By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - David Cage: "Sequel Kills Creativity & Innovation"

kitler53 on 10 January 2013

i'm a fan of trilogies.

typically the first in a franchise has a lot of little things to perfect on. over 3 games i can see improvements and keep playing the game i love while not seeing it milked to the point where it taints what was good about the original entries.



Around the Network
ishiki on 10 January 2013

well, heavy rain felt like a "spiritual sequel" to Indigo Prophecy.

Mario 64 and Resident Evil 4, differed more from the previous titles in the series than heavy rain did from his previous game imo. You can't use that as a blanket statement.Although, I agree and undesrtand his general point.



MARCUSDJACKSON on 10 January 2013
riderz13371 said:
MARCUSDJACKSON said:
well i can't completely agree, and it depends on the type of game you're creating. i want beyond two souls.

shooters eventually become more about shooting then anything else, but again it depends on the genre.

what's the difference between COD and Battlefield? a shooter with a bad story and no realism, vs a shooter with realism, with one thing in common. my hatred of both. one gets more boring, while the other gets more real. ops i put boring in the wrong spot. Battlefield is the boring one, while COD lacks creativity, and has become all about the multiplayer, and gameplay advancements have simply disappeared.

starhawk is the most innovative shooter this gen. or that i've seen, but that's only because it's different.

Forza and GT gets more realistic, so those sequels are warranted, and Uncharted just keeps getting better(UC1 and 3 no so much depending on who you ask) and some games (insert game here)never get better.

adventure games! always something new, tasking, puzzles, and beautiful expansive environments, and RGP's, the many different types of stories that cane be told throughout this genre have been endless.

what's next? i don't know, but sequels do constrain how creative you can be, doo many gamers not wating certain aspects to of the game to change, which limited LBP2, and the direction MM wanted to go, cause they wanted to retain connectivity with LBP1.

was Halo Reach innovative? to me it was different with different in it, but i wouldn't call it innovative. and Super Mario Galaxy, wasn't your typical Mario platformer with him exploring new worlds. it more or less reminded me of R&C (up your arsenal or gone commando i can't really remember), but not so much because how the 2 games differ.

so again it all depends on the genre.

He's specifically targetting the games that have annual releases. As you said Battlefield and CoD continue to become boring with no real innovation, well these are the games David Cage is referring to when he says "the same game every christmas". Of course it's easy for a sequel to be innovative and better than the original, but it's hard to accomplish this when there isn't enough time given to develop the game.

yep, every AC game is hit or miss, and reviews make note of it. AC would be better if it weren't a yr'ly release. Madden13 is the best thus far, with one simple change that helps with those passes you just have to make, or take the ultimate risk on, by win or pick. (i think i'm getting my writing skill back)

yep, it seems all of us know what David is tlking about, and it's something i'm sure we all want to see change although we know why it won.t Sony and Nintendo, are the only ones that can really make dev. cycles stratch because of the number of ip the command, but Nintnedo have a better track record for not shoving sequle after sequle down our throats. i want more Kirby, or a Kirby game with Meta Knight as the lead. or even a Zelda game with Zelda as the lead. twould be awesome.

 

 

@M.U.G.E.N i couldn't agree more.



 Zarx's unofficial The Witcher 3    

Official Playstation Vita Thread!

write reveiws, articles, share thoughts, and expand on discussion like never before on gamewise.co/brainwaves

Spazzy_D on 10 January 2013

That used to not be the case... remember how different NES era sequels were sometimes? Castlevania -> Castlevania 2. Super Mario Bros. -> Super Mario Bros. 2. Zelda -> Zelda 2.

I do think having more then 2 of any game franchise in a single console genration can makes a series stagnatem though.... seems that way to me, anyway.



yum123 on 10 January 2013

hes definitely right. In sequals you are working entirely of an existing product and just building on top of it. But then again with no sequals there would be no huge franchises that you want more of. I think trilogies or 3s of a franchise is a good way.