Good examples are the 4 expansions of World of Warcraft
Actually playing the content which furthers the story is usually only possible with the expansions, except in the Cataclysm (latest expansion) patch which allows you to play the majority of its content without the expansion itself.
Spinoffs may have the same title, but are presented with an entirely new, different game concept and an entirely new, different storyline. The same characters you know and love may be included in the games, but the plot and setting is not canon to the rest of the series. So if we have Cod4: Modern Warfare, then what is CoD: World at War? A spinoff. What is Modern Warfare 2 compared to CoD's 1, 2, and 3? A spinoff.
Not necessarily. Usually the game needs the same basic concepts it did previously, which is kind of obvious otherwise it wouldn't be the same game. For instance:
Battlefield - Potential for Teamwork and huge variety of everything (it's more present in Battlefield than with "Bad Company" tacked on
)
Fable - Your choice, your consequences, your freedom.
Now, CoD4 and Black Ops maintained the basic concepts - you can use the same strategies, you can customize, there are "spots" on the map which are awesome, same game modes, etc. But what is NEW? Black Ops could add larger maps or ones which expand as the game goes on. Increase health and make it more teamwork based like
Brink!GTA 3
Half Life 2
Dead Rising 2
Assassin's Creed 2
Mass Effect 2
Halo 2/Halo Reach
Civilization's 4/5
Just Cause 2
Portal 2
Team Fortress 2
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
Marvel v. Capcom 2
Street Fighter 2
World of Keflings
Banjo Tooie
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
TLZ: Twilight Princess
Starcraft II
Star Wars: Battlefront 2
Rome/Empire/Medieval/Shogun 2: Total War
Battlefield: Bad Company 2
Battlefield: 1943
I'm unsure what your point is with this list. However if you are saying they are generalized to their respective prequels, I'd like to point out some reasons and / or disagreements with that.
Starcraft II, firstly, needs to be familiar because in the end it's mostly a competitive game - can there be doubt? If they change some basic things, it splits off and makes a bigger influence, it makes it harder for professional players to adapt. They've enhanced some things, like a Zealot (A duel-wielding swordsman) instead of having a speed upgrade gets a mini-speed upgrade but then as it attacks it can SERIOUSLY increase speed (it's called Charge).
It makes sense and it makes a difference.
That, and it continues the story - they have something unique in each and every one of those missions, pretty much all the way through. If you haven't played it, do so please.
Bad Company 2? I don't know how familiar it is, however I will say that it doesn't have to be significantly different - it was more of an experiment in my opinion, to see how destructible ground fares for Battlefield 3. DICE has said that it wasn't a full effort and I've reason to believe them (comparing Battlefield 2 to Bad Company 2 <3 ).
Battlefield 1943? Air Superiority, 3 classes, no medics, destructible ground, reliance on sea / air transport.
Maps make a difference, especially in games like 1943 or Starcraft II because it shows how viable units are? Are there cliffs? Collossi (or for Battlefield, Sniper), are there large areas? Hellions (or in BF's case, something that can MAKE cover easily, like an Engineer).
These settle into balance as well.
Oh, Mass Effect II was almost certainly sufficiently different. That, and I don't mind paying the money I did for the story alone (and how well presented it was).
- H
