The "Pensioner" era of gaming?

[Joshua Bryan]

We were all kids once (if not still a little twerp at this current moment) and most of us grew up to to morph into fully-fledged gamers. As gamers, we have all come from being complete noobs to potentially gods of our favored gaming platforms. On the way there have been titles that stood out amongst them all, games that we cherish and enjoy replaying every once in awhile, that we worship. This of course is crucial in a gamer, having some games that even decades later will give us the best time we've ever had in virtual reality!
But, what trend has been created by our worship for games?

Usually when a brand new game is released it has to prove itself to us as a worthy member of our gaming vaults of glory. If this is done successfully to a mass audience then you can bet your ass a sequel will emerge in the coming years! I personally like to see a second title in a good game series because it's a chance for the dev's to take what the first game has showed them and learn from it, morphing the game into something that could be considered perfection; fixing up what went wrong, continuing what may have been a beautiful and enticing story line, perfecting a potentially unique game play style. These are some of the things we expect in a sequel and a lot of titles benefit from undergoing this process, becoming more popular then before.
Not all sequels were made to see the light of day due to various reasons (un-needed/been there done that, rushed at the last minute, first game wasn't worthy of it anyway so stop trying to milk us for cash!) but generally sequels are most welcomed.

Then comes the third in a series. Sometimes a third game overstays this welcome, other trilogy concluding titles leave us satisfied with a final installment that has blown our minds and must never be continued for fear of destroying that feeling. This however is where a problem starts.

This trend I'd like to talk about is sequels. They're nothing new, but lately it's like the gaming industry is dominated by sequels. There's easily more sequels, remakes and reboots being released than there is new, fresh, innovative games. Not to name any names, but by the 4th, 5th, 6th and bloody 7th time you release the same title it starts to get stale. Sometimes even embarrassing. This is what I mean by "pensioner", taking a game that's had its glory and trying to give it even more, in the process defiling the roots of the series.
Is it just me, or is this happening all the bloody time?
I love seeing some of my more favorite game characters continue to do what they do but it's either going to get old fast or just fail to be better than what I've previously enjoyed from their series.
I like to think we're in an era of "pensioners", attempting to be metaphoric for games that have had their time and aren't getting any better with all these sequels, reboots and remakes. It's a trend that needs to stop and I'd like to think it's been caused by us as a gaming community. Some titles may not be long enough yet to have this effect but I believe these sequels are spawning partly because the gamers that worshiped them have gotten in on making them and in their own little way are continuing to worship titles by making sequels. (to pick on one particular series; halo.) Of course there's the "milking us for money" motive too.

Does anyone else agree? Or has this been a constant trend since the dawn of gaming? (I can't proudly proclaim that I've gamed as long as virtual gaming has been alive unfortunately)

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

Sequels are a much safer bet for a publisher than a new IP. In today's generation of massive overbloated marketing budgets and huge publishers, you are going to say a lot of safe easy bets for them. They don't want to risk it all on a new IP, they want a safe return on their money. That means Dead Space 6, Call of Duty 19, Battlefield 42 1/2.
Expect to mostly see new IP in the realm of Kickstarters and independent development.
You also can partially blame this on gamers as they are the ones that buy those sequels because they recognize the name and want to play it because they liked prior games in the series. New IP on the other hand, is something that a lot of gamers might pass over to get something they are more comfortable with. Again, because otherwise it is a risk for them at 60 dollars.

 

[Bertylicious]

It's an interesting observation. Sequels = franchises and franchises tend to be the hallmark of your big publishers.

Back in the day of the Commodore and the Spectrum I don't recall much in the way of franchises, but you did have the likes of Wizardry one quillion and Ultima 9 - Deluxe edition on the PC. Those weren't so much franchises though so much as... wossname... like when someone with OCD keeps remaking a bed in order to get it just right, only more like a craftsman trying to make the perfect cukkoo clock.

I recall Franchises really taking off (in gaming) with the birth of consoles and Brand War.

 

[DoPo]

It is not constrained to gaming - movies also suffer from it. Well, maybe not as much nowadays (I haven't been really keeping up) but at least few years ago it was surely the case that a lot of sequels and otherwise movies related to a franchise were coming out. I find the gaming industry is somewhat close to the movie one in some ways and this seems to be one of them (also - "second title may be better but the third one probably sucks" thing? My father was going on about it in relation to...forget the movie but it was a long time ago.). They also do share some aspects...albeit maybe forced - gaming is taking up after movies, maybe as the closest thing it can emulate rather than just "wing it" all the way. Maybe there are other reasons, too, but I don't want to dwell on those.

Bottom line, it's not that much of a gaming thing but it is a thing in media.

 

[porous_shield]

I tend to not like sequels for the reasons you describe. A game has to be made in a certain way to allow for the existence of a sequel but the problem is that many don't have a certain future so they make a game that can stand on its own. The problem with that is it doesn't always allow for the existence of a sequel if the story threads are all tied up so the story for the sequel ends up jarring and grasping at straws to make sense. I think Resident Evil is the best example of this with its horribly convoluted story. One of the best things about Resident Evil 4 was that it broke away from all that story luggage only for Resident Evil 5 and 6 to bring it all back again.

 

[Joshua Bryan]

I tend to not like sequels for the reasons you describe. A game has to be made in a certain way to allow for the existence of a sequel but the problem is that many don't have a certain future so they make a game that can stand on its own. The problem with that is it doesn't always allow for the existence of a sequel if the story threads are all tied up so the story for the sequel ends up jarring and grasping at straws to make sense. I think Resident Evil is the best example of this with its horribly convoluted story. One of the best things about Resident Evil 4 was that it broke away from all that story luggage only for Resident Evil 5 and 6 to bring it all back again.

I totally agree with your opinion of Res4 <3 (and to my own knowledge to 2/3 new installments weren't very good)
I came into the series with that particular title and LOVED IT! I'm glad that's the first time I played a resident evil game and all RES' story aside, it holds up really well on it's own.

 

[Joshua Bryan]

Sequels are a much safer bet for a publisher than a new IP. In today's generation of massive overbloated marketing budgets and huge publishers, you are going to say a lot of safe easy bets for them. They don't want to risk it all on a new IP, they want a safe return on their money. That means Dead Space 6, Call of Duty 19, Battlefield 42 1/2.
Expect to mostly see new IP in the realm of Kickstarters and independent development.
You also can partially blame this on gamers as they are the ones that buy those sequels because they recognize the name and want to play it because they liked prior games in the series. New IP on the other hand, is something that a lot of gamers might pass over to get something they are more comfortable with. Again, because otherwise it is a risk for them at 60 dollars.

I completely agree and at the time of writing I failed to realised that half the problem is that we let these things happen (as consumers) by going along with it (see also: Online DRM, Access passes, etc)
The issue is partly that when we see the sequels to a title we've loved before (For me, Halo 4 was a killer letdown) we immediately either want to see our beloved characters continue their stories, or just want to enjoy more of what the title has had to offer in previous installments.
Honestly, maybe we should just chuck all new games to the reviewers to maul over abit first (YAHTZEE for one), see what they think, then we'll decide if we want a shiny new (maybe even fresh) jewel in a series, or cast aside the stale husk of the sequel. Essentially game reviews should be done well before games are released (similiar to what movie critics do)