What is with the hate on sequels?

[migo]

I see this as a major complaint quite often, that companies are putting out too many sequels and not creating enough new IPs, but this just doesn't make any sense to me.

Little Big Planet was good, but LBP2 shows every sign of being totally awesome.
Uncharted was good, but Uncharted 2 is the game that everyone is really raving about.
Doom was good, but Doom 2 was a lot more fun.
Modnation Racers really needs a sequel as it needs some refinement to the great ideas.

I can keep going with examples really - it's quite common for the sequel to be much better than the original, so why the hate for them?

I know I've been waiting a long time for Descent 4 and Thief 4.

 

[Phlakes]

People think that every single game that comes out should be original. Because apparently if a game is good, they should never make more of it. Although there are some like Bioshock 2 that are obvious cash-grabs.

 

[Irridium]

The problem isn't with sequels, but with how so many sequels don't introduce anything new. I don't mind endless sequels, so long as the games have something to differentiate themselves.

Instead of offering a different experience, all most seem to do is just add new weapons/maps.

 

[supermariner]

granted yes, sequels can be a marked improvement on the original
BUT it's equally common for them to be a rushed, not-as-planned-out, uninspired crap

Resi Evil 5 is a perfect example. It realised that 4 was a massive hit and widely acknowledged to be the best in the series and so they churned out a game as similar as possible which was nowhere near as original or even as fun

I agree a lot of sequels are better than their predecessors
so as long as the hate on sequels is directed at a specific kind of game and not generally then no arguement can really be made

it's all subjective anyway i suppose
i personally would consider Assassins Creed 2 to be better than 1
others may not.

 

[SomeLameStuff]

Quite a few sequels are just basically the original game with a fresh coat of paint. Also, the story of the sequel can get really really stupid.

And also, make the game series long enough and continuity errors would start slipping in, and people would start bitching.

 

[FalseMemorySyndrome]

I really don't see how people can call Bioshock 2 a bad game without them just wanking to the first game, sorry.

Bioshock 2 had a more engaging plot, a antagonist I truly wanted to stop, better gameplay, more story, better characters (besides Andrew Ryan, ofc) and by the end a lot more emotional. By the final few stages of the game I truly wanted to save Ellanor and prevent her implied fate if you failed. Bioshock 2 was a much better game, imo. It just didn't have any "OMGWTF" moments like the first game.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

There is so little that distinguishes Doom 2 from the original that it seems wrong to call it anything other than an expansion. All you gain is a better shotgun and a few new enemy types which are closely related to enemies that were already in the game.

Personally, I have no problem with sequels for the most part. Iteration allows a developer to edge closer to perfection which is as laudable as innovation. Were we only to get innovation in our games we would be constantly dealing with games that had a great idea but were fundamentally broken in ways. Were we only to iterate all we would have for our troubles is a variety of simple platformers and the like.

 

[Serenegoose]

I don't dislike sequels. I dislike the dominance sequels have over other games, because it stifles creativity. They have their place, some are good, but I'd rather have a lot more games that aren't sequels.

 

[The Night Shade]

I don't care if a videogame or movie franchise has like a million sequels if they are good i'll watch/play them

 

[LawlessSquirrel]

It's not that sequels are bad, in fact many sequels are good because they're a chance to expand on an idea, theme or story. The issue is the overuse of sequels.

Keep in mind that sequels have their own problems. A sequel can't deviate too much from it's predecessor, so the amount of innovation is more limited than an original game. Sequels, by nature, make for less innovative ideas. There's also the issue of isolating new players, and being made more with fans in mind than quality a lot of the time.

That said, there are advantages. Established worlds, learning from your mistakes etc. etc. But an oversaturation of sequels is a big problem to anyone trying to get their ideas heard or anyone wanting to try something new or 'revolutionary'.

It's the same problem as in movies, where sequels get piled out until the series is dead just because it's less risky financially. Sequels gradually take away from the series the more there is, because it's rare that an idea is built to be spread so thin.

To sum up: Sequels are made because they're low risk, and publishers are less likely to take a higher-risk option when that's available. It stunts creative growth.

 

[P.Tsunami]

I didn't know there was a big hate-on for sequels. Generally speaking, the video games and movie industry operate very differently when it comes to sequels; a movie sequel tends to be blander and less original than the first game, and very often is rushed out as a cash-grab more than anything else (remember, I said tends to. There are a lot of serviceable examples to the opposite). Video game sequels, though, tends to have ironed out a lot of gameplay issues that holds the first game back. That's why you see plenty of series where sequels often overshadow their earlier installments.

 

[Netrigan]

With video games, I find the second installment is usually the more enjoyable. I think they have benefit of hindsight and can adjust the game to take advantage of things that work, get rid of things that didn't, and add features they didn't have the time or money to add the first time around.

But the more games in a franchise, the less likely anything of note will come out of it. I'll give them the third game as a victory lap or to wrap up plot threads, but few games justify their existence creatively after the third game.

 

[GiantRaven]

I have nothing against sequels. I'd just like to see more newer series be created.

 

[Moeez]

You can never win people with sequels. Sometimes, they changed too much. People don't like change. Sometimes not enough.

Sequels might lose the "newness", but there are some where they totally change it and I love it (Far Cry 2; Splinter Cell Conviction; Prince of Persia; yeah I like Ubisoft so screw you).

 

[Zeetchmen]

I feel the main gripe is that companies are selling what are little more than expansions packs as "sequels" for full game price.

I.E ACreedBro, New Vegas,Blops, etc

 

[Netrigan]

I feel the main gripe is that companies are selling what are little more than expansions packs as "sequels" for full game price.

I.E ACreedBro, New Vegas,Blops, etc

I thought Vegas had more than enough content to justify the price tag. Sure, it didn't really change all that much, but it's a damn big game with no overt connection to Fallout 3.

Bioshock 2 ended up playing like a long add-on, but I thought the improved game mechanics and emotional story made it worth it.

I'm a bit leary of Brotherhood because it sounds like it's a bit too close to AC2. But it was pretty much presented as a full price add-on.

 

[TheDooD]

sequels turn out hate because they either cater to the original fanbase by adding on what they'll like. Or a sequel can cater the game in the way that attracts new fans to the series. Both can turn out good or bad depending on the development process. It's all based on the quality of the game as the whole and sheer luck that a sequel would be loved or hated.

 

[Lord Kloo]

My 'good' example of how sequels can be good:

The Dawn of war to DoW2, a massive change in gameplay, different stories and different looks, this is how sequels should act..

An example of a 'bad' sequel:

The first three games of the COD series, almost exactly the same and very little difference apart from a minor graphics improvement and a changing health model..

 

[migo]

You can never win people with sequels. Sometimes, they changed too much. People don't like change. Sometimes not enough.

Sequels might lose the "newness", but there are some where they totally change it and I love it (Far Cry 2; Splinter Cell Conviction; Prince of Persia; yeah I like Ubisoft so screw you).

I disagree. Well done sequels will keep existing fans happy while making new fans thanks to the improved gameplay. Mirror's Edge 2 will likely be in there. People who liked ME liked it because of its uniqueness, but nobody disagrees that there were some significant flaws in gameplay and design. If those get ironed out, the people who are more in it for the gameplay or story will be happy, while those who liked the free running aspect will still have their fun.