Sequels ruin gaming.

[GeorgW]

But some of the best games ever have been sequels. There are always things to fine tune, so I'd say a single sequel is almost always great, but from 3rd it's usually just crap. Still, I like sequels, no matter how high the numbers are.

 

[Gindil]

Sequels are a serious problem

*goes back to playing Team Fortress Two, definitely NOT a sequel...

 

[Canadamus Prime]

So essentially you're saying the Fans are the problem. I concur.

Not the problem, but definitely part of the problem. Like half. The other half is publishers with their fear of doing anything that might not make as much money as they want.

Well if we stopped buying the recycled shit they kept pumping out they'd be forced to try something new in order to figure out what would make us start buying again, wouldn't they?

No, chances are the industry would crash and nobody would be there to save it again.

Sorry, people, sequels keep the industry afloat so that sometimes something amazing that isn't a sequel (like Shadow of the Colossus or Metro 2033) can come along and blow your mind.

Possible, but I find it more likely that they'd get the hint and start trying to innovate before that happened. Esp. considering we now have the ability to let them know exactly why we're not buying via forums and what not. The only obstacle I see is conniving enough gamers to stop buying their pre-manufactured shit.

Yes. Yes they would. Maybe, these are big publishers we're talking about, they're not exactly the brightest bunch when it comes to making games. But if they're money is in jeopardy they should get the picture.

A good place to start is with sports games.

That's what I'm talking about. Threaten their profits and they'll get the hint.

 

[Brawndo]

I don't think they "ruin" gaming by any stretch, but they definitely don't push innovation in the genre as a whole. For example, since MW1 every Call of Duty is essentially the same, just reskinned. Very few new features were really added in each one, unlike MW1, which was a huge leap from earlier titles and set the standard for all military FPS games since.

 

[Roxor]

No, I won't say sequels ruin gaming, but I will say that developers shouldn't go making them just because they can. If the ending of the first game was open and the universe has room for another story, then go ahead and make a sequel. If the ending ties everything up, then it's probably best if you leave it alone and put your next game in a different universe.

 

[Voodoomancer]

Sequels should never be made due to the success of the first game.

This goes for any entertainment media: games, TV, movies, books...

Only make sequels if it was the plan all along, like Mass Effect.

 

[Hosker]

As long as there are significant changes and/or improvements in a sequel, I think they are good and worth my money.

 

[KuwaSanjuro]

Sequels in gaming are different to sequels in the movie industry. A gaming sequel allows a developer to tweak and enhance the design that they implemented in the first game, making for a far better experience. A huge chunk of the best games ever made are sequels, because they're games that developers perfected, using the experience earned from previous titles in the franchise.

Without sequels we would never have Mass Effect 2, Red Dead: Redemption, Fallout 3, Persona 4, Ocarina of Time, Elder Scrolls III and IV, Final Fantasy VI, VII and IX, Half-Life 2, Metal Gear Solid 3, GTA: Vice City and San Andreas, Civ II, Pokemon Silver, Call of Duty 4, Halo 2, Silent Hill 2, Super Mario 64, Resident Evil 2 and 4, Assassin's Creed 2, Uncharted 2, Dead Rising 2, Duke Nukem 3D, Gears of War 2, Freespace 2, System Shock 2, Killzone 2, Devil May Cry 3, Starcraft 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Battlefield 2, BF:BC2, Baldur's Gate II, God of War 2 - these are all games that significantly improved on their predecessor(s), with some of them being considered outright classics in their own right. Sequels are good. They allow developers to create the game they intended to in the first place, and providing better experiences for all gamers.

Agree wholeheartedly, video game sequels almost always advance the game series, they right things that were wrong in the original, when sequels begin to simply do exactly as the previous one: COD, etc, and add nothing new or anything that advances the game that's when sequels are not needed.

 

[Daveman]

I don't think it's right to think of the Mario games as sequels. They're just so different with the only thing tying them is the same character. It's more a question of brand loyalty.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Bah new/nub gamers who expect much less from a game do more harm to gaming than sequels do....

 

[asam92]

I can't see how sequels ruin gaming, if there were no sequels where would we be without games like:
The GTA line of games
Gran Turismo 5
Ratchet and Clank Series
Jak and Daxter Series
Red dead redemption - Nominated for GOTY last year
starcraft 2 - arguably the best RTS ever created
uncharted 2 GOTY 2009
mass effect 2 GOTY 2010

I could obviously keep listing but there would be no point.

If there was no sequels, I am sure a lot of people may not even play games.

Assassin's Creed 2, Red Dead Redemption, Just Cause 2 and Saints Row 2 are 4 perfect examples of how their producing companies learnt from their mistakes from the first game and have come back and produced master pieces because they listened to the fans (AC2 ie Ubisoft did exceptionally well at listening to the fans requests).

Now on the other side of the spectrum you have games like Kane and Lynch 2 and Star Wars Force Unleashed 2 who should never of had sequels made simply because they didn't listen to what the fans wanted and just made a game that THEY thought would be good.

Regardless of all this, if you don't like a game don't buy it, the general population will follow suit and they game wont sell well, SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.
It isnt just sequels that suck there are 1st release titles that are terrible as well.

As for comparing with movies it is always 50/50 on whether it gets better or worse, games I think it is a 3/4 chance it will be better rather than worse, mainly for the reason that Movies are 90% dependent on story, games rely on gameplay, story, graphics and more. If one of these fields fail lets say story, sometimes it can be pulled back up by excellent gameplay, Vanquish was a bit like this, bland story but immense graphical detail and gameplay helped it back up.

 

[natster43]

Sequels in gaming are different to sequels in the movie industry. A gaming sequel allows a developer to tweak and enhance the design that they implemented in the first game, making for a far better experience. A huge chunk of the best games ever made are sequels, because they're games that developers perfected, using the experience earned from previous titles in the franchise.

Without sequels we would never have Mass Effect 2, Red Dead: Redemption, Fallout 3, Persona 4, Ocarina of Time, Elder Scrolls III and IV, Final Fantasy VI, VII and IX, Half-Life 2, Metal Gear Solid 3, GTA: Vice City and San Andreas, Civ II, Pokemon Silver, Call of Duty 4, Halo 2, Silent Hill 2, Super Mario 64, Resident Evil 2 and 4, Assassin's Creed 2, Uncharted 2, Dead Rising 2, Duke Nukem 3D, Gears of War 2, Freespace 2, System Shock 2, Killzone 2, Devil May Cry 3, Starcraft 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Battlefield 2, BF:BC2, Baldur's Gate II, God of War 2 - these are all games that significantly improved on their predecessor(s), with some of them being considered outright classics in their own right. Sequels are good. They allow developers to create the game they intended to in the first place, and providing better experiences for all gamers.

This. If there were less sequels, many of the better games out there would not have been made.

 

[Get_A_Grip_]

Still your right, very few sequels are good.

Did you read the first post?

Without sequels we would never have Mass Effect 2, Red Dead: Redemption, Fallout 3, Persona 4, Ocarina of Time, Elder Scrolls III and IV, Final Fantasy VI, VII and IX, Half-Life 2, Metal Gear Solid 3, GTA: Vice City and San Andreas, Civ II, Pokemon Silver, Call of Duty 4, Halo 2, Silent Hill 2, Super Mario 64, Resident Evil 2 and 4, Assassin's Creed 2, Uncharted 2, Dead Rising 2, Duke Nukem 3D, Gears of War 2, Freespace 2, System Shock 2, Killzone 2, Devil May Cry 3, Starcraft 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Battlefield 2, BF:BC2, Baldur's Gate II, God of War 2 - these are all games that significantly improved on their predecessor(s), with some of them being considered outright classics in their own right. Sequels are good. They allow developers to create the game they intended to in the first place, and providing better experiences for all gamers.

 

[asam92]

But some of the best games ever have been sequels. There are always things to fine tune, so I'd say a single sequel is almost always great, but from 3rd it's usually just crap. Still, I like sequels, no matter how high the numbers are.

I know you said USUALLY crap, but I just had to say Fallout 3, GTA 3, Gran Turismo 3, Jak 3, Donkey Kong Country 3, Super Mario Bros 3, Civilization 3, the Third 3D Zelda game "Twilight Princess" and obviously more.
Also, Uncharted 3 and Mass Effect 3 are coming out this year, I can hardly see those sucking the big one, in fact I'm calling it now "In January UNCHARTED 3 announced 2011 GOTY"

[http://www.yourgamercards.net/profile/ADAMination]

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Capitalists keep capitalizing.

Oh Really? I Guess So. Capitalists Keep Capitalizing Then!

Spoiler: mwahaha

 

[pspman45]

There is a difference between sequels being bad, and lazy writers.
and don't be hatin on Valve, all the games the make are completely different games, and Left 4 Dead 2 was pretty darn good

 

[Bender Rodriguez]

Still your right, very few sequels are good.

Did you read the first post?

Without sequels we would never have Mass Effect 2, Red Dead: Redemption, Fallout 3, Persona 4, Ocarina of Time, Elder Scrolls III and IV, Final Fantasy VI, VII and IX, Half-Life 2, Metal Gear Solid 3, GTA: Vice City and San Andreas, Civ II, Pokemon Silver, Call of Duty 4, Halo 2, Silent Hill 2, Super Mario 64, Resident Evil 2 and 4, Assassin's Creed 2, Uncharted 2, Dead Rising 2, Duke Nukem 3D, Gears of War 2, Freespace 2, System Shock 2, Killzone 2, Devil May Cry 3, Starcraft 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Battlefield 2, BF:BC2, Baldur's Gate II, God of War 2 - these are all games that significantly improved on their predecessor(s), with some of them being considered outright classics in their own right. Sequels are good. They allow developers to create the game they intended to in the first place, and providing better experiences for all gamers.

How does you pointing out something i said change anything?
Use your time better.

 

[Woodsey]

No, they don't.

Most new IPs don't get the budget, man-power or time spent on them required to meet their full potential, and sometimes they need to hit the public before developers know which direction their game should be going in.