Do you think gaming companies SHOULD make games that are a direct sequel of a previous RPG (Suikoden 2 following on from Suikoden with some of the characters), or do you think that it would be a better idea to keep them separate storyline (Final Fantasy, amongst others?)

I liked the way that Suikoden 2 followed on from Suikoden, with the interaction between the main characters who had fought together once before, and the ability to transfer the higher levels of a previous save game across. It was a nice change from the other sequels I had played where upon there were little similarity between the two games bar the name to sell the new game.

Well that's a rather tricky question, seeing as it all depends on the RPG. I happened to like the idea of Lufia. Seeing as they had a prequel as their sequel (kinda like Star Wars). If you've played Lufia you'll know what I'm talking about.

As for the likes of Final Fantasy, deary me. That would break all means of tradition. But they did it anyway. FFX has come a long way if I do say so myself, it was a first for quite a few things, seeing as it was first for the PS2, a first to use voice overs, and now it's a first for sequels?!?! I'm trying to be as open-minded as I can about this, seeing as I do love RPG's. But I'm still uncertain about sequels for FF.

Mind you story-based sequels are not a bad idea at all. For one they certainly put more dosh in the designers pockets, and much like films, all gamers do grow a sense of curiosity, we want to know why the first game ended like it did. We want to see what happens next. Also it's a rather great challenge for both the gamer and the designer. Designers rack their brains day and night trying to complete the game to perfection, improving it more and more and trying to come up with new ideas and such. The gamer? Simple. The gamer just wishes for a better gaming experience. Will it be better than the last? Has it truly become to it's expectations?

So on the whole, I don't mind them. :D So long as it is challenging enough for me.

Originally posted by Riana
we want to know why the first game ended like it did.
Because we killed the bad guy.

Ahem, anyway:
Most RPGs do not need direct sequels. All Final Fantasy games were good stand-alones, they often left us wondering about certain details, but heck, do we really need a FFVIII sequel just to find out that
Some things must be left unspoken, untold, for the fans to imagine.

I�ve liked the Final Fantasy series and the Seiken Densetsu series, and I want many more of those games that share some very loose details like a mana tree or a firy guy called Ifrit... :)

When it comes to games with sequels that continued the same story and partly used well-known characters, I�ve not played many of those. Chrono Cross and Lunar 2, but the latter hardly counts because I did not play Lunar, and therefore I did not experience as a sequel. However... I want a sequel to Chrono Cross, and I want one to the sequel of Chrono Cross. =P That�s probably because the world itself with its parallel universes and alternate timelines offers many many possibilities. And too many things are totally unclear after two games. o__o You know... Chrono Trigger would have been a good stand-alone, but now that they confused me with Chrono Cross, they must make another sequel and clear things up. =P Wahhh~ [I]*goes crazy*

Goddamnit!!! Don't you people know anything, FFX was not going to be the first to have a sequal. They were going to make a sequal to FFVI, it was about Shadow and how his past affected him. Shadow became so cold because Kefka killed a lot of people he knew and loved. He removes his mask, and is a freggin pretty boy.

You know why they didn't go through with it? They had to make FFVII, FFVI-2 got thrown away.

Greetings.

Well, personally I like Sequels as long as they have some of the orignal characters in it (I.E. Suikoden series.). But not just them. I think it's because I've become a RPG fan, that most of my collection IS RPGs. But not all sequels stack up to the original. Case in point, Vandal Hearts II. Don't get me wrong, it is a good game, but it's lacking a certain...'something'....which made the first VH good.

Then there's Koudelka and it's sequel Shadow Hearts. Two good games, with different game engines ut with some things in common ***Spoiler alert*** Characters from Koudelka appear in Shadow Hearts. There's Koudelka herself, as well as Roger Bacon and the location Koudelka was set in (Nemeton Monastery) is a playable dungeon in SH. Also, add in that both games have a decidedly dark and mature feel to them, and they're great collections to anyone's games.

The Legaia games are good too. However, the differences between the two are quickly apparent. No Ra-Seru or Seru from Legaia 1 in Legaia 2. That's one main difference among many.

The Grandia games, Lunar games, Hell even the Persona games are all good games which have had sequels to them which have worked out well.

Now, to the 'other' side of the arguement.

I think when a game company/developer/whatever, decides to make a sequel to a game, they have to think to themselves, 1> Is a sequel warranted? 2> Will we make as much money with the sequel as the first? and, probably most importantly, 3> How can we make a sequel, whilst still maintaining the integrity of the prequel?

The first two can be summed up with games like the ones I've listed above as well as countless others (Breath of Fire series, Final Fantasy series, Xeno-games (Xenogears, Xenosaga), Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross, etc.). But the third is a little trickier. I mean, there's FFX-2, which to me, I don't think we need a FFX-2. What made FFX so special that Square had to make a sequel? That also brings me to how people want the other FF's to have sequels made. FFVII-2, FFVIII-2, FFVI-2 etc. The games are whole and, as far as I'm concerned don't need a squel made for them.

Example? FFVII-2. This has been a rumour for ages, and I pray to all the deities in the Heavens, that it's just that...a rumour. FFVII is complete, don't go back and try and make a sequel. If Square did, they'd have to tread lightly, and hope that the populace will like it.

In closing, I'll say this : Some sequels can be done right, depending on the game to which a sequel is being made. Some games CAN have a sequel made to them, which have different chracters and such in them, and have cameo's from characters from the prequel (Breath of Fire series, Suikoden.).But there are also some games, which are complete as they are, and should be left a one-off games. No sequels.

I mean, If it aint broken, why fix it?

I think it depends on how the original ended. I mean think about it; if original ended with a sense finality then by no means that who ever is in charge should produce a direct sequel to the story. Usually the director and producers will be hard pressed to try to live up to the original, but hey direct sequels can make the franchise stale and repetitive. Why do you think Squresoft has made so many FF�s but kept it so fresh all these years, but I�m willing to admit if an RPG ended on the same note as FF10 then yea I think a sequel was a good thing.

Sequels are always better than prequels. Case in point, the ending of DWIII. WHY?!!!!

*eats some chocolates* that's all I have to say about that...

I thought the Xenogears idea was quite good.....

This may be my grasp for the obvious but there was a Xeno game after Xenogears. There's a book in Japan talks about the who saga. P1 is 10,000 years before Eldridge. P2 is the Eldridge landing. P3 is the Diablos war. P4 is the first Solaris War. P5 is Xenogears. P6 is I think, going back to Earth.