[casual_games] sequels

[James C. Smith]

The other point that hasn't been talked about much is that sequels are a way
to minimize risk by using a design that has been proven to be successful.
It's not all about the IP and the brand.  With the industry growing as fast
as it is, many potential customers have never heard of games that were
popular a year ago.  Making a sequel is a way to make the old game new again
so that it pops on to the what's new list and hopefully the top 10 list and
has a chance to be seen by people who never saw the original.  This is
exactly the same reason "clones" can do so well.  Cloning your own game
(making a sequel) is a great defense against the clones.  Sequels are not
just taping into established and known brands. They are leveraging proven
play mechanics and styles.  You are not just reaching out the players who
played the original. You are reaching out to a whole new audience using a
proven concept.  
 
Dave pointed out that it may be hard to make the sequel be true to what made
the original successful. This is an excellent point.  Game designers tend to
want to start with the original design, subtract nothing, and add all kind
of "great new ideas". This can detract from the simplicity that may have
made the original a success.  Making a sequel is a balancing act between
trying to please the existing customers with "something new" and trying to
keep the game true to what made the original a cusses. That last part is
especially important for all the potential customers who are new to this
market and never saw the original (and probably never will unless the sequel
is a success).
 
I have worked on very successful sequels to Ricochet and Big Kahuna Reef. In
all cases we reached a lot of new customers who never player the originals.

James C. Smith
Producer/Lead programmer for the Ricochet & Big Kahuna games
Reflexive Entertainment

-----Original Message-----
From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org]
On Behalf Of Steve Meretzky
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:44 PM
To: 'IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List'
Subject: RE: [casual_games] sequels



The big difference is probably that a movie is telling a story, and the
sequel is either a continuation of that story (e.g. Godfather 2) or another
story involving the same character(s) (e.g. Indiana Jones and the Lost
Crusade). You can have a successful movie sequel without breaking new
grounds in areas like artistic style or technical effects. A casual game has
no story to speak of, and therefore for the sequel to be appealing it can't
just be the same gameplay but has to have enhanced gameplay (new modes, new
power-ups, etc.).

 

The one analogy to a movie sequel might be a game that delivers essentially
the same gameplay as the first game, and is merely a vehicle for delivering
a lot of additional content . new levels in a game like Cubis or new phrases
in a game like Wild Wild Words. This is normally the type of content that is
delivered in the hardcore world via "expansion packs". We discussed
expansion packs at the Casual Game Summit in (I think) 2005, and the
unanimous opinion of the panel was that the distribution channels are not
set up for a lower-priced product like an expansion pack, or for explaining
how you need A before you can use B, and therefore expansion packs weren't a
viable option in casual games, at least under current conditions. But if
you're going to introduce a sequel to deliver new content, it's obvious to
take advantage of the moment to add new gameplay twists also (see Cubis 2)
so it's not likely that you'll see sequels whose sole purpose is to deliver
add'l content.

 

--Steve

 


  _____  


From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org]
On Behalf Of John Szeder
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 8:12 PM
To: 'IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List'
Subject: RE: [casual_games] sequels

 

Am I going to get lynched for asking about how game sequels compare to movie
sequels?

 

Do people generally have the same expectation of movie sequels as game
sequels?

 

Have there been cases where the sequel was better than the original worth
mentioning?

 

It seems to me that due to issues with failure to meet expectations that
building a sequel curbs your upside.

 

Would love to have someone persuade me otherwise.

 


  _____  


From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org]
On Behalf Of Dave Rohrl
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 3:28 PM
To: IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List
Subject: RE: [casual_games] sequels

 

They vary.  All of the ones you list below have been successful (or I expect
will be).  On the other hand, Gutterball 2 and Lemonade Tycoon 2 both did
less business than the original games (I think).  There's a very fine
balancing act with these sequels.  Those that have been successful have
managed to maintain the excellence and simplicity of their gameplay and
sticking to a few incremental features which - by and large - the novice
user doesn't really have to grok to play well.  Those that have fallen short
seem to have either added too much complexity that the user absolutely had
to contend with or have added too little additional gamely to generate
excitement.

 

I won't say that creating a really successful sequel is as hard as creating
a really successful original game, but it's no slam dunk either.

 

- DaveR

 


  _____  


From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org]
On Behalf Of John Szeder
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 1:36 PM
To: 'IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List'
Subject: [casual_games] sequels

 

How do sequels in the casual space tend to fare?

 

I noticed there are "bejeweled 2, diner dash 2, and big kahuna reef 2" out.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/casual_games/attachments/20060622/07294e92/attachment.html