Why are some game sequel plots poorly written?

[SuperSabin]

So I just got done playing Megaman Legends 2. I liked the gameplay, the enviroments, and the music. However the plotline wasn't as strong as the original as expected but what really made me want to make this thread was the ending i was faced with in the game.

First off Megaman Legends 2 was supposed to fill in the gaps that Megaman Legends left behind, but that game didn't execute that very well, as for the ending:

Spoiler: Megaman, Sera, and Yuna are basically trapped in the (now shutdown) elysium up in space and Roll and Tron are trying to build a rocket that would lift off into space.

Not a very good wrap up... anyways, why do some of the game sequels out there have poorly written storylines? were they rushing the production of the game to meet a release date? did they have a lack of imagination to recreate the story?

[Taco-Calamitous]

I imagine it varies from game to game, although your suggestions are not probably far off with many games. It's just like with any other media; maybe the makers wanted to churn out a sequel for what they think will be an easy cash-in. Maybe the writers for the sequel aren't as talented as the ones who wrote the original. Or maybe the first game was an upside to the writer(s), and they just aren't able to match the quality in every game. All we can do on this topic, of course, is speculate.

I'm not sure if I will keep this thread open; don't see how much discussion there can be. No offense. I'll see how it goes. Anyhoo...

Wuv, Yer Mom

[GypsyElder]

MML1's plot didn't make all that much sense either, it was basically just treasure hunting and protecting Kattalox from the Bonnes and the "legendary treasure" until the very last ruin. Then out of nowhere with little explanation Megaman Juno shows up. I haven't played in a while but I think that's the jist of it. I never really take MML plots too seriously, they're just fun to play lol

I kind of wasn't expecting for all the plot holes to be filled in the second, I figured it would be more about Roll's patents more than anything since it starts of with gramps saying "yeak idk what that big thing was that showed up above kattalox but ANYWAY, who cares? Lalala" Lol Maybe that's why we need MML3

Zone of Enders, has the worst ending I have ever seen in a game. It's possibly the worst most random spot to cut you off. I plan on playing the second, although I don't even know what it's called. I've seen another ZoE game but not the continuation of the first :s

Also LOL @ X-2

[Robbo]

I always thought that these poorly written sequels were just for money because the original game was probably excellent and it shares its reputation. Its kind of like selling the same thing twice but one of them is fake. thats a bad example but it still helps. I think this is very uncommon anyway Final Fantasy is a good example for good sequels(sort of) a better example would be Assassains Creed that maintained being a good game through the first 2. Aswell there are games that go in the other direction. Fable was supposedly not a good game (from what ive heard) whereas lots of people really Enjoyed Fable II.

[ZantetsukeN]

It does very much vary between games. I have played some bad, some good.

Same as a lot of people, I am a huge fan of Kingdom Hearts. The main reason for this is how great the sequal was writted. I can find no way of faulting KHII (I think it's better than the original), because of the content of the plot, new characters and how they tied in to the existing story etc. KHII is an example of the good.

I haven't had much experience with the bad, because most of the sequals to games I play are pretty good, or sequals to fighting games which don't have much of a plot to begin with. But one I would like to throw in there is FFX-2. While the game was good, the plot was a weird one. Not only, in my opinion, the fact that FFX did not need a sequal, but it was an odd plot throughout. Not much that ties in with the original story except for a few characters. I'm not trying to bad mouth the game because I did think it was good, but it's just the plot, more often than not, did not make much sense when comparing it to FFX.

[randy666]

i think it is because the writers have created characters and people realise what these characters are like, so the writers must be aware of character influence (what he/she would not do) take for example assains creed 2, you look to make more cash from the game by exploiting what was in assains creed

[DragonHeart]

I'm only guessing here, but it may be similar to book publishing. How many times have you read a series and the first book was awesome, then each subsequent book got worse? That is because the author had an unlimited amount of time to write and polish the first book, making it as good as they were capable of before sending it out. But then they get their contract and they're expected to write x number of books in y amount of time. With less time to develop and write the story and more pressure to deliver, the quality suffers.

I suspect it's the same thing with games. Some are outright cashgrabs of course, Final Fantasy X-2 and the Compilation being obvious ones. Games also have an added dimension of risk, if the original developer should close or having a falling out with the publisher, or if someone else takes over developing. Sometimes they suffer from last minute changes imposed on them by said publisher. Final Fantasy XII, for example, had Vaan and Penelo added in at the last minute because they thought having an "old" main character (Basch) would be detrimental to the game, as the target audience would relate better to a young character. Bullshit of course, but that's how it was decided.

My problem with a lot of sequels is that because the original game never intended to have one, there just aren't enough loose ends to create a new story that makes sense in continuity/context terms. That's why you end up with poorly written, contrived and just plain weird plots.

~DragonHeart~

[Imperium]

I believe Dragonheart's comparison to book publishing is valid. The need to publish under time constraints can be frustrating and, as we all know, affect the quality of the work. As far as sequels go, I think the issue consists of many issues: one, the creators do not know how they want to progress, keeping in mind that they need to consider how much of a balance is needed to retain the old but still show something new. That is, some creators mistakenly try to replicate the first game and polish it a bit; other try the opposite and dazzle the audience. I think there needs to be a balance. The creators must consider where they want to go next and where they want the works to connect, if at all.

As far as a lack of imagination, I think the issue is more timing than imagination. It takes years (for many) to come up with a novel that's good. With a video game, I believe every few years, perhaps three or four, is acceptable. But when you're rushing, dealing with constantly changing teams, being pressured by a company that threatens to take away your job, etc. I think those issues contribute to the decline of a work.

On a final note, I think the largest problem is finding a connection between the first and second work. If we look at the horror genre, we find there are many horrible sequels to great first films--The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, for instance. I think it's perhaps the impossibility of recreating an environment and capturing elements that worked at first in a sequel. J.J. Abrams mentioned in his TED presentation that Jaws was not just about the shark; he went on to show a clip of scene where a father is mimicked by his son at the dinner table, and they share a loving moment. Abrams believes this is what it is about: those wonderful little moments that contribute to the greater whole. It is for this reason that I believe that many of the sequel fail: on the little fronts, then the larger fronts.