What's Your Opinion On Sequels? - CHAT WITH THE STAFF!

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

While [Vice City]'s gameplay mechanics may not have changed much the story and the environment were a huge innovation. Sure it was basically just GTA III with a coat of 80's paint on it, but what a coat of paint! In my mind that game was a huge innovation in the sense that it tied videogames directly to pop cultural history. You're in the car listening to 80's music, wearing the styles of the time, living in an iconic 80's city. GTA 3 was a really generic experience compared to this, it didn't evoke culture at large, at least not to the same extent. That's a worth use of a sequel to me and in some ways, even though something like MGS4 made major gameplay changes, what GTA does is harder because they are tasked with nothing less than recreating an entire world from scratch with each iteration, even if the gameplay is largely the same.

I'd like to argue the flip-side of this, though. Even with an award-winning atmosphere and feel to a game (which I'll admit is a positively pivotal part of immersion), gameplay should still be called for improvement. Even little things (like the addition of motorcycles) helped Vice City quite a bit, but even in building a new world from the foundation up may not merit a full sequel.

Sequels are good because they can encourage innovation in gameplay without calling for a brand new system. While building a world can be (and in this case, is) a part of that, gameplay would remain stale as a whole if atmospheric changes were the only ones we called for from sequels. It's a good start, but I would argue that it's not always enough.

 

[Hamsterlad]

Sequels are not bad. It is to give more to the fans to what they really want. Is a story line like the last game with the the same people in it to re live the experience. Or to finnish up a story from the previous game. So what I am trying to say is that sequels are part of the industry to make more money as the big corps are entitled to do so. Also I feel that the sequels should have good story lines as well.

But there is the point were it gets annoying. Like DMC or God of War, when the story line is forgotten during the gameplay and even then the game wasn't that good. There was no point to make sequels there.

But in closing sequels are not bad, if used properly.

 

[Sion_Barzahd]

Sequels can be something great, i can think of many sequels that i truely love. Although they are never really as good as the original.

Also, way too many sequels are just the original game in a different location and bring very little new material to the game.
Just made for a quick buck or two.

 

[[Gavo]]

I have two mindsets of sequels.

The first is the normal money-scam that many companies do, make a crappy sequel to a successful original, however, I don't mind it. But when it's like Final Fantasy XXIIV, then it get annoying. Franchising is another thing altogether, but I'm not going to get into that.

However, there are some amazing sequels such as Half-Life 2 and System Shock 2, that expand on the original story. So, in the end, I like sequels.

 

[Iampringles]

I don't mind sequels.

Sequels can bring us truly good games, and sometimes are superior to their predecessors.

 

[shadow skill]

I think Sequels are fine as long as they are done properly and don't cause the game or other item to lose it's own identity. A sequel may give a game a new identity however, again only if done correctly. One of the shining examples of a equel done correctly has to be Metal Gear Solid 4. Another great example is Zone of the Enders 2, this game made the original game look like a demo for it rather than the first game in the series.