So... sequels.

[xPrometheusx]

Hello escapist peoples! I'm here, with a hopeful discussion that I've been thinking of raising for awhile. That is, the sequel debate.

So to start off, a summary. Sequels are great in gaming, movies, books, whatever. But sometimes, there's just saturation, and this fact is more present in gaming than anywhere else in the universe other than the cash-cow that is star wars (heheh... prequels. Not touching that.) I, personally, am growing seriously tired of this endless parade of recycled games. The most obvious example here is CoD. Approaching critical mass at... what, 8 games? And they haven't had any truly innovating gameplay since Modern Warfare 1. Even then... yeah. Innovating a shooter. Riiight. Hell, MW3 was just 60 dollars for a couple of years' worth of patches and new maps. The freaking error messages still said MW2 on them at release. I can put Battlefield on that list too, after playing the over-hyped stupidly expensive entry into the series that is Battlefield 3. Assassin's Creed can go up there, as can Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Dead Space, Gears of War, Grand Theft Auto... the list goes on. Some REALLY good examples are the EA sports games. All of 'em. Just lump them all into one big ball of subpar sequel mediocrity and throw it at the gamers after gluing on different colors of glitter. I've grown tired of the endless parade of sequels. What happened to original content? Gone are the days where you could look to a bigger publisher for -god forbid- actual innovation. If there's any to be found, it's passed to smaller "indie" developers, because they're the only companies out there actually willing to take risks. Why should Activision publish the next groundbreaking equivalent of AC1, Bioshock 1 or Mirror's Edge when they know that their huge sheeple fanbase will buy the next installment of CoD just because it says CoD on the box? Baaa.

There's the flip side, of course. I can't go without addressing it. Two of the most anticipated games for me this year are Borderlands 2 and Darksiders 2 because the first entries into their respective series', in my opinion and in most of the fanbase's, honestly deserved a second game. I'm looking forward to Bioshock Infinite as well, since the folks at Irrational Games and 2k really look like they're trying to reinvent the series. If you look between Bioshock 1-2 and Infinite, it's hard to tell they're even in the same series. THAT's what a sequel should be. Innovation or further exploration of a loved game. Not just another entry because people will buy it. Because we have these sequels that give something new to look forward to, then... well, I already addressed CoD.

What shocks me, though, is that I've never seen anyone else with this attitude anywhere on the internet, aside from all the disgruntled sheeple wondering why the $60 CoD 57 looked the same as the $60 CoD 56. So, to the people reading this, is there anyone out there that can say they feel the same, that they're tired of the parade of sequels? Or am I just blowing steam?

Also, love the Doritos ad for the spamcheck. Way to throw yet another piece of advertising into my face, Internet.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

Hello escapist peoples! I'm here, with a hopeful discussion that I've been thinking of raising for awhile. That is, the sequel debate.

So to start off, a summary. Sequels are great in gaming, movies, books, whatever. But sometimes, there's just saturation, and this fact is more present in gaming than anywhere else in the universe other than the cash-cow that is star wars (heheh... prequels. Not touching that.) I, personally, am growing seriously tired of this endless parade of recycled games. The most obvious example here is CoD. Approaching critical mass at... what, 8 games? And they haven't had any truly innovating gameplay since Modern Warfare 1. Even then... yeah. Innovating a shooter. Riiight. Hell, MW3 was just 60 dollars for a couple of years' worth of patches and new maps. The freaking error messages still said MW2 on them at release. I can put Battlefield on that list too, after playing the over-hyped stupidly expensive entry into the series that is Battlefield 3. Assassin's Creed can go up there, as can Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Dead Space, Gears of War, Grand Theft Auto... the list goes on. Some REALLY good examples are the EA sports games. All of 'em. Just lump them all into one big ball of subpar sequel mediocrity and throw it at the gamers after gluing on different colors of glitter. I've grown tired of the endless parade of sequels. What happened to original content? Gone are the days where you could look to a bigger publisher for -god forbid- actual innovation. If there's any to be found, it's passed to smaller "indie" developers, because they're the only companies out there actually willing to take risks. Why should Activision publish the next groundbreaking equivalent of AC1, Bioshock 1 or Mirror's Edge when they know that their huge sheeple fanbase will buy the next installment of CoD just because it says CoD on the box? Baaa.

There's the flip side, of course. I can't go without addressing it. Two of the most anticipated games for me this year are Borderlands 2 and Darksiders 2 because the first entries into their respective series', in my opinion and in most of the fanbase's, honestly deserved a second game. I'm looking forward to Bioshock Infinite as well, since the folks at Irrational Games and 2k really look like they're trying to reinvent the series. If you look between Bioshock 1-2 and Infinite, it's hard to tell they're even in the same series. THAT's what a sequel should be. Innovation or further exploration of a loved game. Not just another entry because people will buy it. Because we have these sequels that give something new to look forward to, then... well, I already addressed CoD.

What shocks me, though, is that I've never seen anyone else with this attitude anywhere on the internet, aside from all the disgruntled sheeple wondering why the $60 CoD 57 looked the same as the $60 CoD 56. So, to the people reading this, is there anyone out there that can say they feel the same, that they're tired of the parade of sequels? Or am I just blowing steam?

Also, love the Doritos ad for the spamcheck. Way to throw yet another piece of advertising into my face, Internet.

You dont get around much do you? There is a lot of complaining about endless sequels in many corners of the internet.

Yes its a little ridiculous, but its what people want, and its clearly what they enjoy, so who are we to say that they cant have fun?

Btw, a lot of people (like me) tend to take you less seriously when you refer to people as sheep just because they like a game series. It makes you seem like kind of a dick

 

[xPrometheusx]

I'll call people sheeple as long as they act like it. It's not necessarily because they like a game series, its because they mindlessly buy every entry. I'm completely convinced that a large portion of CoD's "silent majority" fanbase just buys each game because it says CoD on the cover. That's one of the, if not the main reason why after years of re-releases of what's essentially the same game every year, Activision STILL tops the charts. I've noticed a rather large drop in people defending the CoD franchise actively (the twelve year old child sect of fans being the exception), which means that either the diehard fans are getting tired of arguing or they're kinda losing that illusion that CoD is so awesome. Given that this is the internet, I'm going to go out on a limb and call the latter forward in light of the former being extremely unlikely. There certainly aren't as many people saying CoD is the best now as there were near MW2 (any attempt to defend black ops multiplayer was laughable by a lot of people), yet Activision's sales continue to skyrocket. Because drones just go out and buy games.

And on top of that, I don't care that other people like those games. But the fact is, it's squashing originality like EA squashes competition. Because the big devs won't pick up on anything that isn't already a blockbuster, anything new is getting shoved to the "indie" devs. Indie games weren't a thing (or at least, not a major player), to my knowledge, a couple of years ago. Now I'm not saying that the emergence of big indie titles is bad, but the bigger-budget original titles are starting to disappear, and continually pushing a tired series is a giant recipe for failure on the part of publishers. People will get tired of it. The only reason CoD is still afloat is because A) there's very little competition of it's caliber and B) because every adolescent (myself once included) that buys an Xbox has to own a shooter, and CoD is the go-to game.

Oh, and maybe I don't go to the right sites, because aside from what I pointed out in my OP (the sheep complaining about CoD sucking and then buying the next one anyway) I don't see too many people complaining about the continual sequel-shoveling. Even EA sports, the height of stupid, pointless, repetitive sequels, I've not heard get too much criticism unless I deliberately search for someone that shares my opinion.

 

[oplinger]

I'll call people sheeple as long as they act like it. It's not necessarily because they like a game series, its because they mindlessly buy every entry. I'm completely convinced that a large portion of CoD's "silent majority" fanbase just buys each game because it says CoD on the cover. That's one of the, if not the main reason why after years of re-releases of what's essentially the same game every year, Activision STILL tops the charts. I've noticed a rather large drop in people defending the CoD franchise actively (the twelve year old child sect of fans being the exception), which means that either the diehard fans are getting tired of arguing or they're kinda losing that illusion that CoD is so awesome. Given that this is the internet, I'm going to go out on a limb and call the latter forward in light of the former being extremely unlikely. There certainly aren't as many people saying CoD is the best now as there were near MW2 (any attempt to defend black ops multiplayer was laughable by a lot of people), yet Activision's sales continue to skyrocket. Because drones just go out and buy games.

And on top of that, I don't care that other people like those games. But the fact is, it's squashing originality like EA squashes competition. Because the big devs won't pick up on anything that isn't already a blockbuster, anything new is getting shoved to the "indie" devs. Indie games weren't a thing (or at least, not a major player), to my knowledge, a couple of years ago. Now I'm not saying that the emergence of big indie titles is bad, but the bigger-budget original titles are starting to disappear, and continually pushing a tired series is a giant recipe for failure on the part of publishers. People will get tired of it. The only reason CoD is still afloat is because A) there's very little competition of it's caliber and B) because every adolescent (myself once included) that buys an Xbox has to own a shooter, and CoD is the go-to game.

I buy everything with zelda on it. ..but I genuinely like every game in the series. Why do I have to be a sheep for that? I mean I get it, you don't like CoD, but if they really were sheep, millions wouldn't keep playing it for years "just because it has CoD on it"

Also, what is really squashing originality isn't really the sequels. It's the fact that a game has to be a blockbuster to be financially viable for a AAA company. When a million copies makes your game a "hit" and makes it "go gold" and that's just barely breaking even, you have an issue. CoD is a hit, and it makes the multiplayer full of instant gratification, as well as long term rewards that make you better at the game. It gets a revision every year to make it more appealing to what the fans want. It's not more damaging than anything else successful, but it is not the cause of the lack of originality. The economy is, and the bloated costs and budgets are.

 

[Vault101]

are they bad?...good?

depends

the best agmes are usually seaquels

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

snip

Theres a quote button just so you know, it lets people know when you're replying to them.

Anyway maybe people dont defend CoD as much because theyre sick of arguing with people of your mindset?

CoD sales keep going up because people enjoy the damn games, and they probably dont give two shits about what you think, just like you dont give a damn about what they think.

 

[xPrometheusx]

I buy everything with zelda on it. ..but I genuinely like every game in the series. Why do I have to be a sheep for that? I mean I get it, you don't like CoD, but if they really were sheep, millions wouldn't keep playing it for years "just because it has CoD on it"

Also, what is really squashing originality isn't really the sequels. It's the fact that a game has to be a blockbuster to be financially viable for a AAA company. When a million copies makes your game a "hit" and makes it "go gold" and that's just barely breaking even, you have an issue. CoD is a hit, and it makes the multiplayer full of instant gratification, as well as long term rewards that make you better at the game. It gets a revision every year to make it more appealing to what the fans want. It's not more damaging than anything else successful, but it is not the cause of the lack of originality. The economy is, and the bloated costs and budgets are.

I suppose that's fair, especially the second part, though I'll address that in a moment. And I'd call anyone that buys a game just because it has a certain title a sheep. That lack of thought, replaced by "oh this is a CoD (or in your case, zelda), I must buy" is annoying to me. To be fair, though, Zelda is much more diverse than CoD or most other game series' game to game. The only thing that changes in the shooter sequels are the maps and guns. You could release everything put into MW3 as an expansion to MW2 without exception, much the same as you could do for Black Ops/WaW. Zelda, on the other hand, is a different experience every time. I don't think you could really compare Twilight Princess to Oracle of Seasons, or the Phantom Hourglass to the Minish Cap. If there's one series that I'd buy game after game of just because it is that series, it'd be zelda. Their track record is too good.

And I failed to take the "blockbuster" factor into consideration, though I agree that's at least part of the problem. I still think that developers and publishers dug their own grave on it by jumping so far forward and committing the future of their companies to one game franchise, but it could easily be fixed by not putting all their eggs in one basket, so to speak. For example, EA has Mass Effect, its mediocre sports games, Battlefield, SWTOR and MoH. Mass Effect is finished. SWTOR is falling off the map pretty fast, and I wouldn't be surprised if MoH did the same. Having that "flagship title" of battlefield is what's killing EA, and if they spread their resources a little more and made, say, 6 shorter, 10 dollar original games and sold them for 20 instead of one 60 dollar sequel, than they could fix that. Or they actually took a chance with a new game like publishers did every time they released a new series years ago, then the problem would disappear.

The same thing applies for Activision. I can't think of one game in my collection other than MW2 and MW3 (yes, I bought both because my friend absolutely raved about MW3 and MW2 was my first console game... regretting it, but that's another discussion) that's published by Activision. What if, instead of publishing another CoD 2 years from now (that's how it works, right? They have IW work on their next game while Treyarch gets theirs out?) they committed those resources to a pair or more of smaller original games. Then if one flops they don't lose much, because the other(s) even doing reasonably well will still sustain them.

 

[xPrometheusx]

snip

Theres a quote button just so you know, it lets people know when you're replying to them.

Anyway maybe people dont defend CoD as much because theyre sick of arguing with people of your mindset?

CoD sales keep going up because people enjoy the damn games, and they probably dont give two shits about what you think, just like you dont give a damn about what they think.

It was a lengthy post and I didn't feel like quoting it. I think it was fairly obvious I was replying to you. And CoD sales keep going up because A) after the next is released the previous gets absolutely NO attention; B) because CoD is the flagship shooter, if someone wants a new shooter, CoD is the way to go, and C) because every game vets leave and huge amounts of new people buy it. The majority of people playing MW3 were NOT playing the original Modern Warfare, those people have long since left. It's just that new players are vastly outnumbering tired vets as gaming gets ever more popular.

 

[Pink Gregory]

Also, what is really squashing originality isn't really the sequels. It's the fact that a game has to be a blockbuster to be financially viable for a AAA company. When a million copies makes your game a "hit" and makes it "go gold" and that's just barely breaking even, you have an issue. CoD is a hit, and it makes the multiplayer full of instant gratification, as well as long term rewards that make you better at the game. It gets a revision every year to make it more appealing to what the fans want. It's not more damaging than anything else successful, but it is not the cause of the lack of originality. The economy is, and the bloated costs and budgets are.

This; the OP is postulating that the reason for sequel stagnation is the fault of the consumer for buying them, rather than bloated development costs, meaning that it makes better business sense to capitalise on a successful IP rather than utilise a new, risky IP; when so much money is at stake, a new IP being an absolute flop would be a monetary disaster, resulting in studio closes, job cuts etc.

When so much money is involved that has to be recouped, creativity, as it were, has to take a back seat to the likelihood of more sales, and in terms of sequels, half of the promotion is already done by the first title, that's why everything (in film as well) seems to always warrant a series.

This is the problem, the 'everyone's an idiot but me/us' isn't at play here. (That being said, the hardcore CoD crowd don't seem to be that hard to market to, although I've never met any of these people, so I can't say; personally, I like CoD, but I judge each game on its own merits, not because it's CoD, I'm sure there are plenty more like me.)

Also, people who own consoles aren't necessarily into gaming in the same way as we here might be (and this demographic is widening with consoles being marketed as 'home entertainment centres'), so someone might want to unwind by playing an EA Sports game because they like that sort of thing, still doesn't justify the full price yearly roster update, but this is probably an example of EA being the cynical exploitation debacle that they are, minimal development cost for sustained sales figures; that doesn't at all mean that the people who buy them should be blamed for it, probably aren't even the same people each year; personally I've never heard of someone actually buying the same EA Sports series year-to-year.

 

[xPrometheusx]

Snip to make the Blue Rider happy.

And as stated above, I agree that marketing and cost is at least part of the problem, and that I failed to account for it, but it could still be fixed. Producers are flat-out refusing to acknowledge that not every game has to be a 60-dollar mega blockbuster and must be developed like one. Since gaming has existed, there's been two tiers two it; the mega-omg-game-of-the-year one, and the underscoring foundation, filled with what we now call Indie games. As of late, publishers have all but withdrawn from that lower tier in favor of endless sequels because not every game published down at the bottom will make them 100 million dollars, and instead hope/depend on one game to make them that much. This is quite hilarious, mostly because a smaller game going big is WAY better for you than a big game accidentally flopping because of a moody or tired fanbase.

Edit: In hindsight, I realize that EA does contradict my above statments with their sports games, which probably have a development budget that's fit to buy the EA CEO a lunch. So that's not entirely true, but neither does it really qualify as a true contradictory example.

 

[KINGBeerZ]

WHAT? NO! making a new COD game is a highly involved process, first they get the old game box, second they take out the cover, third they insert a new cover, and fourth they get free money.

honestly though you can still get good game sequels, I really enjoyed Dragon Age 2 despite it copping a lot of flack, yes I know it wasn't origins and it had its problems (re-using areas, not being able to travel round the country, no race selection, red on black writing etc.) but despite all that, i thought it was pretty solid, I enjoyed the story when you start getting into it, i think the romances get more fleshed out, the other characters get stronger relationships built and they felt like their own people, and I liked the new combat and skill trees. So a lot of the issues are only minor but the game was still great, just not as good as its predecessor, but aside from FFIX, in my opinion nothing is as good as origins.

I still think that Yahtzee said it best about sequels when he said " a good sequel uses the world as a jumping of pont for a new story with new characters, unlike a bad sequel which just wallows like a hippo in a vat of liquidized children".

 

[xPrometheusx]

I still think that Yahtzee said it best about sequels when he said " a good sequel uses the world as a jumping of pont for a new story with new characters, unlike a bad sequel which just wallows like a hippo in a vat of liquidized children".

Quoted for prosperity. I wish whoever said that a long, happy and full life. Also, Borderlands 2, Darksiders II and Bioshock Infinite once again come to mind...

 

[Blunderboy]

The majority of people playing MW3 were NOT playing the original Modern Warfare, those people have long since left. It's just that new players are vastly outnumbering tired vets as gaming gets ever more popular.

It's good to see that unsubstantiated claims are still rampant on the internet.
I play games that I like. If they are part of a series then that should not make me feel bad for liking them.
I?m not a sheep, I?m a person. It could be argued that I?m a better person than some because I?m not giving people shit for liking what they like.

 

[xPrometheusx]

It's good to see that unsubstantiated claims are still rampant on the internet.
I play games that I like. If they are part of a series then that should not make me feel bad for liking them.
I?m not a sheep, I?m a person. It could be argued that I?m a better person than some because I?m not giving people shit for liking what they like.

That isn't unfounded, that's absolutely true. I can't quote a study or some survey somewhere, because unfortunately, I doubt one exists. I can only speak from my experience. Very, VERY few people I know that actively play CoD have been playing since the original Modern Warfare. Most of them came in with Black Ops, for some, Modern Warfare 3 is their first CoD. Reversely, only two or three of my friends that I used to play Modern Warfare 2 with still play Call of Duty. A lot of them moved away from the FPS scene in general. Those that remain generally play battlefield. I can't even include myself in the crowd coming from the original modern warfare crowd, it came out 2 years before I even cared to buy a console. I came in with MW2 and am leaving with MW3.

 

[getoffmycloud]

I can't take the OP seriously when he says that the elder scrolls is oversaturated there have been 5 games in 18 years and dead space there have only been 2 games how is that saturated? Just because a game has sequels doesn't mean that it is a milked franchise.

 

[Pink Gregory]

Snip to make the Blue Rider happy.

And as stated above, I agree that marketing and cost is at least part of the problem, and that I failed to account for it, but it could still be fixed. Producers are flat-out refusing to acknowledge that not every game has to be a 60-dollar mega blockbuster and must be developed like one. Since gaming has existed, there's been two tiers two it; the mega-omg-game-of-the-year one, and the underscoring foundation, filled with what we now call Indie games. As of late, publishers have all but withdrawn from that lower tier in favor of endless sequels because not every game published down at the bottom will make them 100 million dollars, and instead hope/depend on one game to make them that much. This is quite hilarious, mostly because a smaller game going big is WAY better for you than a big game accidentally flopping because of a moody or tired fanbase.

Edit: In hindsight, I realize that EA does contradict my above statments with their sports games, which probably have a development budget that's fit to buy the EA CEO a lunch. So that's not entirely true, but neither does it really qualify as a true contradictory example.

'zactly, this is just proof that the attitude of the market leaders is detrimental to the industry, more and more people are realising this, and while their sales may remain strong (pretty much because they have the monopoly on physical distribution, and thus are responsible for more jobs than anyone would like), it can't last.

 

[Blunderboy]

It's good to see that unsubstantiated claims are still rampant on the internet.
I play games that I like. If they are part of a series then that should not make me feel bad for liking them.
I?m not a sheep, I?m a person. It could be argued that I?m a better person than some because I?m not giving people shit for liking what they like.

That isn't unfounded, that's absolutely true. I can't quote a study or some survey somewhere, because unfortunately, I doubt one exists. I can only speak from my experience. Very, VERY few people I know that actively play CoD have been playing since the original Modern Warfare. Most of them came in with Black Ops, for some, Modern Warfare 3 is their first CoD. Reversely, only two or three of my friends that I used to play Modern Warfare 2 with still play Call of Duty. A lot of them moved away from the FPS scene in general. Those that remain generally play battlefield. I can't even include myself in the crowd coming from the original modern warfare crowd, it came out 2 years before I even cared to buy a console. I came in with MW2 and am leaving with MW3.

That's still not an absolute truth. I personally have played every single CoD game since the first one.
The very first one.

I?ve also played most of the Battlefield games. (All of them except 3.) At least half of the people that I played the first games with still play the newer ones.
I play plenty of other games and I never bother to prestige but I still enjoy the games. What gives you the right to call me out on that at all?

I?ll answer for you. Nothing does.

 

[Pink Gregory]

That isn't unfounded, that's absolutely true. I can't quote a study or some survey somewhere, because unfortunately, I doubt one exists. I can only speak from my experience. Very, VERY few people I know that actively play CoD have been playing since the original Modern Warfare. Most of them came in with Black Ops, for some, Modern Warfare 3 is their first CoD. Reversely, only two or three of my friends that I used to play Modern Warfare 2 with still play Call of Duty. A lot of them moved away from the FPS scene in general. Those that remain generally play battlefield. I can't even include myself in the crowd coming from the original modern warfare crowd, it came out 2 years before I even cared to buy a console. I came in with MW2 and am leaving with MW3.

Not wanting to be a pedantic dick, but I'm not entirely sure what this proves; surely that means that people coming in at different times in the series aren't 'sheeple that buy the name'?

Probably a point I'm missing here or whatever.

 

[xPrometheusx]

I can't take the OP seriously when he says that the elder scrolls is oversaturated there have been 5 games in 18 years and dead space there have only been 2 games how is that saturated? Just because a game has sequels doesn't mean that it is a milked franchise.

A) I meant to put fallout and elder scrolls together as lately (I don't know about the before-my-time releases) They've all been essentially the same thing with different paintjobs and terrain.
B) Have you taken a look at Dead Space lately? It's not saturated, but it's definitely been milked. Comparing Dead Space 1 to Dead Space 2 is like... I donno. One's a horror, and one's a survival shooter. Not to say Dead Space 2 wasn't a fairly well done survival shooter, but it was nowhere close to the original on creepy-factor. And then Dead Space 3 looks like Gears of War with a necromorph theme.

Picture and words!

Well, congratulations, you're in the minority, by a lot. I've never known ANYONE who's played the original CoD (well, at least not when it released) and plays MW3 today. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, the entire gaming community that is the Escapist is a minority just because of the general intelligence level. It seems to have dipped a bit recently, but again, that's another discussion.