What game do you think TRULY deserves a sequel or needs to be stopped.
- Thread starter theironbat46
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Can Crash Bandicoot Plese just stop now. he's had his moment let it rest.
On that note Ratchet and clank is also getting out of hand but i digress
On that note Ratchet and clank is also getting out of hand but i digress
This is all just my opinion so don't flame, someone really needs to put a bullet in clouds head...there are just to many games...its time for them to start killing off characters in Final Fantasy..they need to end it
i fixed your post there.L3m0n_L1m3 said:
OT: We NEED Mech Assault 3 to show all those FPS fanboys that there is greater things in life than 2 shotguns or whatever
We DONT need more Fifa or COD MW.
I like how most people are not basing their judgements on whether a sequel would work, but on the game franchises they personally like or dislike.
Halo 3 and Gears of War 2 both ended on a cliffhanger (Master Chief drifting toward an unknown planet and Marcus' Father being alive), therefore both need closure.
Bioshock is one of my all time favourites, Bioshock 2 is one of my most anticipated games ever. However, a sequel is not needed because the story finished with closure. That's not to say I am displeased that they are bringing one out though.
Halo 3 and Gears of War 2 both ended on a cliffhanger (Master Chief drifting toward an unknown planet and Marcus' Father being alive), therefore both need closure.
Bioshock is one of my all time favourites, Bioshock 2 is one of my most anticipated games ever. However, a sequel is not needed because the story finished with closure. That's not to say I am displeased that they are bringing one out though.
Any Nintendo game with more than 10 iterations and Final Fantasy need to be stopped. Yes, I know this will be blaspheme for some of you.
i wouldnt mind a portal sequal, but i do think that for fucks sake stop making more halo's and no more guitar hero for the love of god, why cant they just make the new songs DLC cos thats pretty much the only difference.
Neverwinter Nights 3, KOTOR 3, Jade Empire 2, Homeworld 3, Warcraft 4 after this i can die in pace.
But there's also nothing wrong in continuing a game franchise, as long as its good and has room for the inclusion of new ideas. Like GTA. I wouldn't mind seeing even 5 more of them over the next decade. When a game is sequelled just for the continuation of the story (trilogy-ness), that may look innocent but it is teetering over the edge into "release lots of games for more money" land, an act EA committed long ago. Games are not movies after all.pimppeter2 said:
I just want a band game with songs I'd want to hear more than once in a day.Furburt said:
As for games that shouldn't have anymore sequels? Anything from Westwood. I loved that company. They were my childhood savior. EA raped and pillaged their ideas to irrelevance at this point. CnC4 looks utterly retarded. Red Alert 3 completely missed the point and Command and Conquer 3 was about the tipping point of acceptability.
Games that I'd love a sequel for? Front mission games, mechwarrior games, breath of fire games, and basically anything from stardock (I got over the whole glenn beck support thing I still like them).
As long as it isn't as bad as NWN2.ALKATRAZACAZ said:
I consider Dragon Age to be NWN2 and just ignore the real one.
That's a fair statement, but I, for one, am sick and tired of video games suffering from Pirates of the Caribbean Syndrome. That is: they put out a single game that has a fully realized and concluded storyline, then realize they can milk some more cash out of it and decide to announce that it was actually the starting point of a trilogy (or, gods forbid, a franchise). What follows is an endless train of sub-par products, all of which are visually better than the original, but none of which are as cohesive storywise.cyber_andyy said:
There are exceptions to this, I think. Valve planned on making Half-Life 2 into an overarching story including Episode One through Three from the get-go. I don't agree with them breaking Half-Life 3 into three "Episodes" and then releasing them that way (considering that even Valve has admitted to this), but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Same sort of thing goes for Assassin's Creed: it is obvious that they had a very detailed backstory set out before they released the original. Some people might find the endings of both AC and AC2 frustrating because of the lack of closure they give, but I applaud Ubisoft Montreal for the balls it took for them to make that decision. Basically, they said: "Yes, this is a huge story. No, we're not giving you closure. There's more that we have to say. If you want to know more, buy the next game." That's how a real franchise should sell itself: you become so invested in the story that you want to find out what happens next, not just because you liked the gameplay of the original.
Long story short, games like Gears of War and Halo never needed sequels, but stories that need to be finished do. Of course, there are always exceptions to this (I'm fairly intrigued by BioShock 2), and there are a handful of worlds I would like to see explored more (inFamous, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Crysis, and so forth), but, in the grand scheme of things, a finished story needs no sequel.
Having said all that, they need to do another System Shock game with todays level of graphics. Could you imagine that?
I'm actually a compettitive CoD player and I think the game is great, with the right rules and not tactical insertions, shotguns, launchers, killstreaks, camping, bling, one man army, team deathmatch and heartbeat sensors. Add in more health, a respawn delay and make it 4v4 or 5v5 only and you got a good game. The reason it needs to be stopped is because CoD is more than a game now, it is ruining things for other games (as you can see by games being pushed back to 1st quarter 2010 because everyone will be on CoD), CoD is the most noob-friendly game on xbox or ps3. CoD was overpriced so other game developers will think to do the same because CoD did it and they got away with it, adding to the ever-rising costs of games. CoD was made for people who suck at games and will get a good feeling from getting some kills, fair enough but I'm better than this guyp ? the fuck did he just shotgun me across the map ?Sci-Fi luver437 said:
PS. Activision are money grabbing bastards, they won't publish a game unless it has a sequel planned and I bet you they release DLC with new gamemodes on it when actually these gamemodes are already on teh disc and you are paying money to play something you already own, like Re5's DLC.
PS.S. I do try to stay away from CoD (publics anyway) as much as I can but it is inevitable when all 3/4 of your friends play is only Mw2.
Criterion should do another shooter, though I'm undecided whether it should be a Black sequel or a new IP.
Gun could do with one too, but Neversoft are too occupied hammering out Guitar Hero games. Shame really.
Gun could do with one too, but Neversoft are too occupied hammering out Guitar Hero games. Shame really.
Well, you clearly arn't a business man. Lets say you could make 210$ per customer or 70$ per customer, for about the same amount of work. Which would you choose? 210$ no shit.pimppeter2 said:
So lets say you have a big trilogy like Halo. Sure you could do it in one game, or you could do it in three. Each will require roughly the same amount of programming. However, if you only make 1, you only get to charge them 70$ once. If you make three, you get to charge them 70$ three times. Thats a 200% profit increase.
It's jusrt business trying to take more of our money, and they will keep doing it until sequels become unprofitable.
I'm not saying that trilogies should be cut down to one game. All I'm saying is that not every game should become a trilogy.TheGreatCoolEnergy said:
We dont need(read: want) a Wet 2 and a Wet 3. But we will probably get one anyway because every game is being made into a trilogy nowadays. Even games that have no reason to be made into trilogies. (story wise)