Borkachev said:
What's the difference between a direct sequel and a story in the same universe with the same characters? If you're using the original characters, I don't see how you could avoid building on the established canon.
A story set in the same world with all-new characters would be better, but I still don't particularly want to see it. Just how often is this world faced with destruction? Even if they're not messing with the characters, they'll inevitably screw up the world, a la Crisis Core and all its nonsense about the Wutai war and the Loveless story.
I'm also a little more open to prequels. Crisis Core, for instance, didn't have to be bad, even though it was. If they'd focused on Zack's character instead of bringing in a bunch of ridiculous and poorly-thought-out new villains and convoluted evil plots, they might have had something worthwhile -- unnecessary, but at least something that didn't diminish the original game.
Mainly I wish they'd just quit already (and maybe they finally have). Some things should be left sacred. |
One continues some aspect of the original story and one doesn't. Did you ever play Super Mario RPG? Smithy came to the world and started causing all kinds of trouble with his creations. The result of which was everyone banding together to stop him.
Now imagine a sequel that didn't involve Smithy or his creations at all. You may partner up with Geno and Mallow again and you may see Johnny once more, but this sequel could have nothing to do with Smithy's original attack on the world.
Let's flip that over and say the sequel was about one of Smithy's creations activating which causes the player to learn about Smithy and where he came from bringing new insight to the original story.
It's the difference between those 2 that I'm talking about.
@Bolded part: Why?
