Last few years I’ve been excitedly waiting for sequels from several small-to-medium sized studios that made highly acclaimed original games—I’m talking about Cities: Skylines, Kerbal Space Program, Planet Coaster, Frostpunk, etc.—yet each sequel was very poorly received to the point I wasn’t willing to risk my money buying it. Why do you think this happens when these developers already had a winning formula?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, I don't want a sequel for sequel's sake. If you don't have an artistic or consumer perspective vision on why a sequel is needed or wanted you should be focusing on something that can be justified like that.

Story and exploration games have this built in. Why do players want a sequel? To have more story, to explore more, to return to this world once they've tired of the previous game. Rpgs are expensive, slow, and risky, but you basically never have to justify your next game.

The games mentioned here struggle there. KSP does what it does well. Any sequel comes with huge questions of why people would want another space program simulator, and it's clear that corporate just assumed that people would buy it because they loved the first one.

And that's not to say games that don't feel like a sequel is warranted can't benefit from one. Roguelikes are about as anti sequel as city builders and there are two roguelike sequels I love. Rogue legacy 2 was the devs reimagining the concept of the first game and making a higher budget (especially in gameplay) game that doesn't just feel like a cash grab. And Hades 2 is similar in many ways, but different enough to feel warranted and clearly made uncynically. It clearly exists because the leads felt there was more to do with the premise that didn't belong in the first game.

And there's the thing, I think that ksp probably did have a sequel in it. Something like a space colony sim where you're a space station having to build and manage ships and colonies, or something else may have been warranted or good. But it would've come from a creative lead wanting to do it rather than what clearly happened of a corporation purchasing the game and deciding that since they owned it they had to make a sequel to use the ip

[–] tal@lemmy.today 2 points 18 hours ago

KSP does what it does well. Any sequel comes with huge questions of why people would want another space program simulator

I think that there were pretty clear ways to expand KSP that I would have liked.

There was limited capacity to build bases and springboard off resources from those.
I'd have liked to be able to set up programmed flight sequences.
More mechanics, like radiation, micrometeorite impacts, etc.
The physics could definitely have been improved upon in a number of ways. I mean, I've watched a lot of rockets springily bouncing around at their joints.
Some of the science-gathering stuff was kind of...grindy. I would have liked that part of the game to be revamped.
I don't think that graphics were a massive issue, but given how much time you spend looking at flames coming from rocket engines, it'd be nice to have improved on that somewhat. I'd have also liked some sort of procedural-terrain-generation system to permit for higher-resolution stuff when you're on the ground; yeah, you're mostly in the air or space, but when you're on the ground, the fidelity isn't all that great.