You may be semi-surprised but I do agree with you in part. There is no denying that sequels make the gaming world go around at the moment and my two favorite games this year so far are Mass Effect 2 and Red Dead Redemption (although less of a direct sequel). So, hey, sequels are not bad and are sometimes warranted (unless you're Bioshock 2, but that's another topic entirely).Anticitizen_Two said:Ugh, I can't be bothered to respond to all of the anti-Nintendo fanboys, especially when all their arguments are the same. It gets tiring. Still, I'll respond to one who actually had an intelligent response (even if it was the same old argument in disguise) and another whose hackneyed, blatantly Yahtzee-stolen post particularly pissed me off.
Enjoy.
Name one developer who does not churn out sequels.Programmed_For_Damage said:Apparently we have different definitions of the word "new". Nintendo's idea of new seems to be either churning out sequels to existing franchises or resurrecting old franchises.
Still, if that's what the fans want.
Congratulations. That is such a clever argument! Nobody's ever blamed Nintendo for rehashing old games before! How observant! So much thought must have gone into that comment!RMcD94 said:snip
Seriously man, Nintendo just does what every developer does. Every single developer just makes sequel after sequel. Microsoft's big titles were a new Halo and a new Gears. Sony was all about LBP2 and Killzone 3. No company (except the indie ones) are actually making new games.
I'm more baffled by their resurrection of long dead franchises, it just seems lazy and a "cheap-pop" to Nintendoids who'd slap their money down for anything the big N produce. BUT I have been snooping around lots of other topics and people genuinely seem to want another Kirby or Donkey Kong Country. So either my tastes are out of step with the majority or I am the lone voice crying in the wilderness saying "do we really need this?"
I'm willing to accept either eventuality.