Vraptor7 on 14/12/2009 at 14:19
Quote Posted by Dresden
Well I agree. Why do the same thing over again? It'd be refreshing if someone like Two Face, Mad Hatter, or maybe Scarface were the main villain this time. It'll no doubt still be good anyway though.
The Joker doesn't look to be in any shape to lead the shenanigans this time round anyway. Three other villains were referenced in the trailer: The Penguin, Two Face and Black Mask. So it's a good bet that someone else will be taking up the mantle of big bad for the sequel.
mothra on 14/12/2009 at 14:31
then I did not pay enough attention because I could only see harley quinn and the Joker at the end of the trailer and with the joker being featured so prominently it seems to be certain that he will play a role. If not, even BETTER. like I said, time to move on. But somehow all of the normal "henchmen" you see on the streets are the joker thugs from B:AA.....
I say: mission pack/standalone expansion with the same explorable area only moved into the city without having access to the city (maybe police walled it off or just a seperated district like in Batman Begins or Escape from NY)
june gloom on 14/12/2009 at 15:05
Quote Posted by mothra
mission pack/standalone expansion
I am really fucking getting tired of this trend of calling sequels "expansion pack sequels." How the fuck did that get started? The main point of sequels is that they're a lot like their predecessors.
EvaUnit02 on 14/12/2009 at 15:35
I've been referring to shit as "glorified expansion packs" since at least Doom 2 and Spear of Destiny. That's what they fucking were/are. The practice has always been quite common with console sequels released within the same hardware cycle. Not that it's a bad thing by any means, refined incarnations of in-place game mechanics and increased scope in game design on an existing foundation can often be a good thing.
The "stand alone expansion" term is fairly new. PC game expansion packs were often ported to consoles (namely Xbox 1) as stand alone games. The trend has caught since the PC market share has shrunken significantly thanks to the popularity of current gen consoles and piracy. Stand alone products likely sell better than ones with require an existing game is likely their logic. Eg Crysis Warhead, all of the Relic RTS expansions since at least DoW 1: Dark Crusade, Men of War: Red Tide, FEAR: Perseus Mandate, Stalker: Clear Sky and Call of Pripyat, King's Bounty: Armoured Princess. etc.
june gloom on 14/12/2009 at 16:06
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
I've been referring to shit as "glorified expansion packs" since at least Doom 2 and Spear of Destiny. That's what they fucking were/are. The practice has always been quite common with console sequels released within the same hardware cycle. Not that it’s a bad thing by any means, refined incarnations of in-place game mechanics and increased scope in game design on an existing can often be a good thing.
Except most people who invoke it, re: mothra and other chudhuffers, like to scream OMG SEQUEL IS EXACTLY LIKE THE FIRST GAME ORIGINALITY IS DEAD HURF DURF WATCH ME SHOVE A PICKLE JAR UP MY URETHRA
And it's really fucking irritating.
EvaUnit02 on 14/12/2009 at 16:23
It depends on the game really, IMO. I approach it on a case by case basis.
Eg The GTA3 trilogy, whilst each game had iterative improvements that built on the previous one, I'd consider them full blown sequels. The scope and features expanded with each game, had a different setting, brand new story and setting... you can tell that they put a lot of effort into it.
The likes of Rainbow Six Vegas 2, Left 4 Dead 2, the NES Mega Man's and the aforementioned Doom 2 and Spear of Destiny? Glorified expansion packs for sure. Short dev cycles are definitely often a smoking gun. I only bought L4D2 so soon because it was priced as an expansion pack would be, ~$32 USD.
Thirith on 15/12/2009 at 08:11
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Eg The GTA3 trilogy, whilst each game had iterative improvements that built on the previous one, I'd
hardly consider them full blown sequels. The scope and features expanded with each game, had a different setting, brand new story and setting... you can tell that they put a lot of effort into it.
Just checking, because you seem to contradict yourself: you don't consider
Vice City and
San Andreas full blown sequels, in spite of everything they've added?
EvaUnit02 on 15/12/2009 at 08:39
Thanks for spotting that. I didn't intend to add that word.
