This is probably the type of think that was intended to have more too it anyway but time kept it simple
From what I’ve heard, a sequel just gets a small quality bonus if it’s more than 40 weeks past and a penalty if it’s less. However the new game doesn’t have to have anything in common with the previous game, so I and I assume other people just pick their first game to make a sequel from, then the second ect. and ignore everything about the first game when making a sequel and change the topic and genre because we can.
So I propose that you only be able to make one change from the topic or one of the two genres so it makes sense as a sequel.
Although not strictly speaking a sequel, Warcraft to Starcraft was a change of topic in a series, fantasy to sci-fi. While not many liked the change, X-Com went from from Strategy to Strategy/Action, and the new one XCOM Enemy Unknown to The Bureau: XCOM Declassified is strategy to action/strategy. It wasn’t really being made as a sequel but the strategy game being released first to some success made it the main game after the fact. Also one could argue that Mass Effect went from RPG/Action to Action/RPG after the first game.
Nice idea, so you suggest basically when you make a game with a genre, and you go to make a sequel, add another genre or change the game up a bit so the rest is essentially the same but its different from the previous? Nice.
I agree. It makes seeding a wide variety of game types important in the early game to be used as sequel fodder later on.
Add to that: Changing the target audience counts as a change, meaning you can go from Everyone to Mature, but you’d have to keep everything else exactly the same for it to still count. This is helpful in the early game when your first titles have to be “everyone” before researching target audience.
Basically, this would just replace the arbitrary rule “do sequels of old games as you want” with “do sequels of the same kind”. It’s a bit more realistic but it doesn’t really change the gameplay.
I’d be more happy with something like : “you can change as much as you want, but the more the changes, the riskier the new game”. That would increase the gap between maximum and minimum notes, for example. So if you made a Fantasy RPG sequel to your Fantasy RPG, you’re not very daring but at least it will work. If your sequel is Fantasy Strategy, people would go like wow, that’s not like the previous one but I like it. And if you make a Medieval Action sequel, you’d have reactions like, either “that was an amazing turn in the history of gaming, those guys have so much balls !” or “wtf did they just do ? Doesn’t remind me of the first game a bit !”. See ?
I’d say it does change the gameplay because there are trends and systems with preferred genres and audiences and bonuses for new combos and new topics and great combos and the skills of your team which all could give you reason to make a specific type of game. Which makes your choice of whether to make a new game or a sequel and a sequel of what a meaningful choice. As it is now there’s no reason not to except you can’t use a publisher. And the penalty for making a sequel after less than 40 weeks because you’d never have a reason to want to use a game that recent.
Also, it takes a bit of the immersion out of the game. In my last game I think I took a medieval strategy game for the PC and made a sequel that was a martial arts casual/action game for the Wuu. Basically I took Chess and turned it into Super Smash Bros., calling it a sequel. It’s strange to get away with that.
However, I can see having all changes available with consequences. I assumed that the fans of the first game might increase the hype for a sequel, but I don’t think it does. They could have hype for sequels based on fans of the first but changing too much from the original costs you some of the original fans. The fans you gain would probably offset the lost as long as the game didn’t turn out bad.
When they made an action game out of strategy game X-COM there was a big backlash. Same with some Civilization sequels. They were really just going from ‘mature’ audience to ‘everyone’ and it still got called a betrayal and an insult. It was very over dramatic but that’s how it sometimes goes when sequels make changes.
In the context of Game Dev Tycoon, it is a prime example of a History + Strategy.game.
It has major DLC expansions, that effectively act like sequels.
These cover historically accurate and interesting things, like fleshing out the Islamic states and making them playable, Fleshing out the Bysantine Empire, Fleshing out merchant republics and making them playable and most recently, fleshing out the norse pagans and making THEM playable. All things that actually happened and existed back in the game’s timespan (1066-1453)
Then…they came out with “Sunset Invasion” where they said "Hey, let’s see what would happen if the Aztecs randomly sailed over to Europe from South America with the force of the mongol hordes and started eating spain and france.
Aannnnnd the player base largely blasted it and hardly anyone bought it.
In that case, they made a sequel that wasn’t History + Strategy, but rather “Alternate History + Strategy” and people hated it and promptly pretended like it never existed (for the most part).
Change too much from the sequel and people will rebel.
I think a better idea is have sequels enforce a very strict limit on changes…BUT
Add a new option to the R&D lab: "Reboots"
A “Reboot” would function like a sequel, but loosen (but not completely remove) the restrictions on changing things.
I would say changes should induce risk-points. One risk point is safe. Two risk points is, well, risky. Three risk points is dangerous. Four risk points is doomed - it’s not meaningfully a sequel anymore, as it doesn’t retain enough of what it came from. Any fans who buy it thinking it builds on the earlier game are going to be angry.
Changing the rating costs one risk point, plus one if you’re changing it to or from Mature (due to market controversy). Changing the genre is one risk point - a given IP will often translate fine from one gameplay style to another. Changing the topic is two risk points, since it threatens the coherency of the game’s lore.
This means the ‘safe’ changes are shifting genres or shifting from Everyone demographics to Young demographics and back. Anything else is risky at best. This system would also have the benefit (for me) of making me less scared I’m going to ruin a series by playing with the genre.
If you make a really good game that fails a bomb-check based on its riskiness, the game should make a save-check based on the underlying quality of the game. If the save-check passes, instead of getting an event talking about how the sequel was received, you get one saying that although your fans generally disown the game as a sequel, they still consider the new game to stand on its own merits. (Sequel bonus vanishes, but the game sells normally for whatever its rating is.)
This would play nicely with reboots. Every time you complete a Reboot project in the R&D lab, you would get a bonus “safe” risk point for the next sequel you produce.