[Argh!] I hate sequels and recycled games...

[Kasey Chang]

I don't mind if a developer recycles the engine for something else. Heck, Half Life and Quake shares the same engine. Elite Force and Soldier of Fortune also (all are based on the Quake engine, various incarnations). But if you just do the same game over and over, it's NOT called game development!

To be honest, smaller developers are most guilty of this engine recycling.

[FFG909]

I disagree and agree..

Why reinvent the wheel? If a game has a great engine, and the license is cheap, then why spend the extra year+ developing a new engine? Just license one, and go for it.

On the other hand, if you are going to license a engine rather than spend the time to make one, then it BETTER show in the game in terms of quality content, great replayability, and unique ideas.

Sadly, thats lacking in almost every accord. However, there are a few shining examples of companies making a great engine AND putting together great content and gaming goodness. Riddick-PC comes to mind, its a home brew engine that looks as good/better than Doom3 AND the game has content to blow your mind. Or Freedom Force vs 3rd Reich, its their engine, enhanced from the first game, and updated, but the content in the new one is amazing and great. (it should be noted both of these are small developers)

So I guess I half agree with you. Use an off the shelf engine? Then make damn sure you don't cheese on the game. Otherwise is smacks of a cash grab and unfortuntely far too many companies are guilty of making the cash grab.

[Jeff V]

Small developers count on it, but more do it than not. They amortize the development cost of the engine over several titles. This is why there are sequels to marginal games - it isn't because the first one made any money, but by the time the third comes out, the engine is paid for and perhaps there is a net profit at the end.

[Ridah]

I feel some engines are not used enough! Where are all the Doom 3 and HL2 engine games?

[Kasey Chang]

I feel some engines are not used enough! Where are all the Doom 3 and HL2 engine games?

A little early, aren't you? Besides, Bloodlines uses the Source engine.

[Blackhawk]

I don't mind if a developer recycles the engine for something else. Heck, Half Life and Quake shares the same engine. Elite Force and Soldier of Fortune also (all are based on the Quake engine, various incarnations). But if you just do the same game over and over, it's NOT called game development!

To be honest, smaller developers are most guilty of this engine recycling.

I'm confused; is ya for it, or agin it? The first paragraph says you don't mind engine recycling, the second decries it.

[lokiju]

I don't think a blanket statement is in order here. Sometimes sequels are much better than the original, sometimes they disappoint. It's not 100% either way. If recycling a good game engine/idea/design gets it out 6-9 months faster, then I'm all for it.

[killbot737]

Small developers count on it, but more do it than not. They amortize the development cost of the engine over several titles.

Anyone who knows what amortize means must be flogged! They're somehow stealing your money! No offense.

Back on topic:

How many of you liked X-Com 2?

I thought so.

How about X-Com 3?

I thought so.

Obvously there is no answer to this particular enigma.

[ChrisGrenard]

Ahem.

[CSL]

Small developers count on it, but more do it than not. They amortize the development cost of the engine over several titles.

Anyone who knows what amortize means must be flogged! They're somehow stealing your money! No offense.

Back on topic:

How many of you liked X-Com 2?

I thought so.

How about X-Com 3?

I thought so.

Obvously there is no answer to this particular enigma.

An offense against X-COM is an offense against god!

[Kasey Chang]

Okay, looks like my diatribe got cut short. Here's the rest of it.

The rant is about the developers who just do the same game over 3-4 times without adding much new, if anything at all.

Hate to say this, but Canopy, under instructions from ValuSoft, is very guilty of this. Hot Rod / Hot Rod: Garage to Glory is one example. And let's not forget the bazlllion variations of Hard Truck, shall we? (Another ValuSoft product). The difference between the different games are minimal: a couple more cars, a couple more tracks, a couple more opponents.

Racing games are most guilty of this. Adding a few more tracks and few more cars does not make a new game! The difference between NFS3 and NFS4 is enough for a new game, but that's one of the few exceptions. Most racing games, esp. those from small developers, simply add a few tracks, a few more vehicles, and a few more AI opponents, and call it a new game. NOT!

The Hollywood equivalent would be releasing the original version of the movie, then 6 months later, "Director's Cut Edition" of the same movie, albeit with a couple more minutes of footage and some bonus items. Hello! It's still the same ****ing movie!

Sports games are guilty of this too, esp. EA with that "one release per year" mentality. What's new from that version to this version? Uh... better music!

Budget shootes are guilty of this a lot. Jarhead, who makes a lot of budget military shooters, used the Lithtech engine a lot in their games, and its' basically like mission packs. At least they tossed in a few bits of innovation here and there, and they are cheap, but it's basically the same game, over and all.

The really sad part is we the gamers let them get away with it!

To cite a different example, Sir-Tech, in its final days, were guilty of this too, by recycling Jagged Alliance too many times. There's JA2, JA2:UB, and JA2:WF. But then, we know what we're getting, we know it's related to the old stuff. Not all advertisers are as truthful.

If a developer recycles an engine for a different game, I want to see a different GAME, not the same game in slightly different skin and/or a few more different variations.

Part of it can be blamed on marketting and the way market works. Retailers are reluctant to stock expansion packs due to low price point and low margins. However, they have no problem stocking "gold editions", which is original plus expansion, which has higher pricepoint and thus more profit. So the publishers are being forced to issue gold editions, then platinum editions, then titanium editions... For essentially the same game with a few bits of new content.

Lots of companies do get it "right". Microsoft so far has milked the Mechwarrior 4 franchise pretty well, by releasing 1 expansion pack, 2 mech packs, AND a semi-sequel (Mercenaries), and they all actually add to the gameplay, not just the same thing over and over. Blizzard has guarded their cash cows (Starcraft and Warcraft III) with properly balanced expansion packs that actually introduced new gameplay options and tactics.

So do we only expect less from budget games? Or is all that moment spent on developement actually doing some good?

[bluefugue]

I can't possibly hate sequels when many of the greatest games ever made were sequels or spinoffs.

Ultima III
Ultima IV
Ultima V
Ultima VII
Baldur's Gate 2
Jedi Knight
Jedi Outcast
Unreal Tournament
Age of Empires 2
Rome: Total War (arguably, some might not consider it a "true" sequel but it's part of a series)
Civilization 2
Avernum 2

edit: Ok sounds like you are talking about games that are really just minor updates like the sports series or whatever. That seems like a more legitimate gripe, perhaps, but I can't really comment as I seldom play those games. If I were into sports games I'd want them to keep advancing with the newest graphics, yet it's possible that in some cases the basic mechanics have already been "solved". As I said, I don't play those games much so don't know...

[Blackhawk]

To cite a different example, Sir-Tech, in its final days, were guilty of this too, by recycling Jagged Alliance too many times. There's JA2, JA2:UB, and JA2:WF.

SirTech did JA2, and then Unfinished Business, which had a different style of gameplay (more linear, lost the overmap strategic thing, as I recall.) Wildfire was developed long after SirTech went under by I-Deal for Strategy First. The 'recycling' of gameplay is there - but it is Strategy First, not SirTech, that is guilty.

I was glad that the Unreal Tournament series didn't fall into this trap. UT2K4 was different enough from 2k3 to really warrant a new version. They'd originally announced an annual version, but seem to have realized that doing so was a bad idea, and are going to redo it every couple of years instead.

[Kraken]

Small developers count on it, but more do it than not. They amortize the development cost of the engine over several titles. This is why there are sequels to marginal games - it isn't because the first one made any money, but by the time the third comes out, the engine is paid for and perhaps there is a net profit at the end.

Exactly. The practice also allows products to be profitable on meager sales, sidestepping the blockbuster mentality that brings us so many lousy big-budget games. In fact, by letting the developer concentrate resources on content rather than technology, engine recycling can lead to better overall games. As long as the content is top-notch, who cares if the technology underlying, say, Railroad Tycoon 2 and Tropico is the same? Conversely, if a company just keeps cranking out the same old RTS empire game, who cares if they built the technology behind it from scratch?

[Fretmute]

Conversely, if a company just keeps cranking out the same old RTS empire game, who cares if they built the technology behind it from scratch?

I may be in the minority, but I'm a big fan of remakes. In fact, I'm pretty content with all of the games that I've played so far. So if I were promised that the developers would recreate the same games every two years with fancy new graphics and physics, I would gladly fork over $50 every time. Even if it meant no new games. That's essentially what I did with HL2, because I bought it specifically to play Counterstrike. I've never even loaded the single player campaign.

If someone were to tell me that I could be guaranteed a new versions of Xcom, Master of Magic, and Master of Orion every two years, I might be one of the happiest people on Earth.

I don't mean to imply that I'm against improvements. But there exist certain games that I'm more than pleased with, and just making them prettier is fine with me.

[lokiju]

I may be in the minority, but I'm a big fan of remakes.

Well if you were in the minority, then I think they'd stop making sequals. But it appears this tactic does well for most companies.

[Kasey Chang]

It's not just engine recycling, but LACK OF INNOVATION between products.

Nothing wrong with engine recycling if the gameplay is quite different. It's when they're almost identical that you get people offended.

Red Storm is actually quite infamous for doing this by pumping out the umpteenth Rainbow 6 titles. There's RB6, RB6 Eagle Watch, RB6 Gold, RB6 2:Rogue Spear, then RS:Urban Watch, then RS: Covert Ops, then RB6: Black Thorn... Until you FINALLY get to RB6-3 and RB6-3 Athena Sword.

Another engine recycling with almost no new content... Rollercoaster Tycoon 1 vs 2.

There's also Sierra and Papyru's umpteenth version of Nascar Racing. Sure they tweak the engine a bit every year, but...

People who do it right, like Creative Assembly, use the same engine twice, and that's it.

[ChrisGwinn]

Maybe it's just that I've been playing PC games too long, but I have no problems with engine reuse that provides similar gameplay. Zork 2 wasn't any worse for being another text adventure game. Curse of Azure Bonds wasn't any worse for being more of the same. Sierra kept cranking out XXXX Quest games on the same engine with the same gameplay. Ditto for Lucas Arts's adventure games. Baldur's Gate 2 had the same gameplay and engine as Baldur's Gate, and it didn't bother me at all. When you're looking for story, characters and puzzles, it doesn't make any difference at all.

[Blackhawk]

I dunno. There's a difference between, say, RCT 1 and 2 and a full expansion pack. You don't really expect more from an expansion than a few extra levels, a new MP mode, and a few new goodies. Gold releases are no problem for me, as they are generally just repackages of a game with its expansions, not claiming to be more than that.

RCT 2, though, is a perfect example - they basically repackaged RCT 1 and its expansions, removed some elements, and sold it as a new game.

The latest Hitman game (Contracts?) just ended up being a repackaging of some mixed levels from older games, but that was never entirely clear.

The Elite Force expansion pack didn't really add anything - it didn't have any sort of campaign at all - just combat-free levels to walk around in. It was so half-assed they never even bothered to name it; it is just the "Elite Force Expansion Pack".