Support NeoGAF

[Zacfoldor]

For me it isn't about the graphics. It's about the level of iteration.

Perfect example is BotW vs TotK. They recycle the same map. The graphics are the same. This should easily be a "safe" sequel right? This should be absolutely the most "DLC" worthy sequel listed.

However, anyone who has actually played both know that they are completely different games from a gameplay standpoint. It's hard to even describe how different each games feels but they do not feel like the same game at all. You can go play BotW and have an entirely different gameplay experience, from ground up, vs TotK. It's even hard to emulate one game's feel in the other at a small scale. It is a basic reimagining of a game in the same setting and it is VERY ambitious. Comparing the two games is applies to oranges and I would expect that each game would have their diehard fans but not that either game would have an advantage. They are two very different games. Similar to OOT and Majora's Mask.

Now let's talk about sequels that only change the graphics but keep everything else identical and simply plug in a new quest and visuals but keep the structure and the gameplay about the same. It's lazy game design and I'm tired of pretending it is not. We want ambition in our sequels. You do not have to reinvent the wheel like ToTK but there should be clear progress made in most areas. Instead, many franchises are opting to stagnate which makes for a boring game with no hype. I don't understand people in this thread saying you can't change a sequel up or you will make people mad(did Majora's Mask make people mad?) but who also think you can change the main character and nobody should be upset.

 

[deriks]

God of War Ragnarok= for sure lazy, and overall weak
Hellblade 2= only the mechanics that kept the same, but everything changed. It was a dud thou
Doom: The Dark Ages (Eternal was also divisive)= Eternal is divisive because didn't feel like Doom. For sure was not a lazy gaming, just different and not that great in comparison with 2016

Halo Infinite (but let's face it, guardians could be here too)= 5 can be said as lazy, Infinite was the game that they never wanted to do, but still was ok. The grappling hook was a Metroid thing, but since Infinite improved, every game now has it. Could be way better, but 343 don't understand Halo and Microsoft needed

Mario Kart World= by far not lazy, but since MK8 perfected the series, everything after won't do the same
Tears of the Kingdom (divisive)= this was lazy, and also the fun that BotW turned into bureaucracy
Spider-Man 2= that's the worst of all
Forbidden West= actually that's the worst of all, but not by much

 

[Dr.Morris79]

The only game on that list I was interested in playing straight away was Dragons Dogma 2 (I bought tears of the kingdom too, havent opened it yet)

As for the rest, zero interest.

I'll buy and play anything. I've no qualms about gender, race, whatevers going on..

But the calibre of most new games is complete trash.

 

[simpatico]

I've the utmost confidence that you can go ahead and pencil these in:

Killing Floor 3
The Witcher 4
Assassins Creed Hex
Far Cry 7 (if not fully rebooted)
Elder Scrolls 6
Outer Worlds 2

 

[Madserb2023]

Poor sequels are nothing new. I would say the current spate of sequels are underwhelming rather than bad. Not like Devil May Cry 2.

 

[MagiusNecros]

For me it isn't about the graphics. It's about the level of iteration.

Perfect example is BotW vs TotK. They recycle the same map. The graphics are the same. This should easily be a "safe" sequel right? This should be absolutely the most "DLC" worthy sequel listed.

However, anyone who has actually played both know that they are completely different games from a gameplay standpoint. It's hard to even describe how different each games feels but they do not feel like the same game at all. You can go play BotW and have an entirely different gameplay experience, from ground up, vs TotK. It's even hard to emulate one game's feel in the other at a small scale. It is a basic reimagining of a game in the same setting and it is VERY ambitious. Comparing the two games is applies to oranges and I would expect that each game would have their diehard fans but not that either game would have an advantage. They are two very different games. Similar to OOT and Majora's Mask.

Now let's talk about sequels that only change the graphics but keep everything else identical and simply plug in a new quest and visuals but keep the structure and the gameplay about the same. It's lazy game design and I'm tired of pretending it is not. We want ambition in our sequels. You do not have to reinvent the wheel like ToTK but there should be clear progress made in most areas. Instead, many franchises are opting to stagnate which makes for a boring game with no hype. I don't understand people in this thread saying you can't change a sequel up or you will make people mad(did Majora's Mask make people mad?) but who also think you can change the main character and nobody should be upset.

Want a deep dive on why TotK is objectively a fun game but bad sequel? See you in 4 hours.