AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Right, so I read this article here, written by Zero Punctuation's Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/article ... -Sequels.2

And it reminded me of this video by the Game Overthinker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz42bfzWkWg

And it had me thinking about two things:

1.) Video game franchises. Some franchises, particularly Nintendo games, have so many established characters and places that you can do so many things with them. However, when it comes to new games, they're usually the same thing, just with some minor differences. With something as big and as expansive as Mario, there's a number of things you can do with the characters. The latest upcoming games, however, are just continuing what they've been doing for a while. Not that I'm that upset by it, but Yahtzee and the Game Overthinker have a point in that you can do a whole lot more than just continue Mario's space adventure, or make another side-scrolling platformer. Granted there's a whole lot more to those two games that just that, but then again, there's a whole lot more to Batman then just a guy dressing up as a flying rodent and fighting crime, am I right?

What I'm getting as is I'd like to see something different, something that introducing not only new, exotic places, but tries something different to the mainstream, to evolve and grow instead of just remaining as it is. Come to think of it, that's kind of what the original Super Mario Galaxy did, right? And Super Mario Sunshine, too. However, while Galaxy was very warmly welcomed, Sunshine was bit too different for some fans. Can you believe that there are some people out there that say that it, along with Luigi's Mansion suck? PREPOSTEROUS!

Anyway, bottom line, do something new. Some would say everything's already been done before, but I say, "Well has Mario done that? Has he done it like this? Why not Luigi instead? Role-reversals, etc." You get what I'm trying to say, right?

And 2.) I never trusted fan-made games. Never played one, and likely never will. I was reminded of this one time a friend on another forum tried to tell me about this fan-made Mega Man 10 game, and I desperately tried not to get into it, because to me, it wasn't a really Mega Man game. It was a game with Mega Man elements that some guy did in his spare time. No offense to him, but I prefer to have the professionals do this sort of thing. To me, it just seems SO much better when something is official, you know? Take for example Paper Mario and it's sequel, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. Take a look at the partners in that game, they're so creative and colorful, with their own unique personalities! I love them!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKMH6gh5oko

I've also seen fan-made character meant to look like partners for a Paper Mario game. I've seen some really interesting ideas for some of them, like a young Bomb Boo who longs for a girlfriend (he wears a hat like Oolong used to in the Dragon Ball series), a pirate Dry Bones (maybe not that creative, but I like pirates so shut up!), a poker dealing Blooper, and a James Bond-esque Kremling character!

Seriously, these are some freaking brilliant ideas, although part of my wishes they were officially Nintendo characters, that way I can fully embrace them with all my Nintendo fanboy heart...

It's almost pathetic how I won't give something a chance because it was made by a fan, but like Yahtzee stated, stuff made by a fan is usually intended for the fan, and usually no one else. It usually is a better idea to make something that more people will likely try out, you know what I mean?

...Well, I almost completely forgot where I was going with all of this. I have a hard time getting my ideas straight and presentable, but hopefully, you all get what I mean.

I respect your ability to deeply think about weird people who love video games but also the video games themselves.

When you say that Super Mario Galaxy 1 is greatly unique, and that its sequel is more of the same... you're essentially saying that even having just one sequel is bad!
And Mario is about THE worst example you can have. He's had countless spin-offs, and even if you only count the main series, half of them do something major the series hadn't done before!

In any case, "they should do something innovative" is essentially a pitfall among people with elitist attitudes towards games. Basically, if a series is selling very well, it's because people still like the games; and if people still like the games, there's utterly no point in making some radical change to it, especially if it means it's most likely going to suck horribly (eg: the current Sonic trend).



As for not really liking fan-made stuff in general, that's fine; most fan-made stuff suck horribly. But to like something less just because it's not official is ridiculous, that's the point where you're just a blind fanboy. And nobody likes those kind.

I've found that most fans of things are stupid, hence stupid fanworks. Of course, there are always obvious exceptions...Of course, I'm one of those people that always has ideas for more versions of pre-existing series. Oh how I'd love to design a new Zelda, Mario, or Pokemon game...Nerd power.

Also Mario Galaxy 2 will be pretty good, I think. Basically when I was done with the original, it was like "I wish I could erase my memory of this game so that I can play it again." And that's sort of like what Galaxy 2 will let me do.

I liked a way I saw videogame sequels described once...

We tend to think of videogame sequels in the same way that we think of sequels to movies, or books. But that's the wrong way to look at it. In reality, there isn't a huge variety in games. While fans of a genre will argue over the differences, there isn't a whole lot of difference between Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Soul Caliber, etc. Or between Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Tales, Mana, etc.

In videogames, a genre is essentially a base set of mechanics, upon which the rest of the game is built. Fundamentally, the differences between different games in a genre are often very small... why are we expecting a sequel of a game series to be so very different?



TL;DR: The way we should be looking at videogame sequels, is that instead of seeing "Super Mario Galaxy 2" we should be seeing "Super Mario Galaxy 2.0" and should judge it based on whether it improves upon the base formula, not based on whether it is radically different.

Yeah! Like Donkey Kong and Rayman3! Or Sonic Heroes and Super Mario Sunshine! Or Guitar Hero and Rhythm Paradise! Or TheSims and Spore; heck, they're by the same country, they must be near-identical!


Point is, yes, there is often a HUGE difference in gameplay mechanics in the same genres. The examples you gave are so alike because they already use nearly the exact same game system in the first place; it's like saying all Rhythm Games are the exact same and using the comparisons between Guitar Hero 4 and Rock Band 2 as an example! Even if you wanted to go for JRPGS only, there's still a huge difference between Final Fantasy and Pokemon!

And you can't say something is 2.0 unless it's got everything that 1.0 had!




Exclamation mark!

Not at all. 2.0 can often cut out bad or boring parts of 1.0, and improve on the good parts.

Alright, perhaps I should re-word that.
You can't say something is 2.0 unless it had anything that 1.0 had! Except for the obvious, like characters or setting. Heck, most sequels don't even use the same engine!

idk, Karilyn makes more sense. Plasma is just seeking conflict, like usual. While different genres of games can be extremely different, those in the same group are sort of the same. The mechanics aren't widely different, it's just like using a green crayon or a blue-green crayon to color the same picture.

Pokemon vs. Hackneyed Final Fantasy:
-Party members (Pokemon just has hundreds of possibilities...)
-Turn-based
-Elemental systems
-Magic points (PP)
-Overworld
-Random Battles

Yeah it's pretty much the same, except I don't like Final Fantasy as much.

EDIT: But hey! That's not what this topic is about!

Those ideas for Paper Mario partners were great, by the way. I'd kill for a Dry Bones partner (dohohoho).

On that note, I'm going back to this...

It's easiest to see the subtle differences between games in a genre you like. If you aren't a fan of First Person shooters, it's easy to see all of them as the same. Heck, you even claimed the ones that I listed as being poor examples, but one of the examples I gave was Mortal Kombat and Soul Caliber. I'm fan of both of the series, and I can appreciate the difference between a pugilist fighting game, and a weapon based fighting game.

...

Out of the assorted game pairs you listed, the ones that probably have the biggest difference between them are Final Fantasy and Pokemon. But even as different as they are, there is still a HUGE list of things that they have in common because they share the same genre.

You travel a world, forming a team of characters, while going through a story that ultimately ends in defeat of several villainous character that was threatening the city/nation/world. Your team of characters is represented by statistical numbers that indicate their strength. As they fight random battles throughout the world, they gain experience, become stronger and level up. Eventually, the characters may undergo a transforming change (class change / evolution) that changes their appearance and makes them even stronger. After you get enough character sin your team, you can switch them with others who are in reserve at a neutral non-combat location. Your characters attacks are dictated by a system of elements, arranged in a complex rock-paper-scissors system that causes them to do more damage or less damage based on your enemy's element. The random battles you fight will sometimes drop cheddar, which you can use to buy items in NPC controlled stores, that gradually sell better items the farther you get into the game.

I could go on for quite a while, but that generally proves the point. Could I also do a similar wall of text for the differences? Of course. But that doesn't change the point.

One of my ideas for a Paper Mario Party Member was a Goomba that idolizes Gambit from the X-Men. His name's Goombit.

Also, a Bullet Bill partner (named Bullet Baxter), and a female, French Blooper named Gigi.

Yeah I've had a couple too. One was a mobile Piranha Plant sort of like Petey Piranha named Pablo. He did the "I fly" thing like Parakarry. Then there was also an idea for a partner that looked like Mr. Game & Watch, the reason being it was an antivirus software for a computer system (that Mario goes into) called Watchton.

idk it was a good idea at the time.

That actually sounds kind of cool.

Yeah, I'd like it if at least on some of the smaller parts (Not the game enigine or gameplay mechanics but perhaps a character suggestion? Something) the companies would listen to the fans more. Not that they don't listen; It'd just be nice if they listened a bit more. :d

Developers actually can't take character suggestions from fans without running a risk of lawsuits (IP infringement).
I mean, aside from the fact that character ideas are ridiculously easy to come up with, and taking ideas from fans just leads to a huuuge amount of idea spam. And that characters are meant to be specific to the story they're being made for.

Plasma forgot the main reason developers don't take ideas from fans.

Have you ever poked through fanfiction before? Offense intended... Most fan suggestions FUCKING SUCK.

WHAT A UNIQUE AND ORIGINAL CHARACTER
WHICH TOTALLY DESERVES HIS OWN TELEVISION SHOW,
VIDEOGAME SERIES, AND MOVIE MADE ABOUT HIM