Innovative sequels are defunct

[lorax]

Gamers and developers alike have often confused the difference between innovative and superfluous features. According to our friend Webster, author of the famous book with definitions for words, innovation is the act of introducing something new. Superfluous is: being beyond what is required or sufficient. So, can a feature be both superfluous and innovative? Let’s see for ourselves.

In Quake, the 3-dimensional window onto the environment is innovative but not superfluous. It is an advance that allows for looking up and down which has a direct and sizeable impact on gameplay. Is Starcraft innovative? The answer is surely yes. It introduced rock-paper-scissors to the gameplay formula by having three evenly represented sides to compete for resources. Whether for good or for bad - you decide.

Is Max Payne 2 innovative? How about Simcity 4? Sims 2? The last several installments of your favorite sports game? Kohan 2? Warhammer 40k? Half-life 2? A game name followed by the number 2 should indicate something. It’s often not innovative, and the features that are added are just that. Superfluous. Define this word as you like; but a “gravity weapon” is cool, but does it impact gameplay? I'll let you decide.

Keep your comments pithy.

[Eduardo X]

S2 kicked all kinds of ass. However, I still can't figure out where the "2" in "Silent Storm" comes into play.

[LawBeefaroni]

Gravity gun good, add lot.

Max Payne 2 good, HAVOC engine add lot.

Why do games have to add technical innovations to gameplay? We're happy with movie sequels that simply add more to a story. I agree that a lot of sequels are crap but don't knock them all simply because they don't re-invent a genre.

[JayG]

Half Life 2 was pretty innovative, and had very little to do with the first 1. It was more like a classic Sci Fi novel. And while Max Payne 2 may have been very like the first 1, the physics made it a whole new game for me.

[Creepy_Smell]

I enjoy a good game whether or not its innovative. Innovation is not what makes me buy a game. I buy a game because I think I will enjoy it for whatever reason, which could include enjoying the 1st one and wanting more of the same. This does not mean I only want the same game over and over though.

[Dhruin]

A game name followed by the number 2 should indicate something.

It indicates a sequel, oddly enough. Sequels are the last place you should be looking for innovation.

Exceution > innovation much of the time.

[shaggydoug]

I'd say HL2 was innovative because of the source engine....which can be played around with a lot with the gravity gun. It is a technological leap in my mind.

- shaggy

[Scanner]

Is Max Payne 2 innovative? How about Simcity 4? Sims 2? The last several installments of your favorite sports game? Kohan 2? Warhammer 40k? Half-life 2? A game name followed by the number 2 should indicate something.

Why would you want innovation in a sequel? I expect a sequel to refine whatever originally attracted me. The longest running series of computer games, Microsoft Flight Simulator, improves slightly with each iteration. At no point has it been accused of innovation. If you want someting completely new, you should buy a different title.

Incidentally, Warhammer 40,000 is not the 40,000th sequel.

[Blackhawk]

Nice argument. Unfortunately is utterly falls to pieces after you get past one assumption - that everything must be either innovative OR superfluous, as though those are the only two possible states a feature can attain.

[Tareeq]

The instant I saw this thread title, out of the corner of my eye, I knew who the author was without even reading that column.

[Grifman]

S2 kicked all kinds of ass. However, I still can't figure out where the "2" in "Silent Storm" comes into play.

Uh, "S"ilent "S"torm has two "S", maybe?

[baron calamity]

Half Life 2 was pretty innovative,

HL2 was very innovative. Too much so. Innovated itself out of being a 10th as good as the first Half Life.

[Faldarian]

Why do games have to add technical innovations to gameplay? We're happy with movie sequels that simply add more to a story. I agree that a lot of sequels are crap but don't knock them all simply because they don't re-invent a genre.

That was my first thought.

I usually look at sequels not because I want something new, but because I want more of what I got in the first game. There should always be -something- added, or at least a technology improvement, but sequels are generally designed to give more of something people liked the first time around.

A lot of the time I'd be just as happy with more expansion packs rather than a full-blown sequel.

[Scanner]

S2 kicked all kinds of ass. However, I still can't figure out where the "2" in "Silent Storm" comes into play.

Uh, "S"ilent "S"storm has two "S", maybe?

I count three.

[Two Sheds]

The instant I saw this thread title, out of the corner of my eye, I knew who the author was without even reading that column.

I was going to post the exact same comment.

[CSL]

S2 kicked all kinds of ass. However, I still can't figure out where the "2" in "Silent Storm" comes into play.

Uh, "S"ilent "S"storm has two "S", maybe?

Indeed, how does S2 sound compared to SS?

[Kasey Chang]

Sequels, by definition, are NOT innovative. Thus, an innovative sequel is an oxymoron.

[ChrisGrenard]

Sobe Power
Fruit Punch Flavored Beverage
With Other Natural Flavors and
A Blend of Proline, Creatine and Taurine

All Sobe Beverages are
Specifically Formulated to
Energize the Body,
Uplift the Spirit and
Enlighten the Mind.

Herbal Content
Per Bottle

Taurine 80mg
Creatine 25mg
L-Proline 25mg

For more information on
Sobe Beverages Check us out at
www.sobebev.com
or call the lizard line
1.800.588.0538

7 39510 90010 3
RS90010BB
ME-HI 5 CA CRV

[Chaz]

Chris is drunk again! Hide the women and sheep!

[Kraken]

People buy sequels for more of whatever they liked in the original. Duh.

[Jeff V]

A game name followed by the number 2 should indicate something.

It indicates a sequel, oddly enough. Sequels are the last place you should be looking for innovation.

Lorax just wants to show he knows what an oxymoron is. We're proud of him, just like we're proud of that 47-year-old neighbor's kid who was dropped on his head when he was a baby and just learned to go to the potty himself

[Ridah]

He's right, the only thing is we've had this debate many times before. Games lack innovation these days, a lot of features are simply superfluous and do not bring anything truly new to the table. But hey, what can ya do? My expectations have become sterilized to the point where as long as the graphics improve and a few new gameplay components are implemented, I'm satisfied. I am a cow.

[Zurai]

The only neccesary information from the original post.

[yossar]

He's right, the only thing is we've had this debate many times before. Games lack innovation these days, a lot of features are simply superfluous and do not bring anything truly new to the table. But hey, what can ya do? My expectations have become sterilized to the point where as long as the graphics improve and a few new gameplay components are implemented, I'm satisfied. I am a cow.

If all we got were old games with improved graphics, sound, interfaces, and greater detail due to increased processing pwoer (ie. a more realistic Sim Earth), I wouldn't mind a bit. There's enough to play around with that's already been done. There still hasn't been a game that used all of the innovations of Total Annihilation, for example.

[Faldarian]

If all we got were old games with improved graphics, sound, interfaces, and greater detail due to increased processing pwoer (ie. a more realistic Sim Earth), I wouldn't mind a bit.

Buy EA sports games. They have all of that stuff added into every year's sequel except the graphics, sound, interface and greater detail

[The Preacher]

Innovative threads are defunct.

[The Meal]

Keep your comments pithy.

Sorry, I will fail to entertain you.

I agree, though. Why bother with adding something new, if it doesn't add to the fun of the gameplay? I much prefer fun gameplay over new features.

The Master of Orion series is a good example of folks trying to add new things that didn't really build on the successes of the earlier games. MoO2 added micromanagement and complexity to what was a rather simple game (and things ended up worse for it). I don't have enough time with MoO3 (I purchased a copy to trade with someone else {Hi Windows!} and only installed it and futzed around for a few hours on release day, before I declared it unfun for me) to comment there, but my understanding is that it was an even further step away from fun gameplay due to features added for the sake of adding different features.

Innovation is fine and dandy, were the industry to lack in innovation there'd be no need for new games. However, it's about the gameplay, stupid. Should I make that its own paragraph so someone can call it pithy?

It's about the gameplay, stupid.

~Neal

[Rowdy]

It's about the gameplay, stupid.

Amen. If you're going to make a sql to a game, it better be more of the first one, perhaps with some technological advances. HoMM4, MOO3, even Civ 3 to a certain extent - examples of needless 'innovation' that ruined (or worsened, since Civ 3 isn't that bad) a fantastic gameplay experience.

I want HoMM3 with better graphics and art! I want MOO2 with better techs to research, better effects, more ship design! I don't want a new game.

[SuperHiro]

Once again I find myself drawing on the wisdom of gellar.

-Innovation is overrated. Just make me a better toilet. Don't invent a whole new way to shit.-

[yossar]

The Master of Orion series is a good example of folks trying to add new things that didn't really build on the successes of the earlier games. MoO2 added micromanagement and complexity to what was a rather simple game (and things ended up worse for it).

I agree with you, but I think we're in the minority of thinking MoO is better than MoO2.

[Peacedog]

I agree with you, but I think we're in the minority of thinking MoO is better than MoO2.

I suspect polling of the OO crowd would turn up that most people prefer the first to the second.

Of coure, what ever you (general you) find fun is what you find fun. I think it's a difficult argument set a standard that has some objectivity to it, no silly elements, and then use that standard to argue that Moo2 is a better game than Moo (never mind which one the reader prefers).

Despite the bugs in Moo (and there were some nasty ones), it was a pretty fantastic game. A classic to be sure. I really enjoyed Moo2, but I don't think it stacks up under any objective measure. The tactical combat was a little more interesting on small to medium scales, perhaps.

To those who never spent much time with Moo3: be thankful.

[lorax]

Sequels, by definition, are NOT innovative. Thus, an innovative sequel is an oxymoron.

Sequel by definition: something that follows. The corporate suits poured oxymoron into the soup, not Mr. Webster. Moo. Moo.

[ChrisGrenard]

Sequels, by definition, are NOT innovative. Thus, an innovative sequel is an oxymoron.

Sequel by definition: something that follows. The corporate suits poured oxymoron into the soup, not Mr. Webster. Moo. Moo.

As you may know, I rather enjoy making fun of commentary I consider odd. However, in this case, I actually don't know what you said. Thus, I resign myself into the west, and I will return when I am more educated in the ways of the world.

[CeeKay]

I was always fond of Pickle Raider 2: The Gherkin Legacy.

[yossar]

I suspect polling of the OO crowd would turn up that most people prefer the first to the second.

Well then, let's find out!

[Peacedog]

Fight it out!

[IceBear]

Just by the title I knew with was a lorax thread

[The Meal]

Fight it out!

Indeed.

~Neal