Would you rather have a safe sequel or a risk taker that blows?

[dope_danny]

Playing through my new xbones lit of small exclusive sequels i've noticed a very specific trend between the ones that are a successful sequel and the ones that arent so much. The prime examples are Halo 5 and Gears of War 4.

In Halo 5 they really want to rock the boat. Trouble is they don't do it in a way that plays to what made Halo the first console shooter to be a hit since Goldeneye. Wide sandbox areas with vehicles, multiple ways to take on any set piece conflict and a cast that had just enough banter to be likeable yet quiet enough to be the immersive power fantasy character that brings the player into the action ala Classic Master Chief, Gordon Freeman or Agent 47 to name a few. The story is a dramatic right turn after a key character was killed off to push her as a Siri competitor for smartphones and 'distance her from gaming' which bombed but now shes back as a villain which completely neuters the last games impact while not bringing anything new in return. To say nothing of the same boss like 7 times and gameplay designed to chase another games audience rather than be original and distinct. Its a sequel to a 7 strong series at the time including spin offs that seems universally agreed upon to have fun multiplayer but the worst campaign in the franchise. They took a risk and it did not work.

Then you have Gears of War 4. The original plan workshopped around was to pull a Final Fantasy and keep the gameplay and mechanics but set it in a new universe with a new world and enemy to explore and fight. Then in a fit of regressive brand zeal to try and make something to pull in the core audience after the abysmal launch year for the console they 180'd into making it a hard sequel. One that is staggeringly safe in a "It happened....again?" straight to dvd movie sequel level of sequel writing. It introduces a new generation of Gears and revamps the enemy to bring them back in a slightly different image but mechanically bar three enemy creatures made them identical in gameplay. Its still a gorgeous world of not quite european architecture left to nature and ruin after decades of war and worldwide disaster and the gameplay is excellent -along with certain story choices that actually make it more faithful to the plot points set up in 2 and completely forgotten in 3 than 3 was- and the general consensus online seems to be that it is a perfectly fine sequel to the series that seems terrified to do anything new and inventive due to a fear of driving away its core audience.


Theres plenty of games that do a bit of both and succeed. But its not often that a series does either of the above and keeps going for the long haul. Monster Hunter stays very safe, Final Fantasy today is unrecognisable compared to the first game on the NES. But those are rare examples with diehard, very successful franchises under their belts.

But if you had to pick one design ethos for the next game in your favourite series what would you rather see? ultra safe or ultra experimental?

[Arrashi]

Safe sequel. If people like your game, you should realise why, and not change that. If you wanna go for innovation - start new IP.

[I Push Buttons]

But if you had to pick one design ethos for the next game in your favourite series what would you rather see? ultra safe or ultra experimental?

Neither.

I want an expanded feature set, I want innovation. I don't want them to make an entirely different kind of game that is nothing like the original, though.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Obviously something new but if it's so completely different I think it may push people away and to be honest, it really depends what the game is like.

[Lotus Victoria]

For a sequel, I'd like it to be a bit safe. For a new franchise though, I want it to be wild and innovative. Used to happen more frequently in the past days.

[Tech614]

For a sequel, I'd like it to be a bit safe. For a new franchise though, I want it to be wild and innovative. Used to happen more frequently in the past days.

Not really. It's just now people who claim they want them don't even pay attention and ignore them when they come out.

Sunset Overdrive
Gravity Rush
Wonderful 101
Until Dawn

Should I keep going on? It seems like when a company does take a chance and become "wild and innovative" all these gamers that supposedly want that don't actually buy the games. Shocker when companies go back to safer options after having a bomb.

[Chinese Bootlickers]

I'd say a little of both, but between to two I'd say safe for AAA and riskier for Indie. It's getting too damn expensive to take risks in the big market when a single slightly under-performing game can sink a franchise or developer.

[Video Games]

Whatever is considered going from kh1 to kh2, except for the downgrade of mp systems

[Zafire]

I like to play it safe. I get excited for sequels because it's more of what I already liked.

[Halicia]

Safe sequel. If I want something different, I'll play a different franchise.

Obviously any decent franchise should adopt "best practices" that develop in the genre and games in general as tech develops and time passes, but there's no point in radically changing the game just to *try* something different.

[Gallahadd]

I think I'd rather have a safe sequel, as long as there is some level of natural progression.

Dynasty Warriors is a great example of this.

DW1-5 were all solid, then for no reason we got DW6, which was a HUGE risk for them. The Renbu system went down like a cup of cold sick, and the character design changes were, if anything, even more poorly received. Then we have DW7, which went back to the standard stuff, with a few new characters a new family and an extension of the story, which was met with far higher approval ratings.

So while stagnation is never a good idea, and while I AM a little bored on putting down the yellow turban rebellion for the tenth time later this year... Totally changing the combat system and redoing all the characters is a far worse idea.

[Blade Wolf]

Stick to safe sequels and experiment with spin offs.

[Mysterymask]

.......depends on the series honestly..Capcom tends to go the safe route with sequals until they try something extremely radical that either Succeeds and THAT becomes the Safe one RE4 was the experiment then we got stuck with 5 and 6...and now we got the experiment of 7 where now I think if we get an 8 and 9 its going to be in THAT style and hopefully they don't fuck it up...or we get something like X7 which may of murdered the franchise.....

if you think about it almost seems they do their experiments on the 4th and 7th games of the series...

[quijote3000]

I just want to play good games. And make new IP's. There are too many sequels

[dope_danny]

.......depends on the series honestly..Capcom tends to go the safe route with sequals until they try something extremely radical that either Succeeds and THAT becomes the Safe one RE4 was the experiment then we got stuck with 5 and 6...and now we got the experiment of 7 where now I think if we get an 8 and 9 its going to be in THAT style and hopefully they don't fuck it up...or we get something like X7 which may of murdered the franchise.....

if you think about it almost seems they do their experiments on the 4th and 7th games of the series...

7 is a bit of a blend of the two. it was the first person vr memegame of choice for a new audience but its still exploring a spooky compound in the woods solving obtuse puzzles involving weird keys and shit. It didn't please everyone but considering 6 was a technical travesty having a solid 7/10 release is more pleasing to the shareholders than another shitshow.

and considering they were saying "the over 25 audience isnt there anymore and we want the minecraft and call of duty generation for RE7" when 6 came out talk about a hard 180 to meet in the middle.