Last few years I’ve been excitedly waiting for sequels from several small-to-medium sized studios that made highly acclaimed original games—I’m talking about Cities: Skylines, Kerbal Space Program, Planet Coaster, Frostpunk, etc.—yet each sequel was very poorly received to the point I wasn’t willing to risk my money buying it. Why do you think this happens when these developers already had a winning formula?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That thinking is the death of art anywhere. "Stop making unique stuff, stick to what sells."

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yup, and honestly even according to that anti-art logic it was a strategic failure. Funny meme gifs were part of how the game gained notoriety, but you don't maintain a game long term on meme status alone.

Even if "haha funni physics glitches" were still the in thing - I think people got over them fast, like with any comedy style - the longevity of the game came from the deep mechanics and impressive missions people could do, and the community support.

I actually think that sequels to breakout sandbox games are always doomed to fail. Like what if they tried to release Minecraft 2? It would be awful, and I think we all instinctively know it would be, which is kind of a self fullfulling prophecy.

Minecraft doesn't have a monopoly on the special sauce that makes their game good. It has a decade and a half of support and cultural recognition from a dedicated following. You can't make that happen a second time. I don't like what's been done with the franchise commercially, but they figured out how to milk it without doing a direct sequel, which I think is part of why it's still relevant.