I wasn't sure whether to post this in gaming discussion or this, since it's just an idea.

Anywho, this!
http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs51/f/2009/2...es123.html

Written about 2 years ago.
Lemme know what you think.

After a little adventuring, the Castle seemingly adopts several aspects of the Mansion, (i.e. having the same rooms and whatnot)
I could explain more, but i need some critics first.

Luigi's mansion doesn't need a sequel, it's perfectly fine without one.

Not true, in the world of video games anything can have a sequel. It's in movies where things should or shouldn't have sequels.

(09-19-2010, 08:15 PM)masterofdioga Wrote: Luigi's mansion doesn't need a sequel, it's perfectly fine without one.

This is true.
However.

I still want one. Lots of people still want one. Super Mario RPG is perfect without a sequel, but people still want one.

You're using Star Wars logic here.
The originals were fine without sequels, but they made some. (Yes, i know they sucked ass, but that's beside the point. It finished what it had started, and that's sequels are for. The common misconception is that a sequel is made to top the previous entity.)

More to the point; and more onto Koopaul's post, it has TONS of potential for a sequel, and let's face it; it will always carry on with Luigi.
It's been a gimmick for him since the game came out; Luigi is associated with ghosts, vacuums, crap that was featured in-game.
They might as well just make a sequel and stop milking it.

Nobody can tell me they don't want a sequel to that game.
Reasons why they should make one-
-Too freaking short of a game
-Had incredible positives for a Gamecube game (Hasn't aged a bit, save for graphics, and even then the graphics still look great today.)
-Nice change of pace from the general Mario game
-Luigi's "breakout" role. (Mario is Missing doesn't count because that game can give people tumors.)

I could go on and on, but i'm going to stop now.

(09-19-2010, 09:59 PM)JackMan Wrote: You're using Star Wars logic here.
The originals were fine without sequels, but they made some.

um... what? both trilogies were planned out before work on "A New Hope" began. That was supposed to be a set while Luigi's Mansion was supposed to be a single game.

I mean sure, they /can/ add a sequel, but it doesn't have "tons of potential". The most common reason behind game sequels is "same engine, more money". That's why cult classics don't get many sequels, they didnt sell enough the first time around. IGN gave LM a 7.0 score. why the hell would nintendo spend effort on a sequel to a 7.0 game? Why not spend the manpower on a better game that has a chance to succeed?

(09-19-2010, 09:25 PM)Koopaul Wrote: Not true, in the world of video games anything can have a sequel. It's in movies where things should or shouldn't have sequels.

I never said it can't have it,
I said it doesn't need it, there is a difference there.

Also comparing video games to movies is a pretty poor argument when it comes to sequels, since they both have a fair share of shitty sequels.

---

(09-19-2010, 09:59 PM)JackMan Wrote: More to the point; and more onto Koopaul's post, it has TONS of potential for a sequel, and let's face it; it will always carry on with Luigi.
It's been a gimmick for him since the game came out; Luigi is associated with ghosts, vacuums, crap that was featured in-game.
They might as well just make a sequel and stop milking it.

Now see you're contradicting yourself on the last part to the point where it looks like you have no idea what milking means.

Milking is where you add a bunch of sequels that are not needed.
Making a sequel means you'd be milking the series, but that only applies if the sequel was not needed.
Look at the Sonic series and how much fucking sequels and spin-offs it gets, that's an example of a milked series.

that you can make it, doesnt mean you have to do it.

common sense.

Luigi's Mansion wasn't meant to be a full on game, tbh. Luigi's Mansion was originally a tech demo to show off the power of the gamecube. Therefore, it was meant to look pretty, aaaaand not much else.

It was eventually reworked into a game, but again, it was meant to look pretty. The gameplay itself isn't all that...good. It's just eye candy. A cute goofy launch title meant to tide you over until Pikmin and Smash Bros. came out.

I, myself, wouldn't see the point in making a sequel.

Give Luigi his own game where he has to save Daisy.

Not the gimmicky mansion shit. A real-time average Mario-like game, but about Luigi.

(09-20-2010, 04:36 PM)Keychain Wrote: Give Luigi his own game where he has to save Daisy.

Not the gimmicky mansion shit. A real-time average Mario-like game, but about Luigi.

luigi is just a filler.

(09-20-2010, 11:43 AM)NorskSengirDev Wrote:

(09-19-2010, 09:59 PM)JackMan Wrote: You're using Star Wars logic here.
The originals were fine without sequels, but they made some.

um... what? both trilogies were planned out before work on "A New Hope" began. That was supposed to be a set while Luigi's Mansion was supposed to be a single game.
I would like to know what source you got that knowledge from; "A New Hope" was meant to be the only movie, however since it did so well, writing began for sequels, and the prequels then began being written.

I mean sure, they /can/ add a sequel, but it doesn't have "tons of potential".
I disagree entirely, but I suppose that's an opinion.

The most common reason behind game sequels is "same engine, more money". That's why cult classics don't get many sequels, they didnt sell enough the first time around.
Agreed.

IGN gave LM a 7.0 score. why the hell would nintendo spend effort on a sequel to a 7.0 game? Why not spend the manpower on a better game that has a chance to succeed?
IGN gives great games low scores all the time. They don't base their reviews on much else than gameplay, audio, and graphics. It sold the system quite well for a launch title.

Sir, you seem to base your opinions on economic varieties.
I'm not interested in a sequel to further sales, I'm interested because I think the game deserves a sequel.

because games are made to please fanboys.

(09-20-2010, 01:40 PM)masterofdioga Wrote:

(09-19-2010, 09:25 PM)Koopaul Wrote: Not true, in the world of video games anything can have a sequel. It's in movies where things should or shouldn't have sequels.

I never said it can't have it,
I said it doesn't need it, there is a difference there.

Also comparing video games to movies is a pretty poor argument when it comes to sequels, since they both have a fair share of shitty sequels.

---

(09-19-2010, 09:59 PM)JackMan Wrote: More to the point; and more onto Koopaul's post, it has TONS of potential for a sequel, and let's face it; it will always carry on with Luigi.
It's been a gimmick for him since the game came out; Luigi is associated with ghosts, vacuums, crap that was featured in-game.
They might as well just make a sequel and stop milking it.

Now see you're contradicting yourself on the last part to the point where it looks like you have no idea what milking means.

Milking is where you add a bunch of sequels that are not needed.
No.
Making a sequel means you'd be milking the series, but that only applies if the sequel was not needed.
No.
Look at the Sonic series and how much fucking sequels and spin-offs it gets, that's an example of a milked series.
Yes.

Adding tons of pointless sequels is part of milking, but not entirely.
It doesn't have to be spin-offs and sequels and things.
It can be any form of that series being re-used; like with Peanuts. It's practically public domain now, it's being milked, but there's no sequels or spin-offs to them.
And besides
If you didn't want a sequel, why did you come to the thread?

(09-20-2010, 05:54 PM)JackMan Wrote: Sir, you seem to base your opinions on economic varieties.
I'm not interested in a sequel to further sales, I'm interested because I think the game deserves a sequel.

except if you were smart enough to know, most sequels come from how well the game sells.

but that alone isn't enough for it, it would also have to meet with good reception. just because you think it deserves a sequel doesn't mean that there will be, it's based on public opinion and sales.

(09-20-2010, 06:02 PM)JackMan Wrote: If you didn't want a sequel, why did you come to the thread?

You wanted to share an opposing opinion shame on all of you