How do you feel about games having two versions?

[Barida]

So, talks have been about the Pokemon having the sword version and the shield version. Will you feel comfortable when other video games follow this kind of trend?

Take for instance, when you are having to play different versions of God of War or any other of your favorites, will you like that?

 

[Nova]

I don't mind if there is definitely some sort of difference in the games. If both have same gameplay then it is kind of waste of money. That's what I'd think.

 

[Shortie861]

I wouldn't mind playing two different versions of a game if I am honest as long as they were both very much different and it didn't feel like I was paying for and playing the same game again. One thing that annoys me is when game companies release two different versions of a game but there is never really any differences at all, you pretty much get burned and end up losing money.

 

[Lukecetion]

As long as they are different enough, sure. That being said, most games that fall into this category aren't all that different. Take NEIR: Gestalt and NEIR: Replicant for example. While different, they mostly have surface-level differences that doesn't alter the story or character in meaningful ways. For a game that already requires several playthroughs to finish, its not one that is worth doing all over again just to play a teenage kid over a gruffy old man or vice versa.

 

[Nova]

I think it's a good idea to have changing ending. Like some characters have specific set of ending. And then another character has another set of the ending etc. That sort of the approach can definitely make the game works lot better. I am sure that multiple version of games can definitely change our interest too.

 

[Lukecetion]

I think it's a good idea to have changing ending. Like some characters have specific set of ending. And then another character has another set of the ending etc. That sort of the approach can definitely make the game works lot better. I am sure that multiple version of games can definitely change our interest too.

The problem with this is that if the game ever gets a sequel, it would either have two games that cater to both endings, or it would have to resolve one of those endings as "the true ending". In both those cases it would divide a fanbase, which is not good for a healthy community or for sales in the long run. So a company generally don't have an interest in doing that. Hence most companies either make minuscule changes in different versions, they never make a sequel or they make the sequel so distant to the original that it really doesn't matter which ending you got. As was the result with "Dark Souls", albeit not different versions, but different endings. The sequels explained (in true Dark Souls fashion) that neither choice you made at the end of the previous really mattered as the world would just repeat itself regardless of your choice.

 

[Barida]

The problem with this is that if the game ever gets a sequel, it would either have two games that cater to both endings, or it would have to resolve one of those endings as "the true ending". In both those cases it would divide a fanbase, which is not good for a healthy community or for sales in the long run. So a company generally don't have an interest in doing that. Hence most companies either make minuscule changes in different versions, they never make a sequel or they make the sequel so distant to the original that it really doesn't matter which ending you got. As was the result with "Dark Souls", albeit not different versions, but different endings. The sequels explained (in true Dark Souls fashion) that neither choice you made at the end of the previous really mattered as the world would just repeat itself regardless of your choice.

This is another angle to it as the division in fan base will definitely affect the way gamers feel about the different versions. If there's a clear understanding that no matter the version that you decide to take, it is going to end at a particular point, then we are all good.

 

[Nova]

The problem with this is that if the game ever gets a sequel, it would either have two games that cater to both endings, or it would have to resolve one of those endings as "the true ending". In both those cases it would divide a fanbase, which is not good for a healthy community or for sales in the long run. So a company generally don't have an interest in doing that. Hence most companies either make minuscule changes in different versions, they never make a sequel or they make the sequel so distant to the original that it really doesn't matter which ending you got. As was the result with "Dark Souls", albeit not different versions, but different endings. The sequels explained (in true Dark Souls fashion) that neither choice you made at the end of the previous really mattered as the world would just repeat itself regardless of your choice.

Open endings or the endings with the multiple characters choices can be a good thing. It can keep the game fresh and that can be a good option for the games and the way stories move ahead. For example until dawn is one which can be good to check out too.

 

[Lukecetion]

Open endings or the endings with the multiple characters choices can be a good thing. It can keep the game fresh and that can be a good option for the games and the way stories move ahead. For example until dawn is one which can be good to check out too.

I never said it can't be good, I said you can't have a good and direct sequel to a game with multiple endings. At best you would need to have the sequel so vague from the original game that they are very loosely connected otherwise you will end up pissing off a major part of the fan-base and not to mention making the choice of multiple endings entirely pointless as a story device.

 

[Nova]

I agree with what you say. I was just saying the possibilities. I do think that canon explanations for many games require only one ending. I also think that there are some genres like say mystery where you can have multiple endings and people would love it.