Sequels ruin gaming.
- Thread starter The Hive Mind
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I can name a movie with over 15 sequels. Godzilla one of the most popular film icons has 27 sequels. How does he keep going. Cause they improve on it every time which is something game sequels do. Sequels in games help deliver a better game of something we already love.
Sequels allow up and coming game makers to make money off their initial ideas to popular IPs whilst simultaneously giving them room to improve on the product and deliver a better play experience.
Besides ... get rid of sequels and popular game 'sequels' would just be re-skinned 'new' IPs and be called something else.
The Elder Scrolls would just be retooled The Fogey Files.
Besides ... get rid of sequels and popular game 'sequels' would just be re-skinned 'new' IPs and be called something else.
The Elder Scrolls would just be retooled The Fogey Files.
Quoted for absolute truth. I personally think this "argument" is proof people just like to ***** about stuff. Dev's can't win with gamers. Innovate and you are "destroying a franchise" (See recently: Mass Effect 2, Dead Space 2, and many more.) "YOU PULLED AWAY FOM WHAT MADE THIS GAME GREAT!" the fans cry in outrage. So devs don't innovate too much on a sequel and people shout "QUIT COMING OUT WITH CRAPPY REHASHES!" Topics like this is why I am a firm believer in devs not listening to their fanbase.Kukakkau said:
Sequels don't "ruin gaming". They are almost entirely a positive thing. If a good innovative game is seriously as easy as all the bitching people claim, why don't you guys get together, make one, and make millions of dollars to boot? The truth is, you either have no ideas and are thus, hypocrites. Or once you see how much money you are risking on 1 collaborative idea making such a game, you too would fall back on tried-and-true mechanics with only minor "innovation" here and there. God help you when people tell you your innovations suck and are the worst parts of the game. I don't think the people bitching could take the criticism honestly.
When is a sequel a sequel? If it involves the same characters, story elements, etc. then a sequel is simply an extension of a story and I don't see how that could be as bad as you claim.
If a sequel is a reiteration of certain gameplay mechanics, then almost every game is a sequel to something else. Take Mass Effect for instance. Bioware was able to spend lots of money on Mass Effect because it followed the same mechanics as another popular game: KOTOR. Mass Effect is not a sequel to KOTOR in story, but they bear a striking similarity in gameplay. At the same time, Mass Effect expands and improves on the graphics and gameplay elements to become greater than KOTOR.
Yes, some sequels are made poorly. TFU2 comes to mind (I loved TFU1, but did not buy TFU2 because it was poorly reviewed). But all games share gameplay elements of previous games. Is Black Ops a sequel to Wolfenstein? No, of course not. But they share gameplay elements.
If game producers think that people will buy a sequel, they're going to make one. With rare exceptions, sequels improves upon the gameplay of the originals in much the same way a new IP would improve upon the gameplay of its predecessors. Producers are more willing to fund sequels generously, and in my mind that helps innovation.
In the end, maybe the lack of innovation in games isn't a problem with sequels or fans buying similar games or a lack of imagination on the part of developers or even a lack of courage on the part of developers. Maybe games are becoming less innovative because everything has been done already? How many different ways can you have a game where you shoot other people? How many ways can you do a sports game?
When innovation does come, like in games like Portal, it's usually embraced by developers, producers and fans. Good innovations are rare, but they're not being stifled by sequels.
If a sequel is a reiteration of certain gameplay mechanics, then almost every game is a sequel to something else. Take Mass Effect for instance. Bioware was able to spend lots of money on Mass Effect because it followed the same mechanics as another popular game: KOTOR. Mass Effect is not a sequel to KOTOR in story, but they bear a striking similarity in gameplay. At the same time, Mass Effect expands and improves on the graphics and gameplay elements to become greater than KOTOR.
Yes, some sequels are made poorly. TFU2 comes to mind (I loved TFU1, but did not buy TFU2 because it was poorly reviewed). But all games share gameplay elements of previous games. Is Black Ops a sequel to Wolfenstein? No, of course not. But they share gameplay elements.
If game producers think that people will buy a sequel, they're going to make one. With rare exceptions, sequels improves upon the gameplay of the originals in much the same way a new IP would improve upon the gameplay of its predecessors. Producers are more willing to fund sequels generously, and in my mind that helps innovation.
In the end, maybe the lack of innovation in games isn't a problem with sequels or fans buying similar games or a lack of imagination on the part of developers or even a lack of courage on the part of developers. Maybe games are becoming less innovative because everything has been done already? How many different ways can you have a game where you shoot other people? How many ways can you do a sports game?
When innovation does come, like in games like Portal, it's usually embraced by developers, producers and fans. Good innovations are rare, but they're not being stifled by sequels.
What about independent games developers? That's what happened with music; a lot of popular bands these days run their own record labels, and they're all making the music they want to make. So what if EA or whoever wants their developers to practically just rehash the last game in the series? There's plenty of hope in independent developers.
As for directors, isn't Peter Molyneux one? What about Tim Schafer?
And I like Mario. I like to think of the Mario games as not really exactly a series as such, and that they don't really follow the rules that movies, or even other games, do. I think Mario's exempt because there's rarely any great detail to the story, and the games themselves are generally and genuinely fun. Metal Gear Solid couldn't do that. MGS games are way more story based, and are generally more demanding of the player's attention. It's the difference between a book and a game of table tennis; a book needs to be read, understood, whereas table tennis is just fun. Games with serious stories always have to end, no matter how many there are in the series, whereas Mario's cartoony feet are gonna be jumping up and down for years to come.
I don't think sequels ruin it. I think unnecessary sequels ruin it. Ones that ruin the story, or the characters. If those aspects are secondary to the gameplay quality, and there're enough new things (which, as far as I remember has always been the case with Mario games), then any amount of sequels can work.
As for directors, isn't Peter Molyneux one? What about Tim Schafer?
And I like Mario. I like to think of the Mario games as not really exactly a series as such, and that they don't really follow the rules that movies, or even other games, do. I think Mario's exempt because there's rarely any great detail to the story, and the games themselves are generally and genuinely fun. Metal Gear Solid couldn't do that. MGS games are way more story based, and are generally more demanding of the player's attention. It's the difference between a book and a game of table tennis; a book needs to be read, understood, whereas table tennis is just fun. Games with serious stories always have to end, no matter how many there are in the series, whereas Mario's cartoony feet are gonna be jumping up and down for years to come.
I don't think sequels ruin it. I think unnecessary sequels ruin it. Ones that ruin the story, or the characters. If those aspects are secondary to the gameplay quality, and there're enough new things (which, as far as I remember has always been the case with Mario games), then any amount of sequels can work.
Yes, I do think sequels can ruin games, unfortunately there is always going to be that group of fanboys who will buy anything related to the franchise they love no matter how shitty it is.
If Devs actually took time when creating games to come up with an over-arching storyline so that each sequel had something meaningful to add to the franchise then I would be perfectly happy and im willing to bet more people would end up buying and it'd be worth that little bit of extra time and effort they put into it.
If Devs actually took time when creating games to come up with an over-arching storyline so that each sequel had something meaningful to add to the franchise then I would be perfectly happy and im willing to bet more people would end up buying and it'd be worth that little bit of extra time and effort they put into it.