>GAME 1 (Good)
>GAME 2 (Best)
>GAME 3 (Worst)
Why does this happen so often?
GAME 1 is a new IP that either flops or finds an audience who likes that type of game.
GAME 2 is a sequel that fixes the issues GAME 1 had, while adding more content that fans love.
GAME 3 needs to improve sales further to appease stockholders, so it attempts to reach a wider audience and gives up what fans loved about GAME 1 in the first place. Also known as the "We want the Call of Duty audience" effect.
>first game: they still haven't developed the game mechanics well, had to develop the engine so it costed a lot and might have to be rushed to get money back
>second game: they may add incremental changes to the engine or none at all, they know what worked and what didn't from feedback, which gives them a chance to expand on what made the 1st game good
>third game: devs/pubs sell out, or were purchased by a big company which proceeds to devour the carcass of a franchise
please for the love of god don't post it
Game 1: Establishes franchise, you like it or don't.
Game 2: Improves upon it, adding new content and fixing the bad content of the old
Game 3: Usually made for the sake of satisfying fans and/or making more money. It does not start out with the same initiative of making a good game or manifesting a vision. BUT EVEN IF the third game is made with the same ambition and passion as the previous 2, it also faces a dilemma.
Game 3 can either, like game 2, simply improve upon what was already established, and add new content. At this point, it feels less like a new game and more like an expansion, which people will complain about.
They'll shout REHASH, they'll say the devs we're lazy and couldn't think of something new, even though they were just trying to retain what made the games so likable in the first place.
OR, it can reform the whole thing to deliver a completely new experience, which is what people expect. And then people get disappointed that it's not like the older ones. To the point of regardless of the game being great (someone who didn't know about the previous games could play it and LOVE it), it's rejected because it's not true to its name.
This is what I've noticed happening the most to sequels and I hate people for it. Especially /v/.
A good game that was given honest effort gets shitted on simply because it changed things. The ONLY reason, the absolute only reason a fan wouldn't like it, is because of it changing something from the original, had you reskinned it so it doesn't have the association of the previous 3 games, people would have probably loved it as it's own original game.
In the end, the conclusion has all too often been the same. Gamers are entitled elitists butthurt faggots and it's incredibly dangerous, both in business and politically, to try and pander to them.
You always lose. There is no win scenario, you faggots act like games are something OWED to you.
The ideas bucket is probably running dry by Game 3, since they used all the good ideas in Game 2.
>GAME 1: shit
>GAME 2: really good
>GAME 3: shit
>GAME 4: really good
>GAME 5: shit
>GAME 6: really good
>GAME 7: shit
First game is devs trying the idea for the first time.
Second game is devs perfecting the idea.
Third game is unnecessary crap trying to cash in on the perfection that was the first two games.
>Game 1 (Great)
>Game 1: Expansion 1 (boring)
>Game 1: Expansion 2 (Better than base game)
>Game 2 (Great)
>Game 2: Part 1 (underwhelming but otherwise fine)
>Game 2: Part 2 (Great)
>Game 2: Part 3 (Doesn't exist)
This is the reason why I sometimes am glad for the ways the companies jew people out.
They already have to deal with the pirates, now they have to deal with you annoying faggots who are absolutely impossible to satisfy.
Seriously, so much of you hate the companies, thinking they are the evil that keeps trying to empty your wallet, but look deep down at the issue.
From the very beginning of it all, it is YOU, the players, the "gamers" that have ruined the fun for everyone. All of the fucked up shit devs do now is the result of trying to pander to people (which include the Journalists, who also have been terribly corrupted because of YOU).
The ridiculous schemes they pull now are the result of you entitled faggots making it impossible for devs to succeed, so they have to try and get around you.
They can never, ever win.
I miss when vidya was still a new niche thing. Any new game that came out was treated as a new game, a new product and people played it free of bias. There wasn't this autistic attachment and feeling like the devs owe you more games (and also owe you a satisfying personal experience as well as owing you a good price). Change was seen as a good thing, players didn't demand some sort of fixed price, so developers were free to put in a little extra because they would charge extra for the game to make up for those costs.
So many things ruined by "gamers", so many things ruined by anyone who plays video games and sees it as anything more meaningful than a fun game.
Fuck you guys, i hope you're never happy about vidya ever again, you deserve it.
not always. especially in contemporary games.
It use to be a good game was released, so publishers would fund for a sequel, but not get involved much because the gaming market was fickle and they didn't want to invest too much time/money into the game yet.
So part 2 is basically allows the developers to do what they wanted to do with part 1, but now have the money to do so.
Then part 3, publishers are fully confident in the money making ability of the game, and basically take over the game and make it appeal to the widest audience possible, and say yes to every request by the fans, which ruins the game.
Now, games just suck right at the sequel. The first one ends up ok, the second one is immediately shit. Look at the Arkham games as an example. Took a great linear game and gave it the open world meme which ruined it completely.
>Game 1 (Forgettable)
>Game 2 (Loved by weird niche fans)
>Game 3 (Best)
>Game 4 (Loved by many, disliked by the core fans)
>Game 5 (Absolutely adored by everyone, core fans enjoyed it despite not being as good as 3)
>Game 1 (Good, but flawed)
>Game 2 (Good, flaws from 1 hammered out)
>Game: Subtitle (Okayish, plays different, but not really bad)
>Game: Sub Title
>none of them play like first 2 nor add anything good
Same company, different game
>Game 1 (Forgettable)
>Game 2 (Loved by a niche)
>Game 3 (Loved by a majority of series players except some 2 autists and the later players)
>Game 4 (Marked by many as downfall of the series, some niche fans praising it for not being as bad as 5)
>Game 5 (Loved by fucking plebs, hated by core fans)
Because there are a huge number of people out there who are totally incompetent social climbers, and use their connections and friendships to get ahead. Whenever something becomes successful, they descend on it like piranhas and totally ruin it. The same thing happens in Hollywood, which is why sequels of successful movies become such boondoggles.
It goes like this:
>Game 1: Underfunded (success)
>Game 2: Funding increased (mounting success)
>Game 3: Leeches descend (boondoggle)
>Game 4: Abandon ship!! (Cash in on nostalgia)
Repeat ad infinitum. These social climbers step on the competent people and scapegoat them for the failures. Thus, like parasites (or vampires), they travel from project to project, leaving a trail of destruction in their wake
That's why people who played Skyrim and loved it never touched Morrowind or Daggerfall, right?
I am convinced most of them never even touched Oblivion. I am certain majority of them just call TES series "Skyrim games".
Explain how the situation is otherwise?
Explain how it wasn't entitled gamers and jewish journalist (which count as part of the gamers) that made the gaming industry impossible.
What other form of media has elitists and entitled consumers like the gaming industry?
>1 was good
>2 was good
>3 was good
>GAME 1 (Good)
>we got this idea and we pushed it, but we had very little money because no one believed in us, so our product was limited in features
>GAME 2 (Best)
>now we have more support and more money ourselves, we can take our original idea and add all the things we wanted to add in the first game
>GAME 3 (Worst)
>3rd parties want to invest in our idea, but they want crative control in exchange of their money, what could go wrong?
There you have, that's what happens.
Remember to never let anyone touch your ideas, ever, no matter what they offer to you.
If your ideas are taken away from you, choose: destroy your ideas, destroy those people or destroy both.
because publishers only want more money, and devs are stupid enough to think that they'll be able to make the game better after they take an entire development cycle to do so with the second game.
>Game 1 - Great
New IP crafted with love
>Game 2 - Worst
The devs drop the ball hard due to publisher/time/engine/platform problems
>Game 3 - Good
Years later some remnants of the original team pick the game up in a new studio and make the "true" sequel
Only if you hate RPGs and only played NV.
I never finished NV despite trying multiple times in playthroughs spanning over 100 hours, I just can't, the boredom gets to me.
I just can't finish all the fetch quests through a fucking boring desert with subpar gameplay that doesn't do the FPS or RPG part any justice.
C'mon son. I mean, okay, the multiplayer was actually decent that time around, but the campaign was the slimiest piece of shit ever shat out of the proverbial anus. It's like they didn't care and wanted to make "youtube poop: the game"
all you've done said a bunch of random and subjective things, and then you say that there's some kind of logical connection between them, that some of the things you've said imply that other things you've said. but you haven't explained why. there isn't any logic holding it together, it's just a bunch of random and incoherent thoughts.
when making an argument, what you normally do is
1) premise (demonstrably true)
2) logic (demonstrably correct)
what you've done is this
1) premise (entirely subjective)
3) gamers ruined video games?
Game 1 is made with passion
Game 2 is made to enhance the quality if Game 1
Game 3 is made due to demand
motherfucking ace combat ps2 trilogy
if 4 counts as 1
>base game is a grindfest
>expansion is a grindfest that's poorly made
>expansion 2 fixes all the stuff from exp 1 and the base game being grindy, but has no real content
>expansion 3 is literally wiping all the progress and content and adding fucking mircotransactions, as well as locking content behind timewalls
what the fuck happened to the balls on this developer.
so people demand a game that doesn't exist and they have no idea what it will be?
come on nigga, wtf
There exists a demand for a certain type of game, which is usually data taken from sales of popular games right now. A producer sees that demand and proceeds to tell the devs under it to make a game similar to what is popular.
That's how it works.
>halo 2 is the worst
>halo 3 was better
isnt the second witcher acknowledged as better than the first?
is that proper english? im so high right now
How have nobody said assassins creed yet?
Well I don't think that's correct way of thinking about it but hey, it's just my opinion, some games are made of passion others might be what you said, whatever, would thau like to fuck?
oh, didnt read that, lol. Cut that and its still true. My bad.
I'm not saying some games aren't made of passion. But most games are a mix of passion and demand.
There are very few games made nowadays at least that are passion. Yooka Laylee is an example of a game of passion that saw a great demand in return for its announcement. Who would have thought a modern platformer would be popular in 2015?
Slut, I asked if you'd like to fuck, we're done talkin' vidya
I think AoE is just a matter of setting more than anything. AoE1 is the ancient world with like Rome and Greece and shit, so it's pretty cool. A lot of people love AoE2 because few people actively dislike Medieval swords and boards shit.
AoE3 however is Wooden Ships & Iron Men, which is a pretty damn niche setting.
>Game 1 (good)
>Game 2 (great)
>Game 3 (studio is bought by a bigger company and the sequel never happens)
Original ideas, without a sufficient budget to allow real freedom, maybe there's pandering to get it published so it's safe but passionate.
Success happened with game 1 so all those fancy ideas can be fleshed out and implemented, money isn't much of an object and publishers will give you free reign.
You used up all your ideas in game 2 but the publisher needs its contractual third game, or is bullying you into release outside of a contract. At best you'll just do a more-of-the-same sequel, at worst you'll bottle it and release something you don't really care about.
Establish core mechanics and design
Polish the mechanics and design and use what they learned from the first to make an even better game
"We need to do something new to differentiate it from the first and second entries" -> shit game