It´s mostly because you like the characters and you like to see them deal with new situations or explore new places or use whatever they have devolped from the earlier installment(s) and see how they go from there.
Or you just want to see more of the same world if you like that.
So a story doesn´t really need a cliffhanger for you to want more of the same world or characters, but that means they have to be really good or interestesting, like in the case of Monkey Island. The first game was complete storywise and very well rounded. But the idea of following pirate Guybrush through a grander tour of the carribean was interesting enough to merit a sequel.
For me it’s because the story of a game can be self-contained and each sequel can provide new interesting situations for the protagonists.
For example, there are a lot of Sherlock Holmes games and several Broken Sword games and more than one Indiana Jones adventure game because each game is a different investigation (or treasure hunt).
I understand that it wouldn’t work for every kind of adventure game, but it works quite well for investigative stories and sometimes some sequels are better than the previous games of the series. I liked Broken Sword 5 more than Broken Sword 2, for instance.
I also like completely new games; I don’t have a preference between brand new games and sequels, it’s just a matter of how good each game is.
Because you fall in love with some character or setup and would like to see more of them.
MI3a is just because I’d like to know what was the intended story, but still, I liked Tales because it felt like a non-canon adventure of my favorite characters.
Such universes work so well you’d wish they were public domain. I’d like to see some adventure games, movies or whatever telling the stories of other people. Minor characters (a Herman Toothrot game?) or even completely new characters (Jedi Knight does something like that for Star Wars, IIRC). A non-Arthur-Dent novel in the Hitchhiker’s Guide universe maybe. Stuff like that.
I think that it really depends on the story, more than on the characters. I assume that there are a ton of Hercule Poirot novels because evidently some people are interested to discover how the protagonist manages to solve completely different crimes and puzzles.
A treasure hunt story can also be a source of new knowledge, for people who are interested in history. Thanks to “Broken Sword 1” I learned new things about Knights Templar while in “Broken Sword 5” I discovered who the “Gnostics” are (always using the fictional history of the game as an opportunity to study real history). Also, the international locations to visit in each game are very different, even if the protagonists are based in Paris.
If the story of each chapter is very different from the story of the previous games, that’s enough for me to enjoy a sequel.
You see that is exactly what happened to me with Zak McKracken. It was pretty much my first exposure to a lot of that stuff and finding out that everything in that game had some basis in the real world was mindblowing for me as a kid.
Face On Mars
The Bermuda Triangle
Mind linking and out of body experiences
Elvis lives/is an alien
That kind of stuff. Zak and the Mysteries Of The Unknown Time Life books introduced me to that kind of stuff.
Funnily enough these days I´m heavily into skepticism and the natural explainations of so called unexplained phenoemna and the rationalisation of why people choose to believe in conspiracies and things that are not real instead of accepting the scientific realities.
So today I find these things fascinating from a scientific standpoint.
It’s the same with me. And this goes for games, books, movies: one instalment is usually not enough to fully flesh out characters, or show much of a progression. So well-done sequels, or a bigger story told in multiple volumes allow to revisit familiar faces and learn new things about them.
Of course, it has to be done in moderation. Simply rehashing the same general story with no character development whatsoever will not do.
That doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be new stuff either. There’s something about discovering terra incognita that returning to the familiar cannot offer. But if I like that new land, hell yes, gimme more of it!
Yes, sequels with the same characters are often better because they don´t need to be introduced anymore and you can get thrown straight into a new story. That´s why sequels to super hero movies are often so popular, because the first installment is often at least 2/3rds origin story and the character assumes his super hero identity only very late into the story.
That´s why the constant rebooting of the Spiderman franchise is so annoying, people are just sick of hearing that origin story over and over and over again.
Spiderman 2, The Dark Knight, Iron Man 3 etc. all work so well because you don´t need to be introduced to the characters anymore and have more time for a new story.
For me, because of the setting. I like the setting of Monkey Island (Caribbean) and Indiana Jones (archeological and exotic sites).
(Of course the setting is not a sufficient condition for me to enjoy it. Monkey 3 was in the Caribbean but didn’t work for me, mostly because of the graphic style, but also for the gameplay. )
(as for the parallel with Poirot, suggested by LowLevel: the reason I prefer another Poirot novel to a Christie novel with other characters is that Christie novels with other characters are often worse, for some reason. There are exceptions of course)
Official Thimbleweed Park Forums powered by Discourse.