The Attack of the Seductive Number 2

[agentmaine]

Best thread title ever.

LOL thanks, It is the most entertaining thing i have thought of this year... sad but true

Games get better with sequels. Yahtzee is wrong.

um, I wasn't trying to be a Yahtzee fanboy here, I honestly think that devs should think twice before arbitrarily releasing a sequel.


Addressing everyone who says that some games are deserving of sequels,
I am not saying that all sequels suck, I am saying that it is out of control how many sequels are being released, Many of the games i listed I am probably going to buy and enjoy, that doesn't mean that they had any meaningful contribution to gaming as a whole. I am a fan of standard shooters and I have always loved the Final Fantasy series but the reason that i like the Final Fantasy games is because so far, each and every one has raised the bar for action RPGs by adding cool new features into the mutilated gene pool of modern day RPGs.

 

[RyQ_TMC]

I don't know... Book series generally work best as trilogies, so I guess story-driven games generally aim for this as well... It's annoying when a sequel is the same game, but with better graphics, but if you split the story into 3 games, then you can get feedback and improve gameplay every time.

Kinda like what the Sands of Time trilogy did.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Best thread title ever.

LOL thanks, It is the most entertaining thing i have thought of this year... sad but true

Games get better with sequels. Yahtzee is wrong.

um, I wasn't trying to be a Yahtzee fanboy here, I honestly think that devs should think twice before arbitrarily releasing a sequel.

I know dude, it's just a lot of people have jumped on the bandwagon because Yahtzee said it.

Kind of like the word 'arbitrary'.

 

[Disaster Button]

Well this year is the Year of the Sequels.

I don't particularly care as long as they're good and expand on the original isntead of making a clone.

 

[minoes]

I think uninspired "New" IPs like Dante´s Inferno are way worse for the consumers , than actual sequels.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

There sequels to good games that we enjoyed. We wanted to see these games and were proably gonna enjoy them. Also, I don't see how one sequel is considered milking.

 

[The_ModeRazor]

Just because they're sequels, doesn't mean they're bad.
Actually, often they are better than the original.

 

[BaldursBananaSoap]

But the thing with new IPs these days is that they're just clones of other games; but don't pull off what they were copying too well. Take Dante's Inferno for example: It clearly draws it's inspiration from God of War, but it severly lacks the epic scale and refinement that we've come to expect from Santa Monica Studios, so a lot of people end up going for God of War and sticking with the formula that works and they know has had feedback and the ability to improve rather than buying a risky new ip that might not be as good as an established series. That's why there's very few new IPs and more sequels.

There are a few exceptions to this.

 

[Chrono180]

When I first saw this topic i thought it was about having to go REALLY BAD during a game...

OT: I think some sequels are good, but if you are remaking the same game for twenty years, then its bound to get old eventually (Zelda, in particular).

 

[Spiner909]

Sequels without numbers have less brand awareness.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

Well, there are two key elements that either make or break sequels:

Positive progression - Making the game more enjoyable, while adding new elements to expand on the previous title.

Knowing when to call it quits - Gauge the staying power of a series on overall quality, not sheer market value. I know the mission of any company is to make money, but there are better ways to do that than churning out the same old crap twenty times.

If they manage to keep it fresh, I'm all for long-running series (hell, Nintendo is built on this principle), but if your team is running low on ideas and energy, at least let the series go for a while. There's a reason Godzilla, of all things, lasted (and some speculate is still lasting) for fifty years, while it's only been 2 & 11/12ths and many are sick of the Transformers series already.

And, of the Original Poster's list, only Call of Duty 6 and Manhunt 2 aren't examples of steady progression from a solid base (and I should know, I've played and/or investigated all of them).

 

[Xanadu84]

Gameplay is improved in design through iteration and prototyping. A Sequel will likely have better game play, if it is not a complete milk it for all its worth job. It just loses some of the fresh impact, and sometimes treads too much familiar ground. Case in point: L4D2. Technically superior in every way, but for a lot of people, it tread too much familiar ground. Sequals in games are not as bad as sequals in movies, if the devs give a damn.

 

[agentmaine]

I don't know... Book series generally work best as trilogies, so I guess story-driven games generally aim for this as well... It's annoying when a sequel is the same game, but with better graphics, but if you split the story into 3 games, then you can get feedback and improve gameplay every time.

Kinda like what the Sands of Time trilogy did.

I liked the sands of time trilogies but the problem with video game trilogies is that the middle instalment can't provide closure but it also can't make that much new story so it pretty much slowly draw out the story put in place by the first game

 

[squid5580]

All these games were original IPs in the last few years (except COD4 MW). All of them were well received. It isn't like you don't see sequels to books and movies. People ask for them so they make them. They just happen to be coming out at around the same time as each other. Just like the first ones did. When we start seeing a bunch of 13s coming out at the same time then I'll be worried.

 

[Psychemaster]

Still, I'd rather see some new ideas rather than the same title we had last year with minor graphical and gameplay enhancements and a slightly larger number on the end.

EA Sports, I'm looking at you.

 

[RyQ_TMC]

I liked the sands of time trilogies but the problem with video game trilogies is that the middle instalment can't provide closure but it also can't make that much new story so it pretty much slowly draw out the story put in place by the first game

You can make it work if you plan the series outright as a trilogy, then story-wise it would work just like in literature, where each part has a role to play. Baldur's Gate did a good job in that area - the first game introduced you to the world, pitted you against Sarevok and revealed that you're a Bhaalspawn. The second had you learn that there are more like you and led you through unlocking and developing your divine powers. Finally, in Throne of Bhaal, you went through the world as a demigod, culminating in the defeat of the most powerful of all Bhaalspawn. Each part of the series also had the advantage of allowing you to play a more powerful character every time.

Gothic, on the other hand, has done it wrong. G1 had you escape from the Colony, G2 had you escape from Khorinis, G3 let you liberate or enslave Myrtana. There was a plot progression and the series was tied by a strong group of central characters, but the plot was basically telling you "so, you've defeated the evil... But it turns out there's an even greater evil, so go sort it out".

It's all down to writing whether the middle installment is just a big pause in the story or a satisfactory game with strong plot development.

 

[Jarek Mace]

Batman: Arkham Asylum 2!
Batman falls for the same trick again!

 

[Kiefer13]

The problem isn't sequels. The problem is sequels that are shit.

There is nothing wrong with good games receiving equally good (or sometimes better) sequels. The problem only begins when bad games get sequels, or good games get inferior sequels.

 

[Dekanah]

People like sequels. That's a fact.

For all their cries of "Oh, give us more originality!" and "Stop milking!" you still see sequels rake in absolutely disgusting amounts of money meaning that people still buy them.

Why stop something that people love and want to buy? That's terrible business sense and not the nicest move to make to your customers either.

What people like has caused wars and while I am not saying that sequels will cause a war, I am saying that just because people buy it does not mean it is good and i would argue that sequels have killed good things.
For example the Matrix was an amazing film that was followed up by a mediocre film that was followed up by an utter piece of shit.

Customers want sequels because of 2 reasons

1) They are afraid of something new or change in general
2) If it is bad, they can say "Oh i bought it because the first one was good so you can't call me stupid for buying it" and you can't use that excuse on non-sequels

That's terrible reasoning. look at all of the absolutely fantastic sequels out there, that by your reasoning should never have been made.

God of War, Ratchet and Clank, Baulder's Gate, Spiderman (#2, not 3) all have incredible sequels.

People want sequels because the first one was GOOD. Honestly the problem comes from people making crappy followups instead of putting work into them to make them good.

 

[Hiphophippo]

This is probably the best thread title ever.