Would starting from the ground up still be as much of a problem if it weren't for the aggressive holiday-based scheduling, the pressure of the license, and the economic pressures of building a game on massive amounts of hand-tooled content?

Posted by: misuba on July 6, 2005 11:56 AM

This is a good observation and one that strikes to the heart of the fact that games are both software (which tend to get better the more sequels you make) and artistic endeavours (which tend to weaken the more sequels you make). Finding that balance will be difficult but understanding that games are neither entirely software or entirely artistic endeavours would help a great deal in clearing up some of the smoke and arguments about how the industry is going to pot because people keep buying sequels.

Posted by: Snowmit on July 6, 2005 06:17 PM

Snowmit! That is a very excellent point that I had never thought of before.

Posted by: ClockworkGrue on July 7, 2005 10:18 AM

Thanks for the Laundry Sessions plug, ClockworkGrue. I actually wrote a post back in December about this kind of thing. Sequels, in a lot of ways, do seem to be extensions of the iterative design process.

Fitting in with Snowmit's observation, I wonder if the so-called "spiritual sequel" has more latitude for growth both as software and as art. You have a chance to iterate the gameplay and engine (as you would software), but you also have the opportunity to start over on the story and characters (part of the art). Was it fun to work on Perfect Dark, building on the technology and gameplay of Goldeneye but making up an entirely new story and characters?

Posted by: Clubberjack on July 7, 2005 10:21 AM

I also think it depends on the sequel and how it's developed. Each Civilization game, while retaining many of the rules and gameplay of its predecessors, is usually dramatically different in terms of technology and development. Then again, with Civ 4, the engine is already in place, so it's still somewhat like what Clubberjack is saying.

I also think the fact these are franchise / licensed games makes them different as well. Although you're trying something completely knew, I think the developers still have a minor framework from which to develop the game. Even if that framework is a couple of movies and a novel, I think there is still something more to work with from an artistic standpoint than, say, a completely new franchise with a completely new engine.

I think what Snowmit is saying is really important. While the engine and the technology is new from a software perspective, I think the artistic construction is already present in some ways. Again, a balance is important.

I'm not trying to argue a point. Just tossing in my two cents. Best of luck, though Clockwork.

Posted by: Mike on July 7, 2005 11:29 AM

I like what misuba says, what we are talking about is the symptoms that we face not what might be the actual cause which leads to the system. I know there are very few people out there who get the liberty (read Will Wright: Spore) to experiment as much as they like before the game is released, but on the other hand does efficient time lines and the rush to get the product in the market to get the best out of it stop current day designers who are still in school or working at the bottom echelons of the ladder to think out of the box and just make games that "work" in the marketplace. IS this some kind of a cycle that we are gettig into make games that work which makes new people coming in make only those kind of games...nmaybe I am stretching it too far but thats what I was thinking :-)

Posted by: Apar on July 8, 2005 10:13 AM

The thing about gaming is that it's a lot subtler than other popular art forms. Mainly because it's in the game play, and it's much more of a tactile feel than other. Little changes can be huge. And with the best games, sometimes an "expansion pack" isn't a bad thing, especially if you want more. (Katamari Damacy)

I don't think that even the art needs to decline. Instead of focusing time on making a new lead character, whatever, you focus time on the world that character is in. (Devil May Cry 3). Repeated uses of the same engine is a GOOD thing. It means that designers become better at using that engine, designing that type of games, and generally, you know why sequals in gaming usually work?

Because they're usually BETTER than the original.

Posted by: Karmakin on July 11, 2005 07:10 AM

I think there's a world of difference between makin g games for a franchise and making another type of game. Each franchise has a fan base that is fanatical about that franchise for a particular reason and that has to be respected first. You must make a game that ENHANCES that particular world.

For example, the only world I'm more fanatical about than the Godfather is the Lord of the Rings but the reasons are subtle and if a game enhances and moves forward my experience of that world I love it. If it simply exploits that world to come copy cat game I'm pissed.

EA generally does a great job at this but I'd love to see originality in the direction of the world. This is even more important than orginality in game play.

Posted by: The Lord of the Rings Game Guy on August 7, 2005 05:07 AM