What makes a good game sequel?

[GaryChildress]

What makes a good sequel to a good game? I've noticed that sometimes I like games which are simply modest improvements upon a tried and true engine. Other times it seems like if a sequel is too much like its predecessor then it feels boring and uninteresting.

For instance I like expansion packs to many of my favorite games even though they usually just add a few new gadgets here and there. They could probably have made 20 expansions to Codename Panzers and I would have played them all. OTOH, sometimes a sequel based upon the same engine with only a few improvements really doesn't seem like much fun. For instance Command and Conquer 3 seems so much like the original C&C except with better graphics that I didn't really feel like it was anything "new". It's not that I didn't enjoy the original C&C but playing it again only with different graphics seems sort of boring. Civ IV is a radical change from Civ III and yet I personally would have preferred Civ IV to have been a little more like Civ III.

I can't put my finger on it. Why is it that some sequels succeed with few changes and others fail because there is not enough change? What are the ingredients which make a good sequel to a good game?

Thoughts? [&:]

[sabre1]

The only really good sequel that comes to mind for me personally is Empire followed by Empire Deluxe.  The new features could be turned off if you didn't want them.
 
So for me a good sequel stays true to the original game while allowing you to enjoy the new version if you choose.  I hope that makes sense. 

[V22 Osprey]

Perfect sequel:
-New content(lots but not overwelming)
-Similar gameplay, but with improvements(lots but not overwelming)
-Same look and feel as the original

[GaryChildress]

Do you ever get the feeling that some sequels are inspired by an attitude of "Wow, what if we did this instead wouldn't that be cool" and other sequels are purely made because someone thought they could make money at it. I do get the impression that some games are created by people who love to play them and therefore try to "improve" them and others are perhaps done purely for profit and little attention is really paid to "improvement".

For instance Age of Empires III, to me, doesn't seem to really "flow" (for lack of a better word). The game play doesn't seem to be a very immersive experience. When AoE II came out I thought it was much more "playable", created BY people who love to play FOR people who love to play. Version III just seems sort of disjointed or something to me. Almost like there was preasure to create a sequel but no one really did the sequal out of love for the game. It just seems sort of lackluster. I mean maybe there were people who loved the game trying to develop it but in the end the marketers had more input than the players or something. AoE III just doesn't have that feeling of "gaminess" or something to me. Maybe it does to other people?

EDIT: I guess the word I'm looking for is that some games seem more "inspired" than others do. AoE III and C&C 3 don't seem like they were created by true "inspiration", at least to me.

[KG Erwin]

A classic example is perhaps "Age of Empires" and the sequel "AoE II". The gameplay & graphics both took a quantum leap in quality. A similar improvement happened with the original "Medieval:Total War" and the later "Viking Invasions" expansion pack. After that was the fan-created "XL Mod", which is arguably the best mod ever made, and effectively turned the original MTW into a new game.

Closer to home, the fan-created "Enhanced" Mod for SPWaW transformed this Matrix classic into a much better game.

Edit: to Gary Childress, I disagree with your criticism of AoE III. For what it is, it's a good game. I especially enjoyed the introduction of artillery & rocket units.

However, for an "empire-building" game, MTW (with the XL mod incorporated) satisfies my needs. It combines the military, economic and diplomatic aspects in one neat package. I don't bother with the tactical battles. I let the PC auto-resolve them.

[Kuokkanen]

For me, good game serie is greater than its parts. There is story, which goes from one game to the next. If it's licensed game, any references to original material [edit] particularly when it fits neatly with the source, like stealing blueprints of Death Star in Dark Forces game [/edit] can be great bonus. Those are reasons why I want get the whole serie. I can appreciate good stories, and I could ALMOST buy C&C2 & 3 just to get completion that began with C&C... but I'm bit worried about copy protection schemes...

As for the other kind of sequels, that aim to replace the prequels: I bought Steel Panthers, but as I'm typing this, I just could have downloaded SPWAW and miss nothing. From today's point of view I bought SP only becouse it was available at the time, and any sequels were far in the future.

[edit]
Of course games themselves should be decent too [;)]

[leastonh1]

A good sequel would be the one where the devs/publishers listen to the customers, address those things that didn't work well and add those things that the users would like for future games, within reason. Timely patches, a supportive community, direct input into future development. All the things that make people within a community (like this one!) keep coming back for more and have faith in the publisher to produce something worth spending money on.