Why do game companies change things when making a sequal?

[Ryuji]

One good example of gameplay changes for a sequel is the transition from Mass Effect to Mass Effect 2. The gameplay in both were great, but 2 definitely felt better to play. The story mechanics stayed the same but they upped the ante a bit with the heralding of the Reapers. Excellent sequel and you can bet I'll be getting Mass Effect 3 on the 6th of March.

[Hraklea]

It's not even the story that should be expanded on. I'd say its gameplay elements are the major things and that sequels should focus on and fix what was bad and keep what was good rather than change the entire core of the game.

But that's a personal things. Let's take my favorite example.

I heard thousands of people saying that Resident Evil 5 is "not a RE game, because it is not scary and has no riddles", but for me, RE never was scary and riddles always were stupidly obvious, and as they improved the gameplay and removed the stupid riddles for actual challenges - faster and smarter zombies, bigger crowds, etc. -, the game is better, in my opinion.

My point is that what most people see as core mechanics of RE series that were removed from RE5, I see as flaws from old REs that were fixed. What you mean by "core" is actually "the main reasons why I liked the game", and that's up to the player.

[Merie]

Man hates change almost as much as he hates things staying the same.

[Deleted]

It's good that they do. They often get a lot of stuff wrong but they hopefully learn from it too.

When comparing DA:O to DA2 for example.

They turned mute main character into a voiced one which was a huge success I think. The telepathic puppet didn't make any sense in DA:O and really bothered me. It would have actually made more sense if he/she was actually mute storywise and communicated by sign language or writing:P

Then the talents. Again huge improvement. In DA:O most were useless and you got every talent you ever wanted in the end. Of course they could have made it better, talents were still kinda imbalanced in DA2.

And finally much better spell effects and animations. The exploding bandits were too much though.

They made a lot of mistakes too and made a lot of things worse but I still think with DA and any other game for that matter, change is generally good and welcome. But then again I've never understood the nostalgic people who still play 10 years old games and say the sequels are crappy. For me, any game older than 5-6 years (with the exclusion of MMOs and some multiplayer games) is no longer worth playing because the crappy graphics and old mechanics usually just ruin the good memories.

[Hexotic]

lets face it, if they change something, people cry booo why did you change it, if they dont, people cry boo why arent you changing anything.

[PACOX]

The way people react to Call of Duty and every new MMORPG is why.

[Powerogue]

because if you try to stick to a formula too long people get bored of it. exhibit a: World of Warcraft. :P

[Thallidomaniac]

In the case of The Sims series, it seems the changes to the game were made due to both demand from the fans, and change in staff, which made the game seemingly more "realistic" with an RPG-esque touch, which I personally don't see why that would work for a Sims game.

I do want to know why the heck EA adds some of the more ridiculous Sims suggestions, such as doing laundry, to the game. Thank goodness they didn't cave in completely yet by adding Teen Pregnancies and Rape to the game though. The obsession some fans have with those last two things makes me shudder to this day.

[Fhi]

Expand on the story. Keep the gameplay the same.

I think it depends on how much changed from the original, and at the same time whether or not a change is needed. DA: O is a good example. Dungeon Keeper was another not-so-well-known game that changed so much that the pretty graphics in DK 2 couldn't match up to the gameplay, the story and the sheer emotions that pixelated DK 1 brought.

[Clockwork Pinkie]

Then you look at Dragon Age 2. Dragon Age:Origins was one of the best games i have played,then here comes Dragon Age 2. You don't even play as your grey warden from the previous game they completely change everything basically,and most of all there was no camp. God i missed that camp . Why could i could i not get the same team together from my original grey warden adventures? Reunite us to go and save the world again,just create a better story to bring them back, i am sure it would of been possible.



Dragon age 2 is just an example and because i was highly disapointed with that game. :P

Because that is not the timeline they wanted. Also, you can do all of those things. Just play the downloadable content, it has enough to feel like another game. Dragon Age 2 was good, in it's own way. It's just smaller, not many places to travel, and a different story, as well as more dialog than action, which is why it disappointed so many.

But, long answer short, they change things in a equal because it's a whole nother game, otherwise they'd just make more expansions and DLC's for the original game. Unless you're the Tony Hawk or CoD or Rock Band series.