Vidya sequel

Why do devs insist on doing this shit?

...

DS2 isn't canon.

You try keeping track of your own franchise if you gave the okay for faggots to literally take each ending and develop a new game for each one, stretch on into the infinite to the point where even you can't tell what the bloody fuck is going on anymore.

The only solution then, would be to provide different campaigns in the same games the follow from your prior savegame data, starting out with very short campaigns for each save game route until in the later sequels the games get so long and huge, they're ratable as 3 games in one.

A true way of doing this would follow the fucking Alignment system, if put into practice accordingly.

I just don't understand the thought process that demands everything be a direct sequel. Why can't more games do the Zelda thing where it's the same/similar characters in a different setting with a different story? Like I get it if you're setting up for a direct sequel but I'm tired of all these supposed-to-be standalone games getting lackluster direct sequels because fuck you.
*Dark Souls*

Crash Bandicoot did this well. Crash 2 is a sequel to the "bad" ending of Crash 1, and then Crash 2's 100% ending ends on a light cliffhanger for Crash 3.


Twisted Metal frequently has it so that different characters in sequels continue from different endings in the previous games. As early as Twisted Metal 2, if you play as Outlaw 2, it acts as if Outlaw won the first game. But then when you fight the mid-boss, it tells you that Minion won all the previous tournaments. And of course there are all the people from the first game who survived a battle to the death in the last game. In Head-On, Outlaw, Twister, Mr. Slamm, Grasshopper, and Sweet Tooth all have stories that directly say they won Twisted Metal 2. Outlaw's and Sweet Tooth's also say they won Twisted Metal 1.


Zelda II is a direct sequel to Zelda I. Ocarina of Time is a direct prequel to Link to the Past. Majora's Mask, Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess are all direct sequels to Ocarina of Time.

The only one that doesn't make very direct references to show you exactly how it relates to at least one prior entry is Link to the Past. People just don't pay attention. Even the spinoffs are mostly clear with it. Maybe not to the extent that the timeline is super easy, but even Four Swords Adventures, which is probably the hardest to place in the timeline, is at least very clear that it's a sequel to Four Swords, and then Minish Cap is a prequel to both of them.

I like how deus ex: Invisible war made all possible endings canon to a degree.

...

Unlike books for example, games have a high upfront cost so planning a duology or trilogy from the start is an incredibly risky proposition. These upfront costs wouldn't be this big if teams were properly sized and managed, but that's nearly impossible in CY+1 so we'll ignore this for the sake of the argument. So if, and when a sequel is made, new problems have to be introduced for the protagonists to solve, because if there is no conflict there is no plot (unless your idea of a sequel is a party game or a racing game or whatever the fuck). Depending on the writer's skill, this can render the events of the previous game pointless. Hint - many writers are trash and are there because the position doesn't require a certified degree of skill and they have connections.
Some IPs are definitely planned as a series from the start, but usually there are reasons behind them that guarantee a return or satisfy some political reason, see Killzone (muh console exclusive) and Ass Effect (EXTREME ADVERTISING).

Which can be sidestepped quite well if they just introduce new characters in the same/similar setting. I don't get why that doesn't happen more.

Because 1/2 and OoT/MM aside, autistic fans never understood a timeline didn't need to fucking exist. But they made so much noise than, starting with wind waker, nintendo caved in, for the worse. Thank fuck breath of the wild decided to cut faggots off and make the game its own sequel.

It's CY+2, newfag.


Ocarina of Time is very clearly a direct prequel to Link to the Past. It relies on referencing Link to the Past much more than Zelda 2 references Zelda 1, or Majora's Mask references Ocarina of Time's story. Majora's Mask only "references" Ocarina of Time because they just reused models, which is like saying Super Mario Bros: The Lost Levels is "referencing" Super Mario Bros by having you fight the same Goomba and Koopa sprites.

majora's mask takes place right after the end of OoT… the who reason link is in the woods at the beginning is to find navi.

...

I love Yoko Taro

Not only that, but he starts it off with a fucking Jojo image. Pathetic.

next thing you'll be telling me is filthy frank isn't the best thing to happen to the internet.

But the game does not specifically say that. "Navi" is never said anywhere in the game. Just that Link is looking for his friend. A more concrete connection is the fact that he has the actual Ocarina of Time with him.

Ocarina of Time, however, does very clearly play out the backstory that is given in Link to the Past. It's a much more concrete connection than anything else in the series until Wind Waker. Hell, even Twilight Princess is probably less concretely connected to OoT than OoT is to LttP.

DS2 is ambigiously canon, we know the world it takes place in isn't Lordran in the future since you have to access it by some weird water portal, and it may very well be a Hyrule/Termina type of deal where Drangleic is supposed to be the inverse of what Lordran is


There are more games than just 1/2 and OoT/MM that star the same Link but I get what you're saying. BOTW also seems to be a weird convergence type of deal where it could take place at the ass-end of any timeline

Jesus fucking christ no. He's an obnoxious, unfunny retard. Goon tier shit.
LOOK AT ME, I'M SO WEIRD AND CONTRARIAN. WOW!!!! SO FUNNY, AHHAHAH!!

>sequel to game takes place where the "good" and "bad" endings are both kinda canon
Fucking infamous

Considering how InFamous 1 barely changed the story at all based on the karma mechanic, it really didn't matter.

InFamous 2 actually did change the story, but the stuff that directly deals with 2's story was fucking preorder DLC so I'll never know.

Fuck this cringey bitch.

Guess

Fucking idiot. KOTOR II is only one of many options.

NiER and Drakenguard? Never played them but I hear enough about them.

...

Don't know, I haven't played them either. I was thinking of Chrono Cross

But it doesn't matter in the end after all, because even with the cycles the fire gets weaker and weaker every time, and it cannot hold magical entropy from destroying the world/changing it into some other state of existence anyways.

...

Not canon

It isn't his fault to be honest, he wanted to make different content but Redditards didn't allow that to happen, he is a prisoner of his own content and audience which is pretty sad

...

...

I don't remember anyone really hating Red Steel 2 for doing that.

hotline miami 2 ends killing off all the characters, devs did this so they didn't have to work on hm3, they also said they are working on a new game so i hope it's good

...

Arguing over canon is pointless, DS2 exists therefore it is 1/3rd of Dark Souls weather it's liked or not.

I hope it's gonna be a different genre, canning HM3 to make a not-HM3 would be stupid

Direct sequels are easier because you may well have some remnants or a large portion of the team who worked on the first around to pick from. They're not going to put in the same amount effort because they already have all the tools and probably a load of shit that didn't make it into the first to throw into the mix.

Problem is that a lot of sequels are obviously second thoughts. Perhaps surprised by the success of a game, so they go and make a second. Even if the first was a fully self sustained story. What we need more of is the use of a unified setting, or at least a unified theme. Like Tails of Heroes vs. Wild Arms.

...

To the larger point devs press reset on all your shit because they're egotists.

Bioware also want/need a story that overrides the importance of your past decisions, renders them sidenotes or just confines them to specific cut-scenes like in ME2/3 or DA2/3. If they let your decisions matter they'd have to make (at least) 2 games in one for it to be any cop, they can give the initial *illusion* of that with something like Origins but unless they have an epic Game of Thrones story to explore over an arc from drastically different perspectives then they deplete their head of steam by the time the sequel(s) roll around as we've seen again and again.

The permutations become too much to handle pretty quickly, I realised this a little while after the end of ME1, when I got up to 64 permutations of significant decisions you make in a tree graph, then it dawned on me there was (at least) twice as many if alignment meant anything across the stories and then realised how insanely complex just the next title would have to be for those decisions to be taken into account or noticeably different from each other, never mind how complex ME3 would have to be (oh the bitter irony).

It's much easier to say FUCK IT, chuck out the lot and make something new and inevitably mediocre.

Because stories need conflict to be interesting or else you get stupid shit like gone home.

Why is this a question.

...

Menu-Diving Story

more like DkS2 completely ruin DkS1 and DkS3 tries to fix the damage done by being a esoteric meta commentary of being "summoned from the ash" to make another game in the franchise and to reinforce the idea that being Nihilism is death and decay and the Dark ending is nihilism and entropy and Lord Gwyn did nothing wrong. The fact remains that Kaathe and Frampt are both Jews playing both sides.

...

but dks2 was the best game in the series and dks3 was bloodborne-inspired trash.

dks2 was like a game that defined that the souls games were not connected, and were instead each individual stories with short references to each other, like zelda games, but then comes shit souls 3 SO FAST COMBAT YEAH, DELAYED ATTACKS EVERYWHERE. and tries to pretend its actually all connected like a game with a story spacing multiple games and SO DEEP, here read these 500 item descriptions for the """story""", gameplay wise it copied bloodborne, design wise it copied bloodborne, dks3 is just bloodborne for PCfags.

(You)

...

...

Dark Souls is very early on into Armageddon. The whole point of Dark Souls III is that thousands if not millions of years later, it's all finally coming to a head, the world is falling apart, it's fucking over. You and the Firekeeper embrace and watch the sun's light finally go out, and then she asks if you can still hear her voice, as if to say "even in the dark, we were never absolutely sure if we'd have each other."

It's the end of the world, Dark Souls is not about SAVING THE WORLD, it's about POSTPONING THE INEVITABLE. They even say in BOTH endings that no matter what, it will begin again, because the world isn't ready to give up just yet. The story isn't over.

In Dark Souls II they don't even prophesy that you will save the world, they just say you're going to do shit and you will never know why. And in the end, they say, "It's going to happen again… The story is not over."

In Dark Souls III, they pretty much tell you "yeah, it's fucking over. This is the end of the story."

If its a million years later why are they still fighting withs swords and not laser guns

They run out fuel. Again.

...