Lol

The only thing MS could do that would be a genuine surprise would be to announce a handheld, more powerful than 3DS, cheaper, and with huge backing from third parties.

That'd set the cat amongst the pigeons.

Sounds like MS are releasing both a Xbox mini and a new Xbox, also the always online rumours are now defunct as they were about some connected media crap.  We will soon see I guess.

FIFA games (for the most part) are not sequels, they are £40 patches. That's how to not do it.

mk64 wrote:

When is a sequel a real sequel?  As a player, do you want to see change or more of the same? How should developers strike that balance? What is important to see in a sequel?  Can sequels over-do it? Run dry?

I think there are a good range of what makes for an excellent sequel.

Example type 1: Refinement of an idea. Super Mario Galaxy 2 is this kind of sequel. It's basically the same game, but the ideas within each level are still for the most part new, or supplemented with extra layers of challenge (eg beat time galaxy where you have to jump according to rhythm if you want to remain alive)

Example type 2: Subversion. Take a familiar concept or series, and ignore expectations. Two good examples are Majora's Mask and Oddworld Stranger's Wrath. Both games have roots in either the series' mythology or in the case of MM, break away from it, whilst both also adjust the way the game itself is played in terms of pace (MM) or even genre (SW).

I think sequels can definitely over do it (CoD, Halo) whilst still remaining solid at the core. They can also just do enough to stop from becoming stale, yet do enough so you wouldn't want/need another (SMG2). Then you get series that are flogging dead horses like Guitar Hero/Tony Hawk etc and they should really just stop altogether.

Not sure if I can make a question out of this mornings thoughts but is there such a thing as an original game? Can games still be original? What was the last totally original game which blew your mind just from its originality? 

Minecraft is pretty original, not that I played it.

I think it is extremely hard to be 100% original but there have been games this gen that have come from a totally new angle. Demon/Dark Souls are examples of games the use regular conventions but feel new and fresh.

Katamari Damacy comes to mind.

The multiplayer mechanics of Dark Souls are just one of the things that make it original. Then there's the verticality of the world which still impresses me.

Nothing lately springs to mind.

That Hexagon game was pretty original. I didn't like it.

Space chem.

Crayon physics.

That's about it.

I'd say with videogames, simply looking for inspiration from the world of videogames misses the point. Arguably, AB was simply the videogame equivalent of a child who has built a structure out of building blocks chucking things at it to knock it down.

The idea behind Portal was new to me, and it's hard to imagine a better first attempt than the original.  I'm sure there were 2D games that messed around with teleporters and such, but none spring to mind, and to execute the idea so well in a 3D environment was genius.

Moot_Geeza wrote:

The idea behind Portal was new to me, and it's hard to imagine a better first attempt than the original.  I'm sure there were 2D games that messed around with teleporters and such, but none spring to mind, and to execute the idea so well in a 3D environment was genius.

Hadn't it already been done in Prey?

Yeah, Prey just had portals places which would take you somewhere specific, you couldn't manipulate them.

How about stuff like Braid? I know Braid's gameplay is essentially Mario in the sense it is a 2D platformer (and obviously copied it by design), but the time manipulation element of all the levels, and the story were original. To me.