]

Hehe... sure, of course. But that's where I'd normally slap the 2, 3, and 4 sticker on it, and many racers like Gran Turismo, Rallisport Challenge, and Project Gotham do that. Obviously everyone is their own judge of how much value is worth that full price tag, and all I'm doing is supporting a hopeless argument that maybe calling a sequal a totally unique game by slapping a brand new game name sticker on it might be slightly cheap or underhanded. I'm not saying because you redid all the content it doesn't deserve a full price, I'm just saying in my books it's Fun Game 2, not Fun Game Annihilation. Comparing Battlefield 1942 to Starwars Battlefront to Unreal Tournament 2004 to Soldner in the way I'm describing just doesn't work, being done by totally different studios with different goals and everything. That's where most people throw out the "It's a clone of this", where 'this' being the first game that popularized the idea, and that's a totally different story. :D. The other side of this is me saying "hey other dudes that think like me, there might be a marketing idea here for ya". I'm simply trying to point out that I wouldn't have thought about doing this, and the norm to me was to simply slap a regular 2/3/4 sticker on it in cases where the game was enhanced and new content was created, or come up with a new name in cases where we change the gameplay mechanics essentially starting a spin off series (Bubble Bobble to Puzzle Bobble).

I'm not against sequals. I'd run out of commercial games to play if I was :D, but me, the dude with PoV (Point Of View) as the name just happens to think Tony Hawk's Underground 1 and 2 really was Tony Hawk 5 and 6.

[Hamumu]

I don't know about THUG2 yet (dammit) but THUG1 definitely was no Tony Hawk 5. It didn't deserve that title!

[Dan MacDonald]

Terminator 2

[James C. Smith]

...it's the mechanics that are the game. ...It's a new setting, guns, vehicles and everything, but bottem line it's still the same [game]. Because of the lack of distinct ...#2...the chances of new #2 players playing #1 on top of the normal transition of #1 to #2 are much higher. ... For me however, in my 'skool' of game development, it does strike me as a tad underhanded.

Just to be clear, I wasn’t saying you should not call it a squall, I was saying you should not design it to be a sequel or more precisely, you should not design it in such a way that it makes #1 obsolete. I didn’t design a sequel and then call it something different. I designed it to be something different from the beginning. I wasn’t trying to be deceptive with the name. I was trying to design a game that would appeal to fans of the original without making the original obsolete. Some people played the demo (or just heard the name and saw the screen shots) and said, “oh, it’s another breakout game. I liked Ricochet but I don’t need another one.” I don’t think there was anything underhanded about it. It is very obvious that it is another breakout game. The people who wanted another breakout game gobbled it up. And the people who had their fill of break out games passed it up without being deceived.


But I guess your point is, weather the #2 outshines #1 or not, if it has the same core play mechanic then it is a sequel. I can respect that. You can call it a sequel if you like.

[James C. Smith]

I've seen a number of sequels released over the last 6 years, but found it rare for the sequel to "out do" the original in terms of the games overall success - particularly when the original was a truly "hit" game.


It is very hard for any game to “out do” a truly "hit" game. A sequel doesn't have to “out do” the original to be a success. It just has to “out do” the average game and/or generator more money that it cost to develop. I am willing to bet most of those sequels that didn’t “out do” the originals were still extremely successful games. I would never call any game a failure just because it couldn’t out do Collapse, Bejeweld/Diamond Mine, or Ricochet/Rebound.

[Anthony Flack]

I was very excited yesterday to find a Super Bomberman 4 cartridge at the flea market. Even though I already have SBM2. So certainly I can see the value in making sequels and continuing to refine your product.

But I'm not interested in doing them, myself. I have too many totally unrelated ideas I want to try. The other thing is, with downloadable distribution, you can continue to refine and expand on the original product if you feel like it.

[PoV]

Heh... I just can't win. Last time I try to compliment someone. :D

Just to be clear, I wasn’t saying you should not call it a squall, I was saying you should not design it to be a sequel or more precisely, you should not design it in such a way that it makes #1 obsolete. I didn’t design a sequel and then call it something different. I designed it to be something different from the beginning. I wasn’t trying to be deceptive with the name. I was trying to design a game that would appeal to fans of the original without making the original obsolete.
Ok!! Whoa!! Now I can really tell you think I'm attacking you and Reflexive. And I think I found out where this mess started.

That's a very interesting point. A sequal seems to always a good thing for brand. Ultimately, despite how different an original game is from it's direct sequal, by the name alone, the previous game will suffer. As far as indie games go, many developers rely on selling games years after they are released, and given the choice of Fun Game 1 or Fun Game 2, a consumer would almost for sure take the newer sounding one.

Mind you, looking at the games that are the same and choose different names to (dare I say) confuse an unsuspecting customer seems rather underhanded, but I commend you for noticing and pointing this out. And I expect to some day exploit this to it's fullest. :D
Boy do I love spacing. This ramble fest is one thought, it shouldn't have been broken up. Do not read the 2nd paragraph as it's own entity! I was implying as an indie you could do this, but depending how similar the game could be, calling it a new product could reach a point where it could be considered underhanded (where it would be just a bunch of new maps)... followed by a joke. 'cmon, what kind of madman would throw a joke after an attack? :D.

And then we break out in to a philosiphical discussion about where to split a series (or so I assumed it was one) and woo dawg!! Fire! Fire!

Back to your point, yes, I totally agree. A good sequal should stand on it's own and leave some reason to return to the original. And back to my point, my original though would be to slap the #2 sticker on the game, and then I was like 'oohh', you don't have to and there may be some advantages.

I should just go back to lurking, clearly I threaten people when I speak up. :D

[James C. Smith]

No worries. It’s nothing personal. I never though your comments were an attack on me or Reflexive. And I don’t expect everyone to agree. I just thought there was some misunderstanding.

Also, my goal is not to promote or advocate any products. I was just giving some advice about if and how you should do sequels and using one of my games as an example. I don’t expect everyone to agree that my advice is good advice. The whole point of this forums is for everyone to express their own opinions. I just wanted to clarify my opinion so that people wouldn’t misunderstand and think I was advocating deceptive naming.