Xbox 360 Do you ever get tired of sequels?

lindbergh

lindbergh

New Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2012
Messages
321
Karma
3
The video game industry is very fond of sequels. Just take a look at these games:
- Halo 1 to 4
- God of War 1 to 4
- Resident Evil 1 to 6 plus a lot of spin offs
- Gears of War 1 to 3
- Tomb Raider 1 to ... uh, something...
- Call of Duty...
Anyway, do you see? *Video games are full of sequels. The video game industry is becoming more and more like Hollywood. Don't you ever get tired sequels?
 
There's no problem if those sequels are good but most of them aren't as good as their predecessor(s), and it just gets to the point where you have to say, "Blablabla 76: The legacy? Oh, c'mon!"

But video game producers see that the public like their games and want to produce more to get everyone's money.
 
Odili said:
There's no problem if those sequels are good but most of them aren't as good as their predecessor(s), and it just gets to the point where you have to say, "Blablabla 76: The legacy? Oh, c'mon!"

But video game producers see that the public like their games and want to produce more to get everyone's money.
Click to expand...

You're right. A lot of sequels are not as good as their predecessors. Game developers have a tendency to just piggyback on the popularity and success of their previous games which prompts them to produce sequels. As long as the games are good, I won't complain too. But if the sequel is a complete rehash of the previous instalment, that would make me real angry.
 
Not really I just don't play them if I don't like it. Some games I love and want more sequels, infact I hope CD project red never stops making The Witcher sequels. The sequels are only bad when its the same game with a different name. With movies the sequel is never as good as the original because you already know what to expect, the element of surprise is gone. With game sequels its possible for developers to improve upon their games mechanics and make changes based on user feedback. In effect making a better game.
 
I had a significant other who worked in the indie game industry, and I heard a LOT of the issues while we dated (...A LOT. *eye roll*). The video game industry has made an obscene amount of money very quickly, going through a similar arc that Hollywood did but on a much faster time scale. The budgets have gotten bigger, the products have gotten more commercial, and the bigwigs don't want to potentially lose a huge budget on something that isn't a surefire money-maker. The problem is, with films there's a decent chance for an indie to get a good camera, a good script, and put together a work of art that could get major distribution if you get lucky. The original District 9 short film was an example of this; so was The Blair Witch Project and the first Paranormal Activity movie.

But video games are much, much harder to make as an independent; this is especially true now that Steam has moved to the Greenlight model, where a lot of indie devs are discovering that the fan-voting system will lock them out and deny them any sort of chance at getting some exposure.

The issue is a cyclical one. The only available games with the budget to be any sort of good, or to push the boundaries of the technological innovations, are the studio franchises that are just sequel after sequel. Thus they're some of the only games which make money, therefore the corporate guys demand more of the same so that they can make more money. It's very tough to get a new or original idea in the door. There's the XBLA, or PSN, of course. But it's just a tough game, tougher than many other arts industries, because even in a best case scenario the money required to make a long, large game (on a level with Halo, say, in terms of length and complexity) is just too much for most indie devs to cough up. The industry is starting to change, but it will change slowly. A lot of things have to crumble in order for consistent new products to see the light of day.
 
I really enjoy sequels as long as they keep in the same realm of gaming as the previous games, make improvements to the model, and don't overdo it with sequels (COD anyone)? For example, Resident Evil. Some of the older ones are WAY better than the current crap that they've been putting out. Granted that's just my opinion, but the reviews pretty much say the same thing. Halo, even with a different spin on things with Halo: Reach, still kept in with the same Halo spirit. COD just puts out too many friggin titles. You know without a doubt that appx. a year from now that Treyarch or Infinity Ward will have a new title out.

Want to talk about a great sequel? Portal 2. Awesome. A sequel like that is just perfect.
 
I definitely am noticing that sequels often don't entertain me as much as the original did. Now don't get me wrong most sequels are fun, just not as good as the original. Call of duty is a prime example, but I'm sure you all know the situation they're in right now.
 
I always prefer original games instead of sequels, with the rising of developing cost this generations companies are taking the safe route, they release a game and they do multiple sequels if the original game has comercial success, but I´m starting to be fed up with games like Resident evil or Gears of war, multiple sequels and they don´t innovate at all in the gameplay department, they only improve the graphics, that is why I´m playing indie games right now, they innovate more in the gameplay department because they are cheaper to develop than mainstream games, so developers can take more risks.
 
I do! Granted, there are some excellent sequels but often they're unnecessary and pointless....and in that case, why even bother? Then again, the same could be said about movies, too.
 
It depends. Unlike with movies, videogame sequels can greatly improve in comparison to the previous game by taking into account feedback and the experience of the development team. However, it is also possible for companies to say "fuck it" and just turn a franchise into something completely different (like Resident Evil) which ends up being quite bad for the fans. Also the opposite with games like Call of Duty which don't change much between sequels.

It just really depends on which franchise and company you're speaking of...
 
I don't mind them! There's a lot of sequels/spin offs that I love and there's some that I hate. For example one of my favourite Resident Evil games is #3, but I'm not too fond of the latest games. I love The Darkness, but I hated the Darkness 2. It really depends on what they make of the sequel, and if it's really worth it. If it's obvious they're just milking the series than the sequels probably won't be any good.
 
It really depends, sometimes a company decides that a game that did well needs 5 sequels that are exactly the same as the first one. No risks taken just milk out every penny possible, a good example is Call of duty4: Modern Warfare. It was a really awesome game but for every sequel it got more and more repetitive. Many times it felt more like a major patch rather than a 60$ new game.

On the other hand you got Halo, it just keeps getting better and better :).
 
It honestly depends on a case by case basis. Did the sequel innovate in some way in terms of mechanics? Did the previous game's story warrant a sequel? It really depends on the franchise in question. We obviously can't have new IP all the time, we need sequels as well. I believe that a balance must be reached by the game industry.
 
With a lot of games the first sequel is actually the best in terms of gameplay. The first game is usually testing of ideas and what not and by the second game they've learned a lot from their mistakes and successes. Most games series have their peak somewhere in the middle, the problem is that they keep going well past it.

So I don't really get sick of sequels as such but more that I get sick of games over staying their welcome and ruining a one enjoyable game (thank you, Assassin's Creed).
 
Steven F said:
With a lot of games the first sequel is actually the best in terms of gameplay. The first game is usually testing of ideas and what not and by the second game they've learned a lot from their mistakes and successes. Most games series have their peak somewhere in the middle, the problem is that they keep going well past it.
Click to expand...

In the PC Games thread I was just posting links to the early id games lineup and noticed that while Wolfenstein was the first, followed by Doom, Quake 1 was really 'it' in terms of competitive play and single player.

Quake II never made the same 'splash' that Quake 1 did, and everything that followed has been less and less popular?

I think the real issue is that Quake 1 'got lucky' with so many things in terms of it's crude physics. The quirky extra distance you'd get when you jumped off the lip of an incline, the sweet joy of a rocket jump (you could nearly eliminate the damage if you timed it perfectly) that hands you all the power-ups before your opponent can get to them, and the really basic set of weapons which left you with more time to play the game vs. learn it.

While TF/DOD is 'technically' a 'quake' based game (Steam Engine was based on the Quake Engine), it was the only FPS to really come close to the 'Quake' feel in the spew of games that followed, and it's followups had the same poor uptake as Q2 did compared to Q1.

BF1942 (using the Refractor 1 engine) was also very popular for it's "feel", and low n behold it spawned a mighty following of sequels that a lot of people say weren't as good as the original, even though the physics only got more accurate/realistic with each new release? ;)

The opposite happened with Asheron's Call and AC2.. The original had terrible mechanics, graphics, and just an inferior 'game engine' all around. AC2 should have been a smash hit, but when AC1 players gave it a run they all had the same key issue: Not nearly enough game content. Which wasn't surprising because AC1 was packed with game content, including an in-game landscape that was unthinkably massive for that genre at that time.

I am still waiting for Turbine to announce that they have a new client that hooks into the old AC1 servers giving people who stayed with the game the graphics options of AC2 with the content of AC1 + all it's expansion packs. Sadly I doubt they ever will since they are very swamped with leads to build MMOs for all the major franchises... Oh. Wow. Crap. I guess that I need to find my old CD key and revive my account?!
 
I love sequels but I eish they would spend more time developing the games rather than trying to release a new one every year just for sales.
 
Nope, if the i like the original it will give me good faith stock in additions to the series. Besides, who doesn't like continuing a good story?
 
I think it is important we do not get SEQUELS and SPIN-OFFS confused. Sequels are the same game, just carrying on from where the previous one left off. For example, Call of Duty 4, Modern Warfare 2, and Modern Warfare 3 are all sequels. However, a spin-off would be like Left 4 Dead (http://bit.ly/XEmR2e) and Dead Island (http://bit.ly/XtlykX) they made a completely different game, just to improve and make money off the fanfare of "Zombie Fans" created by Left 4 Dead. You could probably even say the hit TV show The Walking Dead was a spin-off of Left 4 Dead. I personally love sequels, mainly because I hate confusing and unfinished endings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top