Question of the Day...

Why is it that video game sequels are usually an improvement over the original but we can't get the same effect from movies? I mean I know it's not the rule and there are arguments from both sides but in general this seems to be the case. I can name countless games that have improved with each iteration, both in terms of game play as well as story and production. Why can't we do the same with movies?

I don't really agree with the general idea behind the question. Games improve with each new version? Go play Modern Warfare and then pop in Modern Warfare 2. Ever played a James Bond game after Goldeneye? Even classics like Zelda have degraded over time. Sure there good games that come out but you would be hard pressed to find someone that prefers Majora's Mask over Ocarina of Time (I'm about as close as you could find since I love that game), let alone someone that would rather play Wind Waker!

I think it all comes down to the team behind the game or movie. The even numbered Call of Duties used to be FAR superior until the studios changed up. Now while they're still good it's definitely a downhill slide.

Same thing goes for movies. X-Men Origins has been widely heralded as 'better than the first movie' while a lot of the Disney shows seem to get far worse with each new iteration.

I also think that the motive behind the title has a lot to do with the quality of the sequals. Studios like Bungie that really love the games they make put all the effort they can in to creating new features (theater) to improve the game over past versions, even though the core gameplay stays fairly similar. I don't have nearly as much knowledge of the film industry but I'm willing to bet that when the studio starts whoring out a series to milk people for cash (I'm looking at you High School musical) it won't be nearly as good as the ones created for the fans (Harry Potter).

I agree with interceptor, most of the "true" game sequels are better ( except halo 3 ) and I think it has to do with who makes them and that the game is kinda the same game, but with improvements in gameplay and graphics and different game enviroments/levels. In movies it seems that the the sequels always suffer from different directors,writers and a rush to get them out. The stuidos know that since the first one did so well, they can slap some bs together and still turn a profit. Most people will go see the sequel , based on how like the first one and not really worry about their $9 investment on a sh1t movie, games have a larger investment from the consumer and need to entertain people longer. But the gaming industry does it to, slap halo, star wars, cod on something and people will buy it. As far as Zelda and mario, if I played these games and was still ten they would probably be awesome, gamers will change and so should the games, ps halo 4 will be just like the others with new levels and be a huge hit, even without bungie, IMO =lame

I agree with Atrum.

Batman Begins, Batman The Dark Knight. Your argument is invalid.

S7 Panzer wrote:Batman Begins, Batman The Dark Knight. Your argument is invalid.

Fellowship, Two Towers, Return of the King.

Exception proves rule.

~mrmiller

Panzer appears to be showing us a great example of a converse fallacy of accident.

Godfather, Godfather II, Godfather III.

We all lose.

Well, as I said in my original post, there is always an exception to each side of the argument. But I know that I can personally name far more good video game sequels vs movie sequels. And I am talking about true sequels, not reboots. Some good examples would be Uncharted to Uncharted 2, Assassins Creed to Assassins Creed 2, Gears 1 to Gears 2 and Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2. All of these modern day video game franchises have greatly improved on the original. Everything from Gameplay to story was a giant leap forward. Not just more of the same. Better story, better writing, better character development, better visuals and production values. And I can name many, many more.

But when I sit down and think about movies I can't come up with the same track record. Again true sequels, not a franchise reboot. I also don't generally count movies based off of books as that is another animal all together. Movie sequels tend to just be an unoriginal cash in on a popular idea. It's usually more of the same from the first movies with a weaker plot. Examples of this might be The Matrix to The Matrix Reloaded, Speed to Speed 2, Indiana Jones Raiders to Indiana Jones Temple and Major League 1 to Major League 2.

I think as a rule of thumb you are correct. Most of it is probably due to advances in technology, and the fact that less work has to be done in development of a sequel to a game. Many game sequels are on the same game game engine, and the developers can really fine tune the game and add more content. Some of the same happens with hit movies that were made on small budgets, as they can green light bigger budgets for more effects and even bigger stars, but that makes them a much larger investment over the cost to make another game. The big problem with movies are the actors and star salaries. Once a movie gets big, the actors can demand bigger salaries, thus sometimes causing the loss of continuity between movies when some characters are left out or actors replaced. This is notable the longer a series runs. Really, I believe it's all about the money, and game sequels can cost less compared to movie sequels in relation to the originals cost.

~mrmiller

I just feel there is a general trend to make games sequels better. The have to make improvements, new features, longer better story etc... I just don't see the same thing in movies. To me movies feel more like the want to make another one, not a better one. You know?

Yea, I understand what you are saying, I just think it is the way movie studios vs. game developers spend their money when making a sequel. I'm sure the studio heads don't care, as long as it makes money, but you know the directors and actors want to make a good movie, and one that is better than the last. The money is put into more actors and more effects or new locations or more marketing, while with a game it is put into the quality of the game as the foundation was created with the first game. Look the the LOTR movies, they filmed them all back to back so they could build on the previous foundation, and that turned out great compared to something like the Matrix and Reloaded where they started over and threw a lot of money in effects shots.

~mrmiller

I think you make a very good and valid point Miller but I still can't help but feel there is just a different mentality between the two.

S7 Interseptor wrote:I just feel there is a general trend to make games sequels better. The have to make improvements, new features, longer better story etc... I just don't see the same thing in movies. To me movies feel more like the want to make another one, not a better one. You know?

What can they do to improve? We have HD & Blu-Ray... New features for movies cost $billions because it's an entire shift in the mainstream consumer market. Whereas with games, it's just down to new hard/software with each console cycle. Perhaps our expectations that a sequel should be inherently better is wrong? If we expect too much, we're only left feeling disappointed.

If you look at the two side by side and the aspects both films and games have, story, characters, etc. I think you'll find that the strength of sequels are on a pretty even par. Games just appear to improve because they have more capacity to do so.

S7 Epic wrote:

S7 Panzer wrote:Batman Begins, Batman The Dark Knight. Your argument is invalid.

Fellowship, Two Towers, Return of the King.

These aren't really sequels as Fellowship never would have been written if the rest of the story weren't already in JRRT's mind.
I think Atrum is on to it. Really, a lot of sequels for movies and games suck (even with small gameplay improvements) because the idea is not fresh - eventually everyone gets fatiqued with the same ol same ol and we need more significant changes to grab us. Maybe I'm odd, but there are a great many game franchises that I prefer the earlier versions of, while I tend to like sequels of movies if they really expand the story.

S7 Epic wrote:

S7 Interseptor wrote:I just feel there is a general trend to make games sequels better. The have to make improvements, new features, longer better story etc... I just don't see the same thing in movies. To me movies feel more like the want to make another one, not a better one. You know?

What can they do to improve? We have HD & Blu-Ray... New features for movies cost $billions because it's an entire shift in the mainstream consumer market. Whereas with games, it's just down to new hard/software with each console cycle. Perhaps our expectations that a sequel should be inherently better is wrong? If we expect too much, we're only left feeling disappointed.

If you look at the two side by side and the aspects both films and games have, story, characters, etc. I think you'll find that the strength of sequels are on a pretty even par. Games just appear to improve because they have more capacity to do so.

They can improve the story, expand on the characters and up the anti on what's at stake. All of the games I mentioned did that, never mind the technical improvements. Even if a move can't make a technical improvement, they can write a better story. And sometimes they do but it seems to be the excetion, not the rule. Not so with games.

S7 Coolhand wrote:

S7 Epic wrote:

S7 Panzer wrote:Batman Begins, Batman The Dark Knight. Your argument is invalid.

Fellowship, Two Towers, Return of the King.

These aren't really sequels as Fellowship never would have been written if the rest of the story weren't already in JRRT's mind.
I think Atrum is on to it. Really, a lot of sequels for movies and games suck (even with small gameplay improvements) because the idea is not fresh - eventually everyone gets fatiqued with the same ol same ol and we need more significant changes to grab us. Maybe I'm odd, but there are a great many game franchises that I prefer the earlier versions of, while I tend to like sequels of movies if they really expand the story.

I disagree.

A lot of games these days come with a story-arc already in mind for the sequels. Halo, for example. I understand what you mean but I think the movies can be compared separately from the books. Just because the books were good, doesn't mean that the films would be. There are plenty of adaptations that will back that up.

S7 Interseptor wrote:

S7 Epic wrote:

S7 Interseptor wrote:I just feel there is a general trend to make games sequels better. The have to make improvements, new features, longer better story etc... I just don't see the same thing in movies. To me movies feel more like the want to make another one, not a better one. You know?

What can they do to improve? We have HD & Blu-Ray... New features for movies cost $billions because it's an entire shift in the mainstream consumer market. Whereas with games, it's just down to new hard/software with each console cycle. Perhaps our expectations that a sequel should be inherently better is wrong? If we expect too much, we're only left feeling disappointed.

If you look at the two side by side and the aspects both films and games have, story, characters, etc. I think you'll find that the strength of sequels are on a pretty even par. Games just appear to improve because they have more capacity to do so.

They can improve the story, expand on the characters and up the anti on what's at stake. All of the games I mentioned did that, never mind the technical improvements. Even if a move can't make a technical improvement, they can write a better story. And sometimes they do but it seems to be the excetion, not the rule. Not so with games.

Then you get Transformers 3. Where by trying to top what came last, the whole thing just gets spoilt.

Notice the word AND. I said "They can improve the story, expand on the characters and up the anti on what's at stake." not OR. You have to have all three to make a good sequel, not just one of them.

Stewart little 2 was a way better film . And don't get me started on Troll 2

Yes, but that is easier said than done with a medium that is reliant solely on it's storytelling since it has no other interaction.

I don't really think many games manage this tbh. Halo, Gears, CoD, etc. have all only really had one decent sequel, probably not even as good as the original. Yet, ask me which ones I'd play....

Gears - I'd go for GoW 2, purely for Horde.
Halo - I'd go for Reach, for MP, Forge and the best attempt at gameplay and story sine Halo.
CoD - BlOps, nice MP modes.

One of the newest games I'd actually play for the main story would be RB6:Vegas. I feel the old style of MP (circa Black Arrow) was FAR, FAR, FAR superior than the dollop of faecal matter that it currently is.

So, for me, it's mostly the features dictating the ones I'd play now. Films don't really have that option. When you're choosing to re-watch a film, you do so on it's own merit. Film sequels don't have the extra longevity that games have.

If game sequels on the whole seem better, then it is more than likely down to the game play than it is the storytelling and characters.

Another point we've barely touched on is that there is a huge difference between sequels and trilogies/ multi part stories. Halo to halo 3 is all 1 story. Odst and reach are in the same story line but were thought up outside of the core story arc.