Sequals. Yay or Nay?

[Ironshroom]

So with the recent release of the new Batman game, I was wondering if we really need or want sequels to games. Of course there are some games that I feel need a sequel (even a spiritual successor, Psychonauts, I am looking at you) but for something like the Batman: Arkham series, do we really need more?

 

[Zhukov]

More games in series to tell an ongoing story? Sure.

Sticking another game onto a completed successful one because you know it will sell? Eh, I'd prefer something new.

However, sequels are made because people buy them. I can't get angry at publishers/developers for doing what sells.

 

[josemlopes]

For me as long as the series is rather unique I dont mind much since if that series end there will be nothing more like it.
For example: I would like to see a Timesplitters sequel, however...

More games in series to tell an ongoing story? Sure.

Sticking another game onto a completed successful one because you know it will sell? Eh, I'd prefer something new.

...Zhukov is right, and to be honest the story of Timesplitters doesnt really have anywhere else to go so for that I guess the best thing to do would be like what they did with Goldeneye/Perfect Dark and Demon Souls/Dark Souls where its basicly the same game mechanics being applied to a new IP.

Although the time travell nature of the story of Timesplitters is rather important for the game itself since its the reason why you can play a deathmatch game against a robot weilding a crossbow in a 70's disco using a cowboy with a flamethrower.

 

[Gronk]

If it's a good sequel? YAY!

If it's a bad sequel? NAY!



Spec ops the line, was technically a sequel to a lousy franchise. Still rocked IMO.
Total war ROme II was a sequel to a great franchise. Still sucked IMO.

If it's a good game, does it matter if it's a sequel?

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

(it's a prequel, not a sequel)
But on the subject of a continuous franchise spamming new games every now and then as a rule of thumb, what can I say, sometimes they're very, very good and sometimes they're not.

 

[FPLOON]

Sequels - Eh... It better be worth it...
Prequels - Eh... I better know something I didn't know already...

Overall, I say... Yanay(Yaynay?), the combination of "Yay" and "Nay"... Does that answer your question?
If not, then place my answer on the neutral side of this...

 

[krazykidd]

I prefer sequels where the game is in the same universe but with different characters. It adds more to the lore and story , without being repetitive. That's not to say that sequels aren't good , but sometimes i rather something new than more of the same. Which is why i really dislike reboots( in general).

 

[LAGG]

I used to Yay but in the least few years I'm more likely to Nay. Not because sequels are bad, but because the sequels are bad.

 

[Casual Shinji]

There are too many good sequels for me to say nay.

A game can't do everything right on the first go, and a sequel can improve on these issues.

It really depends on how much more reach the gameplay has and if the story (if it has one) has anymore room to expand without feeling derogatory.

 

[Terramax]

I think franchises should be restricted to just 2 games in the series per console generation. Any more than that and they're generally rubbish, rushed, out of ideas, or simply milking the cashcow. Or a combination.

 

[The_Echo]

Is there more story to tell (without feeling tacked on)? Then yay.

Is there a way the gameplay can be improved or expanded upon? Then yay.

Is the sequel only happening because its predecessor sold well? Please God just stop.

 

[Qvar]

I would rather have a sequel within the same world but from another char perspective, like the Darksiders franchise did, than a forced, sorry excuse for a money maker, as krazykidd says.

 

[MysticSlayer]

It's a case-by-case basis. Sequels that have nothing to add from a story and/or gameplay perspective aren't worth having, especially if the developers start removing features and/or playing catch-up with themselves because of a past games that removed features then the sequel isn't worth having. Oh, and doing stupid stuff to your story in one game to give an excuse for a sequel should be avoided.

On the other hand, if the game has something to add, even if it is minor, then go ahead, make a sequel.

Of course, the above tends to be easily forgotten based on the quality of the sequel. While every franchise has its limit where a lack of innovation will ultimately destroy it, if a sequel is ultimately enjoyable, it is very hard to not appreciate that we actually have one. Not to mention, changes mean nothing if they are not good changes.

 

[K12]

The problem with sequels isn't that they happen, it's that they are assumed. Games don't have decent endings because they want to set up the sequel hook and not because they have an epic story too big for one game. Most stories don't need to be trilogies.

I think people need to make an effort to not buy shit sequels and to buy experimental new IP that has interesting ideas.

 

[Not Matt]

here's a thought for the fourth Arkham game. why not make the PSN joker DLC for arkham asylum in to an entire game. it has been 4 years now and i still haven't touched the batman challenge maps. the joker is more fun and he'd give an interesting new twist to it all. play as him in the few days before origins when he.....

Spoiler: phew, that was close, almost said a spoiler out loud

hasn't dressed up as black mask yet and isn't controlling the city's criminal underworld yet.

have him run around messing things up and running away before the cops or the bat shows up. could be fun.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

That depends. Are there still new and interesting places for the story to go without it feeling forced or contrived. If yes, then sure. If no, then for the love of whatever God you believe in let the franchise rest already.

 

[laggyteabag]

If the sequel brings something new to the table or the story is in desperate need of a new chapter then a sequel may be necessary.

If a sequel is purely just a cash grab a slight update over the previous game, or sequel for the sake of having a sequel then I say leave it.

A lot of great and interesting franchises have been ruined by having far too many sequels, especially ones that add nothing to the franchise as a result. (Looking at you Call of Duty and Halo)

 

[DEAD34345]

For me as long as the series is rather unique I dont mind much since if that series end there will be nothing more like it.
For example: I would like to see a Timesplitters sequel, however...

More games in series to tell an ongoing story? Sure.

Sticking another game onto a completed successful one because you know it will sell? Eh, I'd prefer something new.

...Zhukov is right, and to be honest the story of Timesplitters doesnt really have anywhere else to go so for that I guess the best thing to do would be like what they did with Goldeneye/Perfect Dark and Demon Souls/Dark Souls where its basicly the same game mechanics being applied to a new IP.

Although the time travell nature of the story of Timesplitters is rather important for the game itself since its the reason why you can play a deathmatch game against a robot weilding a crossbow in a 70's disco using a cowboy with a flamethrower.

Did you really play Timesplitters for the story, though? Hell, did the first game actually have a story? If I remember correctly the campaign mode was just about picking up bags from different time periods for some reason.

There's plenty of places Timesplitters could go in terms of new characters, gamemodes, maps and other random crap, and at the end of the day that's what was important to that series anyway. A sequel could add or improve lots, and I'd be first in line to buy it.

OT: There's nothing wrong with sequels, really. If you want more of a game, you buy the sequel, if you don't, you don't buy the sequel. The only kind that irritates me is the sort that takes the name of an older popular game and nothing else. It pisses off the old fans and does nothing for any new fans, so why do it? (The answer to that is "money" of course, but I don't have to approve)