Sequals. Yay or Nay?

[putowtin]

Snip

snippy

Mc Snippy

In all honesty I haven't played nor do I really have any intention of playing Black Flag. While I'm sure it is a solid game as even I have to admit from a game play standpoint all of the CoD games really do have solid mechanics that work. I can't deny that even if its the same game being pumped out. At least with AC I can tell the difference and it gives me a distinguishable character on the box which it may be the only game that does that from these "1 every year" titles. Back on point though even if Black Flag is a really solid game after knowing the end of AC 3 I can't help but think this is really just a forced sequel to a franchise Ubisoft wants to wring for every penny. Instead of you know their original no limbed mascot that was awesome. So just from a story telling standpoint and an outsider looking in it appears forced as all hell. I'm ok with forced sequels on the condition that you don't make them look forced.

If a sequel is released every 12 to 18 months (Assassin's Creed, CoD, Battlefield) then it's going to seem forced.
If the sequel is nearly a carbon copy of the original/ last sequel (the only changes being aesthetics) then its forced.
If a sequel can add new gameplay, a new story or something else that sets it apart, maybe it shouldn't be looked at as a sequel, but a new entry into an existing series?

 

[hermes]

I have no problem with sequels, on a philosophical level. If it is a good game, I couldn't care less if its part of a franchise or not.

The issue with Batman Origins is not that its a sequel, but an unnecessary one. The game feels like a Arkham City DLC, with pretty much the same gadgets as the last game and almost no new elements. I mean, I am in the middle of Gotham, yet there are no cars, no civilians, no stray dogs, no life at all, except for henchmen and corrupt policemen (at least B:AC explained it by being a secluded section of the city reconditioned as a mega-prison); they even went so far as to remake part of my progression: I got gadgets in the middle of the game that I picked up in the previous (chronologically later) ones...

Besides, for a character with over 70 years, they decided to make a prequel with one of the most obvious premises of a prequel there is. I am not spoiling it, but the only way they could have made it more cliche is if they remake Batman Begins.

 

[rasputin0009]

If it's primarily multiplayer (Battlefield, CoD), sequel away! If it's mostly unrelated primary characters (Assassin's Creed, Zelda), sequel away! If it's an adventuring adventurer that has a different adventure each time (Tomb Raider, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank), sequel away!

But if it's the same character doing the same stuff because cash-in, fuck off. And if it's a prequel of any sorts, especially fuck off. Prequels are never good.

 

[C14N]

The chance of a sequel being good is inversely proportional to the square of N where N is the entry that is currently being released.

Generally, I'd rather see sequels not happen. I think it's fine when you have a series that is too large for one game and which is planned with an over-arching story like in Mass Effect but churning out frequent sequels with no end in sight is what put me off the likes of Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed. Even for game I like, I usually groan at the thought of a sequel because I always think that the talented team who put the first game together could have been really creative and exciting with a new IP.

I have no problem with spiritual successor's though, it seems fine if you want to keep gameplay elements from one game to the next.

 

[blackdwarf]

I love sequels, but I really dislike when the developers are lazy, or the publishers want to play safe and just make a sequel that feels more like an expansion of the previous game. From what I have heard so far, Batman Origins is more or less Batman AC with almost no changes. Sure, I liked Arkham City so I would probably enjoy Origins, but I don't have to urge to pay 60 Euros for the same game. A good sequel is a game that fixes stuff of the previous game and tries new stuff. That is why I like MGS as a series, because each game feels unique, but the games are still clearly based on the same concept. I can look to screenshot of any MGS game, and can see from which game it is, but give me screenshot of any of the Modern Warfare games and I would't know.

 

[Raikas]

I judge sequels and spin-offs the same way I do any game - if it's good, Yay. Even if it's mediocre but with interesting (or entertaining) elements, Yay.

I don't think there's anything inherently good or bad about them just by virtue of being a sequel (or prequel or spinoff).

 

[EvilMaggot]

F Yes! there are some amazing sequels that improve on the first (Assassin's Creed II, Witcher 2 etc.) so yes but there are also some misses xD

 

[blaqknoise]

Sequals aren't bad, it's just that after the first game people will have certain expectations for the next one, so if the sequal is too different and doesn't meet up to those expectations then people won't like it.

 

[putowtin]

The Arkham series, which is based off of a comic book character that has been running since what, 1939? That's literally decades worth of stuff to make games out of right there. Why wouldn't they pump out sequel?

People need to get over the mentality that more than one sequel = bad. Sure some series go overboard like Assassins Creed, however they have all been solid titles.

Assassins Creed on the other hand at this point does feel kind of forced. I am aware of what happened to Desmond at the end of 3 and so this Black Flag game seems incredibly forced to me. Also they seem to want to jump on the Pirate wagon about 5 or so years after that ship sailed with Pirates of the Caribbean.

Black Flag, so far, is turning into a better game than III. My main problem with ACIII (apart from the boring as hell main character) was the Modern day Assassin bits, and the whole end of the world uber plot. Black Flag (again, so far) has none of that, there is no "new" assassin/Desmond Miles. It's you, your working for abstergo, and that makes the game easier to pick up if your new to the series, and gives us veterans a break from the whole "ahh, the worlds doomed, and I only have Mr Boring and his ragtag team to save it with!"

It's funny how many people hate the modern world bits and Desmond yet without them you can't have the animus which means no historical periods.

I don't hate the modern day stuff, far from it, I'm a life time member of the "Give Desmond Miles a Chance" club, my problem with it was it became stale, and by the time they did do something interesting (ACIII) it seemed like too little too late. Having played Black Flag again last night, and having experience more of the modern day setting, I love how they've changed it and yet managed to add more to the exsisting "modern day" assassins.

 

[TKretts3]

It depends on what type of sequel, and whether or not the game in question calls for a sequel. For instance, the GTA series has tons of entries in it's book, but how many of them are traditional sequels? Most of them, the numbered ones, at least, are sequels in name and mechanic only. They have the same name, have the same type of gameplay and mechanics, but the story doesn't usually continue from the previous iteration. When it is a proper sequel that is being discussed, ones that continue the story of the previous game, then the first discussion should be whether or not a sequel is warranted. Can the story be continued in an interesting way? Will it give new material? Would it just end up being a rehash of the previous title?

If a sequel isn't going to offer anything new, if it isn't going to tell us anything that the previous title didn't say already, if it'll just end up being the previous title with a new coat of pant, then there really is no reason for that sequel to exist.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I think the most appropriate sequel for Arkham City would have been a Nightwing game. After all, major things happened plot-wise in City so it would make sense (in my mind) to have Batman sit out for a game. Do a Luigi's Mansion kind of thing maybe, where Nightwing is trying to find Bruce.

---

As for sequels in general, it all depends on the game. I can see Dead Rising having a lot of sequels because you just can't kill Zombies: They seem like they're always going to be around so why not make things bigger and, bigger. I don't see how they're going to top DR3 though.

Then there was Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. It wasn't a bad game, just kind of bland and repetitive. The canon ending however was really excellent: it answered an unasked question when it comes to the Star Wars plot and wrapped up the whole game in a nice package. Star Wars: The Force Unleashed could have easily been a good-to-great anthology collection, staring various under-represented or, unknown Jedi or Sith Lords. Then the sequel was announced...and it completely undermined the fucking ending of the first.