Zelda 2 may not be for everyone, but it was well crafted. I haven't played CD-i Zelda, but it looks like a good example of why you need to be careful with outsourcing. Did you ever see Blaster Master 1 & 2? The original was an NES game, the sequel was a Genesis game done by another company. I got the impression that they ran out of time working on the sequel and had to rush the later stages or something (there was a boss in the game that didn't attack, and basically didn't do anything).
But anyway, I'd attribute CD-i Zelda’s reception more to implementation than design.
[–] thrus 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I have kind of stopped seeing games a sequels due to all the changes that I have seen take place, I just see a game called GuildWars and another called GuildWars 2. Each game needs to stand on its own two feet I no longer allow them to learn on their predecessor as a way of getting me to buy them.
Games need to evolve, assassins creed took shit because of standing still for instance.
And when you evolve radically you will alienate the diehards.
Nintendo's early sequels were radical evolutions for instance.
Many games nowadays refuse to truly go radical, to gaming's detriment which needs new ideas.
[–] PotatoFarm 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Hard to tell, but in general, I think fans are forgiving (and even welcoming) if the sequel is good enough, but if it fails to achieve this subjective level, the fans will be merciless; even if the game is decent. (I think the problem has to do with niche genres with an obstinate fanbase rather than the games themselves)
Personally, I don't mind developers trying something new with known stuff, but I rather have them do it with spinoffs instead of the "main series". On the other hand, as you said, evolution is expected. But it's frequently made with the wrong mentality and we end with something that no one likes.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
[–] PotatoFarm ago
There is also the weird opposite case, as in Sonic 4... What were they thinking with that!?
(And yeah, a massive marketing failure, now I understand that point)
[–] Namrok 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I feel like evolutionary, or even revolutionary sequels are another casualty to these longer development cycles, with higher costs. The incentive to play it safe and make your fucking money back is just too great.
I keep trying to think of games from the 80's and 90's that pulled it off. Ultima certainly did. But they also hammered out an Ultima game nearly every year. Between 1980 and 1994 they released 10 Ultima games. And a lot of changes were viewed as intrinsic improvements on Ultima's core philosophy. Origin's motto was "We Create Worlds" and Ultima constantly had game systems added which improved the feel of the world simulation. Then Ultima 8 added jumping and platforming and fans rebelled.
WIzardry ultimately floundered and failed because it was too stubborn about sticking to a formula. It wasn't until another designer took over with Wizardry V that the series began evolving somewhat. I remember loving the shit out of Wizardry 8 when it came out, and that was nothing at all like the other Wizardry games. Same thing goes for how much my mind was blown by Might & Magic VI. Huge departure from the rest of the series. Switched from grid based movement and turn based combat to free form movement with real time combat. And it was incredible.
I think in general you used to see sort of tick-tock cycle of evolutionary and revolutionary sequels. Fallout 1 to Fallout 2 was evolutionary. It took all the good parts of Fallout 1, made them better, while fixing the bad parts. Fallout 3 was revolutionary.
Fallout 4 devolved... however...
These days you see less revolutionary sequels, or even evolutionary sequels, and more devolving, cost cutting sequels. Oh they'll try to pass it off as "revolutionary". But we can all tell it's the same damned game we bought 5 years ago, except $20 more and with less content, simpler game mechanics, and a $20-50 season pass waiting in the wing.