News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register | Log in
Gaming Series
You know, stuff like....

Doom1 - Doom2 - Doom3

Quake - Quake 2 - Q3A - Quake 4 - Quake Wars

Unreal - UT - Unreal 2 - UT2Kx

HL - various mods - HL2

And others, Warcraft series etc...

What do people think of these?
Lame money-spinners trying to prolong a big name way beyond it's natural life span, or a great way to develop and explore game universes and/or refresh classic games with new technology??
Are such series generally done well as series or not??
Is it preferable to have an almost completely unrelated series like Quakes, a "re-telling" series like Dooms, a "same game universe" series like Unreals, or a direct story continuation series like Half-Lifes??
Should there be more or less??
Should companies grace seperate games with their own names?? Or perhaps make more effort to create a persistent game universe?? And maybe explore it in various genres, like Warcraft series??

Also, would a Quake2 RTS pwn? ;)
Metroid Series 
is t3h r4wk, I wish nintendo would realize it would still be metroid without having to fight some version of ridley in every fucking game(I ahve played prime 2 though and hope he isn't in it). 
Yes Metroid Rocks To No End 
I haven't finished MP2 yet, so dunno if ridley is in it yet. Also space pirates suck. And the actual metroids suck too.

Some series rock. Quake rocked for a bit then sucked but might rock again. Doom rocked all the way. Duke nukem is a series I guess and it did rock a little bit. Unreal sucks. HL rocks. WarCraft is kinda cool, but just because of the universe, not because of the actual games. Same with StarCraft, even though it's only one game so far. Oddworld rocked until Lorne Lanning sold out to Microsoft.
I don't really care. I just wanted to post that metroid rocks. 
Game sequels have the same benefits as movie sequels. The setting is already partly familiar and you can spend more resources on other things than establising the setting. And sequels have name recognition. Which sells. Which is really important.

And coming up with new ideas is bloody hard anyways. 
Coming up with new ideas isn't that hard, people just don't want to push their thinking. The core of most video games is conflict. Start from there. What's been done? Alot, yes, but I don't think we've exhausted all possibilities. It's easier and less risky to rehash popular ideas (aliens, demons, terrorists).

So I guess the question here is what are your thoughts on continuing series? As long as they are continually improved or bring more fun to the same universe that is the series (i.e. Hitman), go right ahead.

BTW I want prequels. Oh wait, I'm already working on one for Q1. Hee. I've said too much. 
Czg etc - how have the metroid series progressed? Didn't they start with some pacman like thing then turn into FPSs or something weird??

Anyway, I tend to agree with Friction, but go even further and suggest it can be interesting for the gamer too - there are some benefits to familiarity as I mention in the other thread. I think it can be fun to revisit the same universe and develop it further, with more background richness and different perspectives and stuff. That's why I'm stoked for Quake 4, cos Q2 was cool and had a relatively strong idea behind it, and I think it can be developed well further.

I quite like the series anyway, not necessarily as direct sequels, but I like having a bit of familiarity, touching on some similar aspects. Q-series kinda sucks for that, I think it abuses the Q name a bit, U-series maybe is more the style I like, except that U2 was super-weak compared to what it should have been.

I think exploring them in different ways is cool too. I like the idea of Q2W going along with Q4 (it's like a sequel then a prequel to the original lol). And like WOW does, exploring the universe from a different flavour... 
Has always been a platform shooter with heavy emphasis on exploration and puzzles. I think it was mostly luck that enabled Retro Studios to turn that into a first person perspective and still have it feel like the old games. 
civ1 was good, orion1 was good, quake1 was .. well, kinda good. Their sequels were not that good, or so i've heard. :P

Doom2 can't be counted cos it's just more maps and a couple new monsters and items to doom1, as was ufo 2 to ufo 1. (Which were better than laser squad though.)

star control 2 was better than original, as was indiana jones - the fate of atlantis compared to the last crusade. Hmm.

Westwood's rts strategies just after dune II were better, but they really weren't the same series/universe/franchise. Warcraft 2 was better than 1.

About half of the sequels are better than originals. Usually at the same time with technical improvements. Of the other half, half are similar, just repackaged and half are worse. 
Alone In The Dark 
The first 3 were pretty great games even if they were somewhat same-ish. The fourth, however, felt like a complete cop-out. This series was responsible for sparking the success of the whole "survival horror" genre (i.e. Resident Evil, Silent Hill, etc.). To turn around and copy that style, which was copied off of what they did originally, just seemed to trivialize the franchise IMO.

I am sure the movie isn't going to do it any justice either... 
I am sure the movie isn't going to do it any justice either...

I think the reviews speak for themselves: (also, I'm sure this must be the first movie where a reviewer has compared it to syphilis) 
I Implore You 
Get House of the Dead and Alone in the Dark and have yourself a merry Boll evening with two of the most ridiculous things ever put on bittorrent. 
You must be logged in to post in this thread.
Website copyright © 2002-2023 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.