Why are so many gaming companies destroying their old game-series

Technology and Gaming
#1

Let’s take Leisure Suit Larry for example:

Many people loved that adventure series, because of the puzzles and for its jokes. There were plans for a Larry 8 in 1998, but sadly it was canceled in the end (among many other well-known and successful adventure games like Space Quest 7).

I don’t really now, why every gaming company thought, that the times for adventure games would be over. It really makes no sense to me, because it was a genre with huge success, even through the nineties were the beginning of the first 3D shooters.

But after some years, Sierra intended to revive their successful adventure games and released a new Larry game, named “Magna Cum Laude”.
But it wasn’t Larry anymore, no adventure, but a collection of boring mini-games. As a result, they got bad reviews, bad sales and every true fan hated them from that on. So, what was the point?
And the worse, they didn’t seem to learn from that lesson and released another “piece of shit”-sequel: Leisure Suit Larry: Box Office Bust.

But Larry is just one example…there are many other game series, that got destroyed the same way.

Here is a list of common mistakes for a sequel:

  1. Changing the genre or the tasks of a game (classic adventure -> mini-games)

  2. Writing a new plot, that doesn’t pick up any events from the predecessor (even, if there was a cliffhanger)

  3. Scrapping well-known characters, that appeared in every previous game of the series before (In the new Larry games, it is even the hero itself, who got replaced)

  4. Hiring new voice-actors for well-known characters, who doesn’t even have a similar voice.

  5. Changing controls, even if it’s not wanted, nor necessary (Point-n-Click is the only true movement for adventures games and there was no need to change that)

  6. Changing the graphics model, even if it’s not wanted, nor necessary (not every game needs real-time 3D graphics, while nice 2D pre-rendered backdrops are fitting perfectly for those kind of video games)

  7. Eliminating elements, everybody loved in the previous games or replacing them with shit (subtle jokes for example)

I think there are much more things, they can do wrong.
The only question is why…why are they doing this?

#2

I don’t understand the purpose of this. Instead of telling us you should be telling the companies that are ruining their games.

#3

Actually, he SHOULD be telling us, because we keep buying the shitty sequels in gigantic numbers, which tells the CEO’s that making crap games is the best thing to do. They know that most gamers will gobble up the next bland addition to any franchise that is popular somehow, especially if it’s prettier than the previous ones.

Shitty games happen to be extremely profitable, and the higher-ups really just care about profits.
Example: Halo.

Honestly, today’s gaming majority is what’s ruining game quality, as well as the top management.

#4

Bottom line: Almost any problem in gaming can be summarized in one word: Consumers.

Not greedy executives, not lazy devs, not annoying anti-piracy measures. Consumers.

They are the idiots who buy the worthless games, or don’t buy the actually good game. The average consumer is a total idiot with an IQ of about 3. Thats why much of gaming is going to hell.

That and casuals. Lots of casuals.

And by casuals I mean motion controls.

#5

Some of the items in that list apply to HL1 to HL2, yet I still think they’re both equally magnificent games.

It’s all a matter of perspective

#6

It is true that despite my raging above, a sequel should not copy the original, but improve it, and sometimes they will lose things you loved from the original for the sake of progress. Move on. If you really want that thing, play the original.

#7

cough Resident Evilcough
I don’t get why they changed the series so much. It’s not like people were complaining or anything.IMO they changed them just for the sake of changing them. Fucking Sheva> :frowning:

#8

Actually, what I want to see (and I think there are a hell of alot of other people aswell) are remakes. I know there are alot of people who will bitch about nothing being original and how it will ruin a company, etc, but honestly, would you pass up a remake of Unreal/Unreal tournament/Half Life (hurr hurr) even if it was $60?

If it was up to today’s graphical standards, the answer would be hell no, even if you had to go mow some lawns to buy it.

#9

What about an improved Unreal Tournament 2004 for the next UT? >_>

#10

The only item I can think of is “eliminating elements”, and that element being friendly fire. What else is there?

#11

And what happened to Super Mario Bros? That was the most amazing game in the world, why aren’t there any games that are at least that much amazing today?

#12

It is very few games that is developed now that gets to be classics. If Super Mario Bros didn’t become a classic despite its awesomeness, you wouldn’t even have heard of it, or just forgotten it really quick.

#13

activision+consoles=crap

i want good old fps games on my PC without simplifying everything for consolefags

#14

Space Quest is the shit.

#15

New Super Mario Bros Wii would like to talk with you.

On topic: MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY ETC

Get it now?

#16

Huzzah! Activision shouldn’t even be making games after what they did with MW2. And will someone please fire that pretentious little asstard Robert Bowling!!

#17

Well, I mentioned Leisure Suit Larry as one example. I thought others could name other games.

The purpose is complaining about bad sequels and to discussing the reasons, why developers are doing those mistakes, I listed here.

Damn you for mentioning a Half-Life title in this thread!
I am talking about messed up sequels here!
HL2 is epic and equal to its predecessor, if not even better.

#18

L4D and L4D2

Guess who bought the “beta” for $50. :expressionless: I think the only thing in the first one now is its characters. Oh man, they’re awesome.

#19

No, greedy executives and their investors are also to blame. Casuals, n00b-PwN1n’ H@x0rZ, sports nuts, Deus Ex fans, and everybody else could exist and be happy separately, but the executives want MAXIMUM PROFITS HUMANLY POSSIBLE, so they want to make games that will appeal to as many different people as they can. They have mostly snuffed out any sort of niches in gaming, so games are more becoming the jack of all trades (Jack, who happens to also be the village idiot), but it isn’t very good at any of them.

They’re making sure games appeal JUST enough to anybody that they’ll be likely to buy it thinking it’s for them, when either the game is really designed for nobody, or for the dumbest, lowest common denominator.

#20

Here’s a fact everyone needs to get their heads around: Corporations for the most part are led by people who want to get money, not people who want to create beautiful gaming experiences. Those people are usually the devs. This is how the US at least, works, and the debate on whether or not this is good can go elsewhere. As such, it is not their fault they are doing what we should know they would do, it is the consumer’s fault for not holding them to a higher standard.

Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.