Sequels ruin gaming.

[dibblywibbles]

ummm sequels are good. especially if the first game is shit. I don't have a problem with franchises being totally awesome but say sports games... well I only ever buy my nhl games once ever few years because there isn't a drastic change from year to year. smart consuming is the answer to your too many sequels problem. if something is going to sell why not make another? personally I like to see my game developers well fed so they can AFFORD to try something new.

 

[Irridium]

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?

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.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

there are so many things i find wrong with this, but i have nor the time nor the endurance to sit here and discuss it

so i'll just say sequels are highly needed, whether they are direct sequels themselves or just marketed sequels.

also "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." ever heard that term?

 

[F-I-D-O]

Yeah, because ACII didn't improve AC drastically, wrapping a decent story around extremely solid gameplay.
The ability to buy what parts you wanted made MechWarrior 4 Mercenaries completely worthless.
MGS4 didn't do anything new...
Silent Hill 2 didn't cause huge leaps in the Survival Horror genre
Dune 2 just created RTS. And we know no one in Korea plays those...
Mario 64 wasn't that important. It just made one of the earliest 3D platformers ever...
Super Metroid was such an obvious cash-in, with no effort being made to make it amazing
Ocarina of time, well, no one should care about that. It was just a sequel, as was Zelda II
/sarcasm off
Without sequels, gaming would be the worse for it. Sequels have defined genres. That's far from ruining gameing. You owe many of the games you play to improvements from sequels. Silent Hill 2 proved that atmosphere can be scarier than just throwing zombies at you.
Dune 2, well, read above.
However, there are crappy sequels in games (as in little more than a cash in), but often they are more polished, allowing for a better experience.
And with movies, well...Transformers 2 anyone? Not the best sequel.
Would books be better if Tolkien had only released the Hobbit? How about if Huckleberry Finn never graced shelves? OR Dune Messiah?
Mass medias need sequels, because it's safer to innovate slowly on an established franchise (Call of Duty series. They've gotten much better over time, or Mega Man) than throw a new IP out there (Valkyria Chronicles 1). If you want to eliminate every sequel, then there is a problem.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Every time I see this argument, I immediately think of Devil May Cry 3, Baten Kaitos Origins, Duke Nukem 3D, Wizardry 8, Super Smash Brothers Brawl, and Samurai Warriors 2.

Then I enjoy a hearty laugh and go back to what I was doing.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

Sequels done wrong ruin games, but without good sequels the gaming industry would not be where it is now.

What I mean is that yes, sequels can ruin their genres or the original game, but it works both ways.

Also I reckon the flood of Call of Duty in particular is a good thing, shooter dev's are trying to make FPS's different from each other because of it.

Which makes one wonder just how much innovation can be applied to the premise of 'run around with a gun and shoot things.'

There could be loads, however its not all that often acted on.
When it is though it can produce a really great game different from the rest.
Compare Call of Duty to Mass Effect, compare Operation Flashpoint to Bioshock.

 

[Kuilui]

If they do make a borderlands 2 I hope the story is more interesting. The story had its moments but was pretty weak for the most part and the boss fights were a joke. Still the story did sort of set us up for a sequel so its not like its just being pulled out of the creators rear end *Cough* Bioshock 2 *Cough*

 

[Bender Rodriguez]

Heard of Uncharted 2?

Still your right, very few sequels are good.

 

[2xDouble]

I was going to leave a list of all the Extra Credits videos relevant to this topic, then I realized "someone" had done it for me:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits?page=2

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Hmm... Then we'd have no Bioshock (pretty much a copy of System Shock) Red Dead Redemption, Almost any GTA you can think of, no Half-Life 2, no DMC3, no Zelda except for the first... probably no Mario...
So yeah, not having any sequels is bad. But yes, over-saturation of sequels is very bad... just look at Final Fantasy.
You need to find a balance between having sequels and new things. A balance that we don't have.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

I agree with over-saturation being a bad thing (see: every game Activision has made this decade except CoD4), but sequels are overall a good thing. Most of my favorite games this generation have been sequels, with the obvious exclusion being the first Mass Effect.

 

[Macrobstar]

Wait isn't this exactly what yahtzee said ages ago?

 

[C95J]

Yeah, I like sequels, so no I will not stop buying them just because you said so. And if Borderlands sold really well, them obviously people liked it, so why not make a second one, people will like to play it, it will be a good game.

Sequels are nearly always good, just because you don't like them doesn't mean they shouldn't be made.

 

[WorldCritic]

Personally, I don't think sequels are the problem with games. They're a huge problem with movies, but not really games because it lets developers improve upon their previous games.

 

[blankedboy]

Crash Bandicoot 2.
"sequels suck" argument is now void. Ta.

 

[AnExquisiteGentleman]

Capitalists keep capitalizing.

Couldn't have said it better.

In my opinion, I think the gaming industry is larger than the movie industry; and making video games is most likely, easier than making a great movie. I doubt they cost millions to produce, but i may be wrong.

 

[Kukakkau]

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.

The man knows whats up - thread closer here

And sequels keep the gaming industry alive - without them new ideas would be hard to come by and developers would lose money fast.