Sequels.

[Nepene]

I was considering a possible sequel to this game. Based on that, I was trying to consider what made a sequel successful and what made a sequel unsuccessful. Then something hit me- I cannot think of any unsuccessful video game sequel. Some didn't do quite as well as their predecessor (most did) but none actually did poorly or were unsuccessful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_no ... fice_bombs

In terms of films, not a single film was a box office bomb.

After much effort, I found a failed sequel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Next_Karate_Kid

Different main character, different director, crap film.

When I say I haven't found any box office bombs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teen_Wolf_Too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Nukem_Forever

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porky%27s_ ... #Reception

Things like this did ok.

Can anyone think of any financially unsuccessful sequels? Not bad sequels, there are many bad sequels, any sequels that didn't make the owners happy to swim in their pools of money?

[coyot]

Unlike movies, computer games in this genre are not "one-off pleasure". With movies, sequels can be completely different and succeed (i.e. Alien vs. Aliens).

What will make a TD sequel successful? Less of anything tedious, better interface, new ideas that ADD to the original concept while not changing it.

That in terms of DQ could mean: a new class or two, new skills for all the classes including Azra, new enemies so far unheard of, new equipment, new and interesting map ideas. And maybe I have high demands, but I'd want all the new things to be quite interesting, to add new dimensions to the gameplay. Also an almost-must these days, achievements. These are a nice thing when done right, but utter boredom when done mechanically. I could imagine making some of the self-imposed challenges we've devised so far to be achievements rewarded i.e. with some "premium" gear, otherwise unobtainable (and largely just for show, not any gamebreakers). Things like "beat map X on Extreme without Healers" are nice. I don't need achievements of the kind of "kill 1000 revenants" or "burn 100 enemies to death", or generally said, any achievements that are about patience/persistence. I want achievements to be a show of skill.

In the TD genre itself, I can think of three very successful game series that do sequels right. Bloons, Gemcraft and Bubble Tanks. Each showed in the sequels a few new elements that enriched the gameplay rather than simply extended it. It would of course be very hard to come up with something never seen before, but I can imagine any of the following as reasonable starting points for sequels:
* synergy between skills and associated traits
* a new class that could do half-damage to normal enemies but double-damage to phased-out enemies
* a new class that could do very little damage but cripple enemy special powers
* something that could be constructed/summoned in enemy path (be it traps, spells, barricades), either by Azra or by a new defender
* an extra level to all skills, that gives the skill an extra edge, outside the skill-up table. (ice doing extra damage to swimmers, aid causing regen, poison stopping regen, ...) - not necessarily for every skill, also limit the number of these "perks" per character so that we'd have to make more choices, making each defender special.

[Nepene]

Indeed, all of those things would be gone. My wonder though is that assuming the game is not radically different (DQ two done by a different director as a martial arts fighter game) is there any precedent whatsoever for it doing badly?

Making the game well increases the profit. But what about the risk. Is there any risk? If DQ didn't innovate whatsoever and just made a slightly worse clone, is there any risk at all it could go badly?

[coyot]

Indeed, all of those things would be gone. My wonder though is that assuming the game is not radically different (DQ two done by a different director as a martial arts fighter game) is there any precedent whatsoever for it doing badly?
Making the game well increases the profit. But what about the risk. Is there any risk? If DQ didn't innovate whatsoever and just made a slightly worse clone, is there any risk at all it could go badly?

Well, that very much depends on whether people will be willing to pay again for more of the same. There are datadisk type sequels (where there is no innovation, just new "missions") that did well, and probably also some that didn't do so well.
I for one would pay for just about anything in this case because I think that the game is seriously underpriced and because I appreciate the hard work behind it, and the way Lars treats users. But personal preferences aside, if DQ II turned out to be more or less just a new set of maps and cutscenes, it's likely that the reviews would not be very favorable, which means not many new customers and only some from the old, especially assuming that there would soon be plenty of mods around, offering possibly similar experience for free.

I can imagine two options:
a) developmnet of DQ 1.5 - not a fullblown sequel, but a "platinum" release with maybe a few more sidequests, but with a lot of polish (modular mod support, builtin "challenge modes", maybe somewhat improved skill trees (especially healer), and done for free.

b) a full sequel - same as above, plus maybe a new class, a few game mechanics, a new story with lots of new maps - for a similar price.

[Nepene]

Indeed, all of those things would be gone. My wonder though is that assuming the game is not radically different (DQ two done by a different director as a martial arts fighter game) is there any precedent whatsoever for it doing badly?
Making the game well increases the profit. But what about the risk. Is there any risk? If DQ didn't innovate whatsoever and just made a slightly worse clone, is there any risk at all it could go badly?

Well, that very much depends on whether people will be willing to pay again for more of the same. There are datadisk type sequels (where there is no innovation, just new "missions") that did well, and probably also some that didn't do so well.
I for one would pay for just about anything in this case because I think that the game is seriously underpriced and because I appreciate the hard work behind it, and the way Lars treats users. But personal preferences aside, if DQ II turned out to be more or less just a new set of maps and cutscenes, it's likely that the reviews would not be very favorable, which means not many new customers and only some from the old, especially assuming that there would soon be plenty of mods around, offering possibly similar experience for free.

I can imagine two options:
a) developmnet of DQ 1.5 - not a fullblown sequel, but a "platinum" release with maybe a few more sidequests, but with a lot of polish (modular mod support, builtin "challenge modes", maybe somewhat improved skill trees (especially healer), and done for free.

b) a full sequel - same as above, plus maybe a new class, a few game mechanics, a new story with lots of new maps - for a similar price.

I am curious how strong brand loyalty is. The fact that neither you nor I can think of any sequel ever which did poorly financially is a strong hint that brand loyalty is effective and very strong. People often do pay for the same- as massive games like call of duty and mario.

I just remembered an old sequel. It caused the collapse of a company because it was buggy and crappy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_Raide ... _aftermath

Sold 2.5 million, did better than the previous game (1.5 million). Apparantly the company got sunk due to bad reviews and executive meddling, which wouldn't be an issue for DQ.

I'm not sure even bad reviews are enough to stop a sequel.

[coyot]

Googling I found public voices. There's a lot of interesting stuff in google, wiki has a page of failures (but not sequels)

It seems however, that some of them were not commercial failures. So, what matters more? Not covering the cost? Or doing so but damaging your brand as you disappoint your fans? The latter could be as destructive as the former, only take longer

That said, I don't fear that Lars, Anthony and rest of the team would make a screwup of a sequel to DQ...

[Nepene]

Googling I found public voices. There's a lot of interesting stuff in google, wiki has a page of failures (but not sequels)

It seems however, that some of them were not commercial failures. So, what matters more? Not covering the cost? Or doing so but damaging your brand as you disappoint your fans? The latter could be as destructive as the former, only take longer

That said, I don't fear that Lars, Anthony and rest of the team would make a screwup of a sequel to DQ...

Their examples of terrible games that ruined the series.

Crysis 2 As of June 30, 2011 over 3 million copies of the game have been sold across all platforms, same as crysis.

Predator 2. Less successful than Predator 1, but did earn double its budget (60 mil), covering costs.

Cod Modern warfare 3. Earned over a billion dollars, better than all previous ones.

Far Cry 2, sold 2.9 million, more than far cry.

Assassin's Creed Rev, sold 7 million, more than some previous titles.

Battlezone 2. A success (if not a huge one) retail wise, due to crippling bugs and a broken mulitplayer.

Mercanaries 2. 1 mil sales vs 0.7 mil for mercanaries.

If they avoid damaging their brand that's great. But Lars and co have to consider the risk, consider whether doing a sequel is worthwhile. Based on what we've seen here I think its fair to say that making a sequel isn't that risky and they will probably earn oodles of money. So they should throw themselves into it and make it amazing (increasing sales) and be assured that even if they screw up they won't have to be these people.

[Anthony]

I think what you guys are noticing is exactly the cause for the extremely sequel-heavy world that video games have been moving in to. The fact is, sequels are very safe bets, so they are much easier to fund, and in many cases fund heavier than the original. As such, we see lots of sequels that are highly successful (at least financially, and often critically too). Yes, there are occasional bumbles, but I think it's rare that a bad game genuinely ruins an entire series (despite what fans may claim in a forum).

In any case, we've tossed around ideas. Honestly, a big part of it will be how well it does on Steam. Lars is looking at trying to continue going full time with indie game development, but he does need to eat too, so we're going to find out if this model works for us. The game has definitely been successful so far, but not to a point that it'd be safe to not pursue another job.

*If* we were to decide to do another game, I'm not sure which direction we'd go. I could see doing a direct sequel to the game (and we do have some ideas for it), I could see doing a "spiritual successor" where we take many of the core mechanics but apply it to a different setting/plot/characters and tweak some of the systems appropriately.

My guess is that, as Nepene observed, we'd try one of those first before going to another really different idea honestly just for safety - if we have one hit, and can get a second one, that'll give more security going forward since we could have some saved up profit to tide through a future game even if it fails. I say this without having talked much with Lars about it, so those aren't necessarily official company decisions, just my thoughts on it.

[larsiusprime]

My basic leaning is towards doing a sequel, but as Anthony has said, no formal plans yet. Been talking a lot with James about it, and so far he's indicated he'd like to try a whole new story and setting, but build off of the same basic mechanics as the original DefQ.

More on this and other things later, and of course none of this is final

[Rameau]

I am curious how strong brand loyalty is. The fact that neither you nor I can think of any sequel ever which did poorly financially is a strong hint that brand loyalty is effective and very strong. People often do pay for the same- as massive games like call of duty and mario.

I just remembered an old sequel. It caused the collapse of a company because it was buggy and crappy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_Raide ... _aftermath

Sold 2.5 million, did better than the previous game (1.5 million). Apparantly the company got sunk due to bad reviews and executive meddling, which wouldn't be an issue for DQ.

I'm not sure even bad reviews are enough to stop a sequel.

Ultima 9. Granted, it couldn't kill Origin Systems because it was no longer operating as a company but as a subsidiary of EA, but it sold terribly, and EA fired nearly everyone, leaving a skeleton crew to run Ultima Online.

But your point about sequel branding is well-taken. When the new game is more of the same with a few variations, the old players will snap the new game up. If the game changes drastically, however, there can be problems. NeoCore's King Arthur was a hit with strategy gamers, but King Arthur II, which cut heavily back on strategy in favor of a very linear RPG storyline, had mediocre sales. And while Skyrim has sold extremely well, it did seriously annoy a lot of Morrowind and Oblivion players who felt the many changes to gameplay were largely negative.

Branding may be a two-edged sword for games.