Current Events > Bad/unfaithful JRPG sequels are really interesting to me

(+) Yeah! (+)

Right now I'm playing Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World - I started playing it as soon as I finished the first game. I know that it's a divisive game - it's a B-team sequel, you can't level up the characters from the first game, the voice acting is mostly bad etc. but considering that I just finished the first one, I thought it made sense to play the sequel since I have it already.

I find these types of sequels interesting. I want to learn everything I can about how the game was made, what decisions were made in the writing room and what was scrapped. I want to know who said "we're going to bring back dungeons from the first game, but we're going to change them and give them extra rooms so that they're not just redundant rehashes" - like yeah, you don't want to play the exact same areas, but those new areas are almost always so clumsy and bare y'know? These additional areas almost always suck. I want to know where the team decided that they wanted to alter the tone of the original and introduce elements that stick out like a sore thumb in comparison to the original game, like Emil's edgy split personality and the Centurions. I want to know who thought it'd be a good idea to turn it into a monster-raising game.

Like there is a process where a team of people take the legacy of a game that was made by other people, and they then have to add their own original ideas and plot points to that original product to make the new one stand on its own while trying not to disrespect the first one. And a lot of the time, that involves a lot of retconning and tonal shifts. Games like Dawn of the New World don't hit that balance, which leads to a lot of this wonkiness.

Another game that does this is Final Fantasy X-2 - the first game is very melancholy, while the second game is very festive and cheery. Both games feature these side stories and macguffins that feel like they're out of left field, though DotNW moreso than X-2. That makes them interesting - I want to know what the mindset was of the new team as they moved in to create the sequel, what prompted the changes that they made and stuff. Why the original aspects of these games wouldn't be more suited for a "side-story" game or an original product. What goes on to make these JRPG sequels feel so shallow in their connection to the original? Why slap an existing game's setting on top of another game that's going in such a different direction?

Like yeah, you can't just hit the same beats that the original did. You can't just rehash a game and call it a sequel, at least not for JRPGs. A game sequel has to stand on its own and have its own original ideas. But there are still sequels where the new ideas brought to the table clash with what the first game was, or just feel a bit phoned-in or cheap at the end of the day. And that's what piques my curiosity about these games - I want to know at what point a team throws up their hands and says "fuck it, we're doing it like this".
---

Unfaithful in terms of media always seemed like a weird complaint to me. I mean, in some cases, it makes sense. Like in HIMYM, the entire show spent it's run talking about how destiny would make things work out, with countless examples of it doing exactly that, only to pull the rug out from under viewers. But when it comes to like games and stuff, if any one has right to reinterpret the story, it's the creators.

Mario and luigi superstar saga 3ds
---

Golden Sun seems that way so far.

Just started the 2nd game and it's a bit odd that I have to play as effectively the "villain" team from the previous game, or so it appears. Doing exactly the opposite of what was said to "save the world" in the first game.

However, the game itself so far seems "bigger and better" than the 1st game in almost every imaginable way, so it's hard to complain.
---

MrMallard posted...

the first game is very melancholy, while the second game is very festive and cheery.

I mean, the giant monster of constant death is dead. Pretty sure that would drastically change the tone of everyday life. Criticize X-2 for everything else but the tone being totally different makes perfect sense.
---

Like Lunar: Dragon Song?
---

dave_is_slick posted...

MrMallard posted...

the first game is very melancholy, while the second game is very festive and cheery.

I mean, the giant monster of constant death is dead. Pretty sure that would drastically change the tone of everyday life. Criticize X-2 for everything else but the tone being totally different makes perfect sense.

Fair enough. I actually do like FFX-2, it's a fun game - it's just very different, and it has a few pitfalls that I mention in the OP.

Dash_Harber posted...

Unfaithful in terms of media always seemed like a weird complaint to me. I mean, in some cases, it makes sense. Like in HIMYM, the entire show spent it's run talking about how destiny would make things work out, with countless examples of it doing exactly that, only to pull the rug out from under viewers. But when it comes to like games and stuff, if any one has right to reinterpret the story, it's the creators.

In this case, it's one team making a sequel to a game made by another team.

Esrac posted...

Like Lunar: Dragon Song?

I haven't played that personally, but it sure sounds like it from what I've heard.
---

YonicBoom posted...

Golden Sun seems that way so far.

Just started the 2nd game and it's a bit odd that I have to play as effectively the "villain" team from the previous game, or so it appears. Doing exactly the opposite of what was said to "save the world" in the first game.

However, the game itself so far seems "bigger and better" than the 1st game in almost every imaginable way, so it's hard to complain.

Do yourself a favor and let it end there or you will truly understand what TC means by this topic if you try Dark Dawn.
---

Vyrulisse posted...

YonicBoom posted...

Golden Sun seems that way so far.

Just started the 2nd game and it's a bit odd that I have to play as effectively the "villain" team from the previous game, or so it appears. Doing exactly the opposite of what was said to "save the world" in the first game.

However, the game itself so far seems "bigger and better" than the 1st game in almost every imaginable way, so it's hard to complain.

Do yourself a favor and let it end there or you will truly understand what TC means by this topic if you try Dark Dawn.

Oh gods, this.

The lost age was intended to be part of the first game but cartridge storage limitations at the time. It actually addresses why that group was doing what they were to begin with.

Dark Dawn... They knew fans wanted a new one and they went 1000% focused on making it lose all the charm of the originals by making it ugly in 3d, trying to force you to use the touch screen when that's not mandatory (but makes life easier than doing it the old fashioned way) and of course the plot... ;-;
---

Lost Age is a pretty clean-cut follow up to the original and as said it and the original were intended to be a single game back on the N64, however I don't see Dark Dawn being the big upset everyone else says it was, it maintained the mediocrity of the originals, the only real problems that they didn't also have were the points of no return and the huge unsolved cliffhanger, you could also fault it for gameplay wise not really doing anything new

GiftedACIII posted...

Mario and luigi superstar saga 3ds

but it looked and played better than the original
the only downsides are the mixed-quality audio and the shitty new side mode being a total waste of development