Topic: Drastic differences in "sequels"

[theANdROId]

So, I was wondering:  Lots of games have that one "black sheep" of the bunch, as in the odd one, not necessarily bad.  Why do you think companies make these?  Obviously they can't stay stagnant, but when a game is good, why make the next so different?  Mario had SMB2, which I imagine we all know the story behind that one.  But what about others, like Simon's Quest?  Castlevania was so great, why make Simon's Quest so different?  Why did we get Mario Sunshine and not a bigger and better Mario 64?  Why were LoZ1 and LoZ2 so different?  Or Ocarina and Majora's Mask?

I was just curious what your opinions were?

[theplottwist]

My opinion about old games is this: The game kept going from hand to hand, and each new developer wanted to do whatever the hell they wished without minding continuity or consistency.

I think such thing as consistency is something that we only pay any attention to nowadays, and this relates to the old games too. We only notice "consistency" in retrospect. Back then, nobody gave a shit. Well, not nobody, but most developers didn't really care, I guess.

And then we get to matters such as wanting to try something new, and wanting to copy the things that are making success. "Screw consistency, that guy over there has a recipe for success. Let's copy him."

[zangetsu468]

Back then say for eg with CVII, I think they tried to push the envelope. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't.

Zelda II was made by a different team altogether. As much as I don't mind the game, it really didn't work in terms of a Zelda game. (A better example of an AOL style game - with o/w map and platforming/combat working would be Gargoyle's Quest).

[theANdROId]

How they sometimes do/don't work was part of my original thought too.  Some are loved, some hated, some mixed.  Not really much to say about that, I just find the varied responses interesting I guess.

But if I had been handed LoZ 2 or CV 2, I'm not sure I would have made such drastic changes (assuming the originals sold as well as I imagine).  Even if handed off to another company or developer, since it's all about making money it seems the logical course of action would be to replicate and add to what recently worked. I'm glad it happened with both of those titles though, as well as many others.  Some of them are really great!

[zangetsu468]

I was very surprised upon playing both CV II and AOL (moreso here and they entirely changed the style of game to "lesser quality" imo, LOZ already had a strong tactical side with Darknut and Wizrobe fights).

I truly thought CVII was a linear game when I saw the cover, and although I'm glad it wasn't, I go believe the game and franchise in general would have been more successful if they had kept it linear. It also doesn't really make sense to be open world, the official Japanese guide to CVII states that Dracula resurrected because of his Fang (which Simon didn't know about and thus didn't find). This body part was removed from the final game, which logistically makes sense, because Dracula manages to resurrect without Simon completely destroying his body parts. However, it kind of downplays the story imo.

If technology had permitted at the time of CVII it would have been nicer to have alternate outcomes rather than just 3 endings based on time. For example if Simon collects all body parts - Dracula can't resurrect; Simon misses 1-3 body parts - Dracula resurrects at half strength; Simon finds 0 body parts - Dracula resurrects at full strength. Etc. if this was. Linear game with hidden paths and relics it would have made for a better game imo.

[Lelygax]

Maybe it was for better that the past is what we knows. Thanks to games like these and people trying new things, now we have formulas that we love and know well.

About Dracula's teeth, I was thinking these days and maybe it was all along in Simon wounds :B

[zangetsu468]

Maybe it was for better that the past is what we knows. Thanks to games like these and people trying new things, now we have formulas that we love and know well.

About Dracula's teeth, I was thinking these days and maybe it was all along in Simon wounds :B

I'm not certain it was for the better tbh. Nobody was a more avid SOTN supporter than I, but somehow I can't help feel that the linearity aspect was lost which previously had made the series a success. The more successfully executed CV games (aside from the releases which chronicle Simon's first encounter with Dracula) imo had linearity and to some extent branching paths. I'm not speaking of financial success but personal enjoyment and what I believe makes for a successful masterpiece of CV. That's why I prefer OOE over the other Metroidvania's, it retained and regained something lost in the classics.

As for Dracula's fang, I assumed it was still under his grave or buried in the ruins of CV.

[Aceearly1993]

The "Sequels" of game series are different from past titles because the idea of stuff members, hardware limitations, new technology, etc


Dracula's rotten teeth was one of the background things, it's said that the teeth was planned to be exist as the sixth body part, but players only get five parts in-game, then the stuff changed the fact and said the teeth are the things related to Dracula's power (Or the things thrown by Dracula's Phantom in the last battle or something that I can't tell since it's from some JP wiki mess.)

[theplottwist]

As for Dracula's fang, I assumed it was still under his grave or buried in the ruins of CV.

According to that same guidebook, it was in the ritual chamber where he was revived. Would've been really fucking awesome if it were buried inside Simon's wound, but anyway...

[zangetsu468]

According to that same guidebook, it was in the ritual chamber where he was revived. Would've been really fucking awesome if it were buried inside Simon's wound, but anyway...

It makes perfect sense for it to be in the absolute last place anyone would think to look, buried in the ruins of CV.
I suppose that where same guidebook when it states that "Dracula uses the Fang to attack Simon" he was literally using the Fang's (inanimate object's) power/ his power through the Fang to attack Simon.

[Crying Freeman]

I'd say the reason retro franchises generally had some variety in their sequels because of a few reasons:
1.) They didn't want to offer something so similar that consumers would go "I just have the first one, why bother?"
2.) They want to experiment with what else they can do with their set up, and since the original was successful, it'll at least sell modestly abd they get to see if fans like it even better, to see a direction to take for the future
3.) Reach more people that may have avoided the previous game due to uninterest in genre. Add a few elements they like, BOOM you have two possible markets
4.) Get more attention; Something straying from the formula will attract some poeple like "Really?", and if someone reads about RPGs, they'll see something like Zelda 2, they read about adventure games and platformers, they see Zelda 2 pop up again.
5.) Make a game look like it has more, make it look more ambitious, make it more packed, like Castlevania combining it's gameplay with RPG elements to make Simon's Quest

[zangetsu468]

I'd say the reason retro franchises generally had some variety in their sequels because of a few reasons:
1.) They didn't want to offer something so similar that consumers would go "I just have the first one, why bother?"
2.) They want to experiment with what else they can do with their set up, and since the original was successful, it'll at least sell modestly abd they get to see if fans like it even better, to see a direction to take for the future
3.) Reach more people that may have avoided the previous game due to uninterest in genre. Add a few elements they like, BOOM you have two possible markets
4.) Get more attention; Something straying from the formula will attract some poeple like "Really?", and if someone reads about RPGs, they'll see something like Zelda 2, they read about adventure games and platformers, they see Zelda 2 pop up again.
5.) Make a game look like it has more, make it look more ambitious, make it more packed, like Castlevania combining it's gameplay with RPG elements to make Simon's Quest

1) I agree to some extent with this to cover beyond their current target demographic. (which back then would have been a very niche audience) There was no easy way to rope gamers in back then as games and consoles were quite pricey.
2) True. I remember those "Choose your own Adventure" novels which were all the rage back then, and I think if given 10 more years this could have been implemented successfully.
3) 1 and 2 speak for this.
4) But then again you get games like Majora's Mask, who supposedly do the same thing but generate a lot more interest. Although in these circumstances the narrative/ how the game is played tends to change a lot. (Kind of like CV2 compared to CV1)
5) Although a lot of people bag it, I think Simon's Quest is a decent game and it did drift very far from the original CV. On the surface the gameplay renders it very similar, but this is perhaps the truest sense of "open world" even now within the CV Universe. The fact that all of these mansions are overrun by monsters (most of which don't have bosses) guarding Dracula's organs in itself is a bit unsettling. As annoying as the day/night system is with that text box, it really created a stir at the time, for better or worse.