I played a lot of the original Frostpunk back in the day . This game belongs to the niche of games that I personally am very interested in. This niche of low-budget, low-demand games with its own ideas, style, philosophy and originality. Such nuggets of the gaming industry.

Now Frostpunk 2 has been released and received a mixed reaction from the gaming community. There are fans of the first part who are upset by the innovations and changes. There are other fans of the first part who received the sequel favorably. And then there are newcomers who don’t understand the whole controversy surrounding just a good game. And this whole situation reminded me of another sequel – Darkest Dungeon 2 .

In this article I want to discuss why players have such different attitudes towards the original and the sequel, the games they once loved? Why do we periodically talk about the stagnation of the gaming industry, its conveyors and DLC for full price? And most importantly, how can this affect the entire industry and are we not kleptomaniacs of our gaming happiness??
Well, I’ll try to draw my own conclusion about this.

Warning. The gaming industry, like any other, is a large system that involves many different parties with their own interests. Here I will mainly talk about the connections between gamers, developers and their products, and I will only mention in passing the aspects of marketing, publishers and others.

What are the sequels??

Traditionally, there are three and a half ways to create a sequel:

The first is the traditional way, that is, do the first part, but enlarge and improve it. Large franchises and companies that don’t want to take risks usually choose it. For example, series such as God of War, Halo or TES . But smaller game series such as Ori, Overlord, Dungeons could also go this route.

Second, the path of updates. Make the same game, but change some variables. Here I will give examples of various series Call of Duty, Assasin Creed and Battlefield .

Third, the path of change: introducing new mechanics, changing the concept of the first part, changing the style, etc. n. I would include Darkest Dungeons 2 and Frostpunk 2 as such games .

There are very few new IPIs on the market right now. Most of the products being released are traditional sequels, remakes, remasters and reboots.
Senua’s Saga: Hellblade 2, Takken 8, Dragon’s Dogma 2 and other projects – sequels.
Silent Hill 2 Remake, Age of Mythology: Retold, Persona 3 Reload are remakes/remasters.
And Prince of Persia: The Lost Crown, Helldivers 2, Alone in the Dark, Final Fantasy VII are reboots or reimaginings.

What should be the ideal sequel??

I understand why there is such a dominance of sequels, prequels, etc. n. By creating something that has at least some guidelines, developers take on fewer risks, because production becomes much simpler if in a remaster you just need to update the graphics, in a remake polish the mechanics and edit the plot, the writers don’t have to invent the world, story and characters from scratch. And there are fans who are ready to give 10 out of 10 and pre-order, simply for the continuation of their favorite series, then this is generally happiness. But why is it that if players receive continuations of their favorite franchises, some of these same players remain dissatisfied??

Perhaps a feeling of nostalgia is bothering us. Remember the first time you heard the theme song in the main menu?? Do you remember what advanced graphics were in the game at that time?? Oh, what was the plot, they don’t write that anymore. But nostalgia is a by-product that only a certain part is susceptible to.
The main thing is that the game evokes the same emotions as the original, yes? So that the second part frightens with its horror elements like the first. So that the atmosphere of adventure is the same. So that the “wow” effect is the same, yes?

Thinking about all this, we can formulate several rhetorical questions:
What should the sequel be like to satisfy the needs of the majority??
Nostalgia helps or hinders us in appreciating a game?
Do sequels have to evoke the same emotions as the original??
How much novelty should there be??
And the most interesting thing for me is how our reaction affects developers and the industry in particular?

Us and games

As I wrote earlier, we now have many sequels that follow the first two paths of creating sequels. They rarely move the gaming industry forward and rather create content to entertain players, earn capital, report to investors, but nothing more. An ordinary craft without pretensions to greatness, even if the advertising campaign says “SSS game and there will be nothing better before or after”.

You will see that Skull and Bones is a complete game. We think players will understand how large-scale and complete it is. This is real AAA-. An AAAA game that will prove itself in the long run

Yves Guillemot, CEO of Ubisoft

But as for the third? The original already has its own setting, story, gameplay and art style. By following this path, developers not only risk not paying off, they risk their reputation and audience. This is not only dangerous, but also difficult, because developers need to literally re-invent their own game, which they made in the past, and even so that everyone likes it. Naturally, such games receive very different ratings from all groups of gamers. Some are disappointed that this game has little to do with the original, others are disappointed by the lack of novelty, while others like everything and give high marks. And I think that kind of backlash is bad.

No, there’s nothing wrong with someone liking or not liking something, I’m rather depressed by the approach itself, the tendency of criticism itself. Why do we always want the sequel to be as similar to the original as possible?? Why do we write down our unfulfilled desires as cons?? Why do we look for flaws and focus our attention on them??

My mini review of Darkest Dungeon 2, as an example of a lot of criticism

Now I’m going through Darkest Dungeon 2 and how many copies were broken on it. And that my never-lamp Dungeon was turned into a road, and that the city was taken away, and the complexity was taken away, and candles were not given, and the stress system was turned into “build your love”.

Of course, there is truth in some of this criticism, but it’s just that this is posed as a claim in comparison with the first part. It’s just that in the first Darkest Dungene the Dungeon was the final location in which you completed only four missions and that’s it. The city has been replaced by an altar, where you also spend resources on improving characters and the stagecoach, opening items and skins. The difficulty of the first part was in honest randomness, which was defeated by mathematics, but here this was replaced with tokens, which retained the element of randomness, but made the battles more predictable. And of course in the first part there was no farming of gold, coats of arms, paintings, busts and bills of sale. And the claim about stress, to be honest, is just ridiculous to me. Someone really wanted exactly the same system? The first part said that even heroes can be scoundrels, that they have skeletons in their closet and fear is not alien to them, especially in such a place. The second part says that no one is a warrior alone and only together can you survive all the madness around.

And somehow it turns out that although the second part differs from the first in many aspects, it is still the same terrible game in a good way. Which did not save her from low ratings and comments: “this is not my Darkest Dungen”

How developers can see it

Now let’s take a look behind the scenes, look through the eyes of those who create games for us – through the eyes of developers. Here you are a small indie studio (not as small as Activision Blizzard, but still), which does not have large publishers, franchises, and each of your games can hit the budget hard. And now you were able to achieve something – a successful game. She gets good ratings, sales and maybe even awards. Of course we need to make a sequel, but how?? Here’s how to make a continuation of something for which you have already released a number of DLCs, used the reserved potential, and no new ideas appear.

This problem can affect not only small projects; often, when a particular series reaches its peak, it needs to cool down and reboot. Wolfenstain, God of War, Halo 4 are games that became a new beginning for their stories. Some need a reboot due to outdated mechanics, some for a new character arc, and some to lower the stakes. As for me, Frostpunk and Darkest Dungeon needed to find a new vector of development, t. To. the past was exhausted.

I can’t even imagine how these games could be just as cool, but follow the pattern of “the same cabbage soup, but thicker.”. Winter is even colder and the dungeon is even darker?

And so the studio is working, rethinking the first part, developing its ideas over several years in order to rework the mechanics, improve the style, and preserve the origins of the original. and get mixed ratings and comments "this is not my game".

Frostpunk 2
"Personally, I’m disappointed. I really liked the graphics of the game environment, the game mechanics compared to the previous game made me feel like it wasn’t worth spending money on. As an ardent fan of the first part, I’m unfortunately disappointed."

Frostpunk 2
"The game lacks soul and detail compared to its predecessor. Art, music and performance are all disappointing. The mechanics seem simplified and the horror is gone."

Darkest Dungeon 2
"This is https://electricwins.uk/withdrawal/ not Darkest Dungeon. This is a different game and I was really looking forward to its release. Disappointed."

Darkest Dungeon 2
"One of the worst games with so many annoying mechanics in 2023. Overpriced and nothing like Darkest Dungeon 1. I had to return the money. "

I don’t know how it is for anyone, but I wouldn’t be pleased with such a reaction. When you put your energy and soul into making something cool, but the Old Believers didn’t like it and the sequel didn’t get even half the glory that the original did, you start to think, “maybe you should have done it like everyone else.”?". Why go the hard way, developing the industry and doing something new, even under the brand of the old one, if no one appreciates it?? Why try if you can get more with less effort?? Can make DLC with old character?

My conclusions

It won’t be news to anyone that people don’t like to learn new things. The human brain will always prefer to conserve energy rather than experience the stress of something new and form new neural connections during learning. So I understand when a neat sequel gets good marks, but why isn’t that the rule?? How can we simultaneously criticize some games for deviating so much from the original, but at the same time criticize others, calling them conveyor belts and DLC?? How can we want our games to develop if we ourselves are not ready for development?? How do we want to get something new if we sit and push the industry towards stagnation??

I remember myself at the presentation of some Game Fest, I was disappointed that there was nothing new, something wow! I’m upset that there’s still no Game of the Year nominee for me this year. Dejected by the endless numbers in the headlines. Yes, big corporations want money, so they follow trends, push donations, save on development, lie in advertising, etc. d. But these are our games, our hobbies, our work, part of our lives. Maybe it’s worth trying to open up to something new? I’ve never played racing and almost never played simulators, maybe I should start?

Write what a bad pie I am in the comments and what you think about this topic? I will be happy to enter into a dialogue.

Darkest Dungeon II

Frostpunk 2

Best comments

I don’t quite agree with the author. Players usually just want something new; publishers who are afraid to take risks don’t. This time.

In these strange times, major publishers are trying to please the press, not the players. That’s why big guys don’t care about our wishes. As an effective manager from EA said, “if you don’t like it, don’t buy it”. That’s two.

Players are really harming the industry, but not by review bombing, but by still making pre-orders, putting up with transactions in games for 70 bucks and putting up with early access, which is a free beta test for the publisher. That’s three.

Players want something new, but keep it the old way)

God created gamedev and his first word was “oxymoron”)

When there are so many grammatical errors, it’s impossible to convince the brain that a person can write something smart, that yes, there is truth in his words. Well, at least bang your head against the wall, how to convince yourself that a person who didn’t even bother to type the article into Word and correct what was underlined in red is worth taking seriously? It’s cool when you don’t see any mistakes, then probably yes.

Yeah, it’s as unique as Battle, Kolda, Farming simulator, NBA, NHL… And only the CS really doesn’t change, that’s what I understand – unique. =)

Here I agree with the author, for me the ideal sequel does something similar, but does not cross out the previous parts. As an example – Starcraft (2), HoMM(3,4,5), Wacraft(3), Diablo (2, 3), TES(3-5). Here I slightly disagree with the author. IMHO, Skyrim is a change in the mechanics of its predecessors, and not an increase with improvement. =)

Disclaimer: below is IMHO in the style of “the grass was greener before”

In general, I have very controversial feelings about the latest sequels to major games. On the one hand, you want the same and more, and on the other, new sensations. Previously, each new entry in the series brought enough major changes to its formula and gameplay to cover both of these points. And now almost every sequel is the safest possible sequel.

(Let’s skip the case with Ubisoft – they have long had their own “path” and a proven formula for games)

Below are all 3 examples from Sony for some reason (it just so happened), but I’m sure you can remember other examples.

Insomniac’s first Spider-Man was a great game. It played great, the feeling of flying through Manhattan was something fresh, because previous games about the spider had been released quite a long time ago and were already morally outdated. The sequel slightly mixed up the combat, added a second playable character (who is essentially not much different from the first), and slightly increased the size of the map and the speed of the player’s movement across it. Otherwise, the sequel feels exactly the same as the original. The wow effect is gone – we’ve seen and touched all this before.

Further examples we have Horizon: Forbidden West and GOW Ragnarok. Both games fall into the same category of maximally safe sequels. Yes, they are larger and bring some improvements, but they play and feel exactly the same as the originals. Why, even the interface is visually and mechanically identical to the original (with the exception of minor changes for new mechanics).

As a result, for me they don’t feel like full-fledged new games, but rather like additions or patches with long-awaited quality of life changes and a new piece of the plot.

I understand that these are still sequels, and any good sequel should develop the ideas of the original, but I haven’t felt a sense of novelty in AAA projects for a long time. But in reality, you just need to move away from AAA to indie 🙂

I honestly don’t know who to agree with anymore.

What kind of players? Let’s say I want something new and quite a few niche turkeys are enough for me, but damn there are hundreds of them compared to the millions who annually buy Kolda and Fifa.

I really like DD1, I played it for almost 300 hours and when the second one came out I wasn’t particularly stuck. In principle, I wasn’t scared by the idea of ​​traveling in a stagecoach (so what if it’s not a dungeon, but a road), I was interested in what happened after the first part, I liked the new style, but somehow it didn’t grab me. But while on sick leave I suddenly decided to start it up and got stuck for a couple of days! I really liked it, I liked it as much as the first one, and in some ways even more – in the new graphics style, in the combat system. Yes, nervous breakdowns and inspirations are not so varied, and are simplified in terms of mechanics, but they make their contribution to the gameplay and are just as pleasing or vice versa. The love-carrot/hate-envy system is also simple in essence, but it also contributes to tactics – it also either forces changes or adds bonuses. Yes, there are no bonfires, but there are taverns, no city, but there is an altar. And there is no such grind for pumping up Persians in order to assemble a team for one raid in the darkest dungeon, killing the boss here simply gives a pleasant bonus. And the token system, yes, gives more thoughtfulness and control over randomness.

And as I wrote in my review on Steam, the game still gives the same feelings – the delight of victory and the desire to hit the table with your fist when the boss almost doesn’t allow you to leave and one-shots two heroes with one attack. The game is very good, now I don’t even plan to return to the first part, I wonder what new things will be added for this. I think the developers did the right thing that they didn’t cut it according to the same cabbage soup principle, but pour in more, now it’s better in my opinion and it looks like an organic, stylish continuation.

I don’t really like sequels. Remakes are okay, this can be true for very old games, but a bunch of parts that are minimally different from each other is not cool. Better give me five different games with their own history and their own design.

I remember I was even upset that Supergiant decided to make Hades 2 because it meant fewer Supergiant projects. I’ve already played Hades for many hours, that’s enough for me, let me try something else.

However, all these remakes five years later, the second, fifth, tenth parts are selling well, much better than the original projects. Especially if the studio is not very famous or works in a narrow genre: it is safer not to try to experiment, but to do what is expected of you.

It’s clear why this happens: the continuation is kind of a guarantee that you’ll like it if you liked the previous parts. And when, under the second part, the developers disguise another game, with a different atmosphere, different mechanics, different heroes, then the player feels that he was deceived. And this is unlikely to change; after all, most people don’t have the time or desire to try different games and try to find something good in them.

Ubisoft has no goal, only a path)
Although the same ubiks did experiments before: For Honor, Valient Hearts: the Great War, Rainbow Six Siege – they were very unusual games for a large studio. Yes, even now they have released the brand new Prince of Perge, which is a platformer!
With console gaming, everything is more complicated, there are still severe restrictions on productivity, but yes, there is currently no game about which you can say “I bought a PS5 just for this”.

Oh… Let’s go in order. Developers want to eat, but publishers want to jump into a pool of money like Scrooge McDuck. We’re not talking about food here, but about excess expenses and excess profits. And when you set yourself such ambitious goals, you become as snotty and toothless as possible, and all games become similar to each other like twin brothers.

And the irony is that a boring, toothless game has no less, if not more, chances of failure than something experimental. Look at Concorde or Forspouken. These games are made according to all modern patterns, but that is why they were not interesting to anyone.

About a brain that is accustomed to the old – I don’t even understand where this thesis came from. If our brains rejected everything new, we wouldn’t learn anything at all. Just as if you saw the game “Wolf Catches Eggs” in childhood, you would sit on it until old age. But it’s obvious that this is not so.

About the gaming press. I was talking about the Western press (in Russia, consider that there is no gaming press – SG, gamemag and gambling addiction are fluttering somewhere there). In the West, the press is a caste of ultra-liberal people, for whom promoting the social agenda and supporting the bros from gaming companies (many journalists have developer friends) is more important than evaluating the game as a separate work. This is why the opinion of the press so often does not coincide with the opinion of the players, because journalists and I have different priorities.

The press is not an “accessible form of feedback”. There is no feedback at all. This is a distorting mirror. The most accessible type of feedback is reddit and discussion on the steam page. And if the publisher does not resort to this connection, it means that he is not interested in the opinions of the players, which brings us back to my original thesis. And here is clear proof of my words – publishers almost always focus on the critic-score on Metacritic. For them this is an indicator of success. It is these estimates that they roll out in their promotional videos and they also play a decisive role when it comes to royalties. That’s why you’ll be pleasing the press, not the players.

About the beta test. It doesn’t harm the game in any way and even helps. All I’m saying is that instead of hiring testers and paying them money, publishers attract players. And at the same time, players pay money, and not vice versa. This disempowers the publishers, and now we see how the huge multi-billion dollar company EA, which clearly has money for testers, is rolling out a cut-down Battlefield 5 into early access, because why should we try, spend money, test and meet deadlines when the players will grasp everything and work for us for free (or rather, they will pay money and work)? Conclusion – this practice is ruining the industry. We get semi-finished products instead of a finished game at full price.

This is also the case with heroes 4. When they came out and I played them, I found them interesting. Yes, the style and mechanics have changed, but it was interesting to play. I was surprised later when I found out that they didn’t like her because of this.

Same with civilization, probably my favorite game and series. For me, the developers only make the game better with each part, but many are hostile to the changes and believe that it’s all in vain.

I remember when I saw the first teaser of DD2, I had 3 thoughts:
1) Ahhhh, finally.
2) Transition to 3D? It looks nice, but it’s in the teaser..
3) Where is the crusader?
Now I understand that the new style is simply gorgeous. All these smooth animations, deep shadows, smoldering flames, black density, etc. d. Just a peck in the navel just for the style

I had a bad experience with the 1st Darkest Dungeon released. From the first hours it strangled me with its randomness and complexity. The heroes either went crazy, or there weren’t enough treatments for the level. It’s good that I had it as a free distribution in the EGS, like a similar other game Iratus Lord of the Dead. I started playing Iratus and really enjoyed it. I went and bought it at a discount on Steam. Result, I don’t like it when games choke me from the start. If I want complexity, I’ll create it myself.

And who remembers the example with annoying towers in ubik games?? So far I only saw on the 5th Far Cry that the towers were removed. And how they changed the leveling system after the 3rd and 4th parts from bluntly shooting experience on everything that moves, to searching for such experience points in places of interest. But the gameplay has become more varied. So that the player is more immersed in the world of the game by learning what was going on here. Instead of stupidly rushing everything like Rambo and simultaneously reaching lvl.

And also, since indies are often about gameplay, not history, only the second and third paths remain for a sequel. And, following the second path, indie developers are killing their history (their past games).

When the sequel comes out, we get the same game but with more content, more mechanics, better graphics. In such a situation, there is no point in players running past games of the developers, since it will be the same, only worse in every way. (Example – The binding of isaac/The binding of isaac: Rebirth, Kingdom: New lands/Lingdom: Two crowns, Spelunky/Spelunky 2, Rogue Legacy/Rogue Legacy 2)

And when the developers decide to make a slightly different game, players get 2 games that they can always return to and enjoy. (Example – Frostpunk/Frostpunk 2, Darkest dungeon/Darkest dungeon 2, Risk of rain/Risk of rain 2)

There’s a lot of great stuff about indie, but there’s also a lot of downright bad stuff. The indie sector is a gold mine where you have to sift through tones of sand to find the gold among it.
It’s good when gold comes on its own or public hype takes it out, but most players don’t want to look for gold, because. To. they play Kolda

I rarely like sequels of the “same cabbage soup but thicker” format. No matter how much I love some games, the sequels, which are very similar and just a new story, always quickly tired me (as an example, the sequel to the Year of War reboot – I just couldn’t beat Ragnarok yet). I often miss something in the first part, but it’s rarely worth the sequel. The exception is some, not all, “end-to-end” games, like mass effect, how many times have I played and replayed, it was always 1,2, and then 3 parts.

But I really love sequels in my favorite worlds, but with new mechanics, improved combat, for example, and so on. For me, for example, Neverwinter 2 is a decent step away from the first part, which was not even a full-fledged party RPG. I like the second pathfinder, which added very interesting mythical path systems, for example.

There are, of course, exceptions, I like the second one, although it is similar to the first and probably differs only in the plot.

And for my favorite games, I would probably choose not even sequels, but good remakes, even though it’s fashionable now not to like them. But getting a remake of Arcanum, for example, would be very cool.

Here’s the thing – CS is a special case, a unique genre that does not require any serious innovations and innovations, at my work they play it and also Quake 3. =)

No matter how much they need to be released every year, the battlepass is an ideal option for all of the games listed, to justify this in any way is to bury damagedev. I’ll be even more surprised – most games are created for drinkers. =)