next »

[tesselode]

When you make a sequel to a game, should you change the menus to make them look cooler or at least feel different? Or should you keep the menus the same and just change the gameplay?

I think it's good to at least make the menus feel and look a little different. If you keep it the same, it makes the sequel feel the same as the last game, and it makes it look like the developers were lazy. For example, when I tried out Bejeweled 3, I was anticipating a new, pretty interface, sort of like what Bejeweled Twist had, but instead I got the same, boring visual style that Bejeweled Blitz had, making me feel like the developers were lazy and leaving me disappointed.

[iffi]

If the interface can be made better (or prettier without affecting usability), then it should be changed, but if the interface is already good there's no need to change it in my opinion. I think sequels should attempt to feel fresh by offering new gameplay, not just a new interface (though the interface may undergo changes to reflect the new gameplay).

[Core Xii]

I voted no because you shouldn't make something different for the sake of making it different. If you can improve the interface then by all means, go ahead - If not, why fix what isn't broke?

[s0]

Core took the words right outta my mouth,

[SundownKid]

The argument of change for the sake of change doesn't hold much weight. Can anyone claim that their interface is so utterly perfect that it needs not a smidgen of change for a sequel?

[PsySal]

I think that it's wonderful to get a sequel to a game that feels a lot like the original but has new content and makes improvements where they count! Majora's Mask is a great example.

As for interface in particular, what Core said. =)

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

there's no third option (that indies probably shouldn't really be making sequels); i don't like direct sequels where you have [game name] + 2, although spiritual sequels are great, or 'episode 1, episode 2' when something was originally envisioned as a series of episodes. the [game name] + 2 thing always felt like taking advantage of the popularity of a previous game to me.

that said of course indies should make what they want, even if what they want is a marketing technique

[mirosurabu]

It's fine, so as long you do it for a good reason. It also depends on how important menu is in your game.

Some of the good reasons:

1. You changed the visual style of the game
2. Past menu shows main characters/concepts/features/etc, your sequel has different main characters/concepts/features/etc
3. You have new options / game modes / etc.
4. You think your old menu is crap

[tesselode]

there's no third option (that indies probably shouldn't really be making sequels); i don't like direct sequels where you have [game name] + 2, although spiritual sequels are great, or 'episode 1, episode 2' when something was originally envisioned as a series of episodes. the [game name] + 2 thing always felt like taking advantage of the popularity of a previous game to me.

that said of course indies should make what they want, even if what they want is a marketing technique

It's interesting that you think this, but I think you can have a direct sequel that isn't just there for marketing. In the case that you're taking the same basic gameplay but expanding it, "game name + 2" is a pretty good choice if you ask me.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

if you're expanding the gameplay of a game, why not call it an expansion then? that's what the name 'expansion' means anyway.

[s0]

So it's all about the name? 

[jwk5]

There should be a middle option (labelled "sometimes"). I think the interface only really needs to be different when it is an improvement or when it will better suit the theme of the sequel.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

So it's all about the name?  

yes, but that doesn't diminish its importance, because names affect how we think of things. people don't think of civilization 5 as an "expansion" of civilization 1 for instance, they think of it as a separate game, when it's just basically the same game, with new graphics, more units, slightly changed rules, etc. (but still essentially the same core rules) -- basically i think sequels "trick" the player into thinking they're buying an entirely new game when they're actually buying an expansion or technology update (and thus paying for the same thing twice, or in civilization's case, five times).

anyway, if the question is thought of in terms of 'should an expansion have a new interface than the old game?' i think the answer is probably not, unless all the other graphics changed too. if you remake all the graphics, remake the gui too, if you are using the old graphics, use the old gui too.

[PsySal]

@Paul One very valid reason for a sequel is if you want to tell another story using the same game engine, etc. I think it's just practical to want to re-use what you have!

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i think that's covered by the 'episode 2' thing in most cases. for instance, on my site are fedora spade episodes 1, 2, 3, and 4. same engine, different stories/cases (it's a detective adventure game).

[Blue]

Honestly, I think most people would interpret, say "X Game episode 2" as "X Game 2".

On the menu change thing, I agree with PsySal; the menu probably should be changed if the theme or, say, the message or even color scheme of the game as a whole has changed. Otherwise, it's better to just keep it the same. Although I feel that not changing any of those things in a sequel might, indeed, qualify as an expansion pack rather than an actual sequel.

[namre]

I'm all for having new interfaces. However, a new interface would entail another round of usability testing that may or may not work. It's risky and costs more especially if the previous one is fine the way it is and isn't exactly broken. If you want your game to feel fresh, then just go for aesthetic changes.

The argument of change for the sake of change doesn't hold much weight. Can anyone claim that their interface is so utterly perfect that it needs not a smidgen of change for a sequel?

I don't think an interface needs to be perfect. Just good enough that people can be able to breeze through it without thinking.

[D Krahenbil]

I believe sequels can be a good thing, as long as they are fresh (meaning that you don't feel like you're playing the prequel(s)).  Which leads me to say that the interface should be different if it contributes to the feeling that you're playing the "same old, same old".  I'm not saying that's the only thing that needs to change in such a situation though.  Chances are, if the interface is causing you to feel deja vu, then that's not the only thing. 

The interface can be similar, and yet still have the game feeling fresh.  I believe Donkey Kong Country 2 had a similar interface to DKC.  However, it was still a blast to play (even more so than the first).  The key was that the setting and atmosphere changed, and that was enough of a difference.  So I guess what I'm saying is that there is no hard and fast rule.  Play the game, and only then can you make a judgement on whether or not a new interface is needed.

[Hangedman]

I think an interface should suit the game.

And unless the sequel is identical in just about every way, it should be at least stylistically different, if not mechanically.

For excellent executions, compare Persona 3 and 4 and Assassin's Creed I and II.

[Raptor85]

I absolutely hate when sequils completely change the interface....but refining it is always a good thing. (slight tweaks for new features, slight differences in gameplay).

Best example of this done right, imho, is the Atelier series.  The interface really has  not changed much, though it evolves slightly with each game. If you've played any game in the series though you can just pick up and play any other.

An example of change done wrong....Xenosaga EP2, Episode one had a very good interface, 2 was significantly different and frustratingly hard to use in comparison.  There was zero reason for the changes they made in 2, it was all change for change sake.


In summary, interfaces should EVOLVE within a game series, not simply change, if presented with simply the interface, the game should still be recognizable as part of the series.