Where are you going to draw the line?

[Blame it on Ben]

It is well know by now that Halo Reach and Black Ops are the top selling games of this year. I think most people would also agree that they are not radically different form there predecessors.

When are you going to draw the line and stop buying sequels that have so much in relation that you deem it not worth buying?

 

[icame]

If someone wants to spend their money on something whether its the same thing they bought last year or not, that's their choice and you don't have a right to tell them not too.

 

[Infinatex]

When they are no longer fun. Black Ops has been out for a week now and I have put a full day and a half of game-time into it. If it wasn't engaging then I definitely would not have done so.

 

[Lyx]

"They" will change their thinking, when others tell them to think different. The majority just follows orders.

 

[TheHecatomb]

What, in a "Let's all base our opinions on online reviews and declare games not worthy of buying before we've actually tried them!!11" kind of way?

You can't really tell if a sequel is a 'bedazzled version' unless you've tried it, and if you've tried it, it should mean you've already bought it.

Besides, most people love those games, face it. The big buying masses don't consider them bad games.

 

[Treeinthewoods]

When they stop being so incredibly fun? That would make me stop buying.

Originality is nice but the deciding factor in any game should always be fun uber alles.

 

[Diablo27]

Sure the game engine is no different but Black Ops and Halo Reach are unmeasurable amounts more fun than their predecessors. Though it's all a matter of a opinion.

 

[Kapol]

I like the two examples you gave, although for different reasons. I'd say the main reason I personally don't deviate too far from what I know is because money is tight. I can't afford to spend $60 on a game I might like when I can get an upgraded version of a game I know I like, like Fallout New Vegas. Unless I hear that a game is great on a near-universal level, I'm likely not going to buy it unless I have a decent idea of what to expect.

 

[Nincompoop]

An already good game with improvements or more material is often the best thing you can get.

 

[voetballeeuw]

We're going to draw the line in the sand? I don't know. But seriously do we need another let's bash Halo or COD thread, again? The majority of people find them enjoyable, so let them pay for the game. If they enjoy the game, then they can play.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Here's a radical thought: Why don't you just play something else? It's not like there is a shortage of selection.

People will buy what they want.

 

[schrodingerscat]

If you're so pissed off that games aren't original anymore, then go out and make one that is. In the meantime, stop whining.

 

[Rednog]

Very few sequels are radically different from their previous incarnation. I mean why mess with something that works? The logical/safe way to make a game is to go with what you know and improve it. Hell Nintendo has been riding that horse for a long long time.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. But don't drop your flag into the ground and try to speak for all gamers, we don't all like what you do and no one should have to like what you like.
I used to love JRPGs, but then I thought the genre got stale/stagnant, I stopped giving them my money and I drop berate anyone who continues to support them.

 

[Frotality]

its because gamers arent buying them and making them popular, the parents of snotty children are buying them and making them popular. children base their assumptions of whats worth playing based on impenetrable cycles of cultural stupidity. for those actual gamers that follow these titles and figure its worth their time based on a logical deduction, more power to them, but as long as children are allowed to roam free and parents allowed to have no sense of responsibility for their blind-leading-the-blind behaviour, CoD and Halo will keep on making sequels that improve jack shit.

 

[Kurokami]

It is well know by now that Halo Reach and Black Ops are the top selling games of this year. I think most people would also agree that they are not radically different form there predecessors.

When are gamers going to draw the line and stop buying sequels that are simply bedazzled versions of the previous game?

Story changes in both, I don't support those games as I don't enjoy them, but others who do have no reason to 'draw the line' there. They are sufficiantly different to warrent being sequels for fans.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

I don't agree that Halo Reach and CoD Black Ops need to be radically different from their predecessors.

There seems to be this assumption that shaking up the formula would be a good thing in gaming right now, but I couldn't agree less. I tend to equate these things to movies so I'll take some good examples.

The Matrix shook things up radically for the sequels, allowing the philosophical undertone to become the focus of the movies instead of the action sequences which had made them famous. They brought in a lot more characters to meet and greet, the dialogue took up most of the movie and showed that actually it was never the best written story ever. The seuqles were critically panned and generally publically panned as well.

The Terminator films kept things pretty much within the same context, robot soldier comes back from the future to kill the human resistance before it begins, good soldier sent back to prevent it from happening. That is the story, both times, of the first two movies. You know, the ones that did well and everyone praised for the second one being better than the first.

Keeping things similar is the best way to keep an audience. If Halo and CoD had changed anything dramatically they would be getting pilloried for having changed too much from their original material.

Game developers are damned if they do and damned if they don't, but at least if they stick with what's familiar to the majority of their customer base then they will still sell games, and the only people who will care are people who come and whine about it on internet forums.

 

[Snake Plissken]

They'll stop buying them as soon as you stop pissing and moaning like a sissy. Go on now, stop pissing and moaning.

 

[BenzSmoke]

I think one of the problems is that a lot of the folks that buy those endless sequels aren't "gamer nerds" like you and me. They just buy the game to entertain them. They don't care about innovation or games that stimulate the player mentally. They don't associate games with art.
All they want is to shoot the bad guys and watch things go boom.

Another problem is that publishers don't want to green light innovative titles out of fear of loosing money. So they stick with previously lucrative franchises/games because they know those will make money, even if they're not innovative.
"Why change what people will pay for?" is a publisher's mentality.

If you want innovation keep an eye on indie games.

 

[VZLANemesis]

It is well know by now that Halo Reach and Black Ops are the top selling games of this year. I think most people would also agree that they are not radically different form there predecessors.

When are gamers going to draw the line and stop buying sequels that are simply bedazzled versions of the previous game?

While I see your point... Halo seems like a very good attempt to innovate at the same time as providing more of the same that it's audience wants. Good single player, good multiplayer, many different modes, many graphical changes, doesn't have to go the "controversy" way to get attention.

So... I respect Halo Reach as a really good game.

COD on the other hand. Its the same game released a year ago, with minor changes and a single player that is just plain shit.
Money grubbing bastards are getting away with it only because the consumers want THE POPULAR MP GAME. It's excessively absurd system for me.. but then again, even I buy into the hype some and I'm a 25 year old professional. So.. kids pretty much don't stand a chance against so much advertising and peer pressure.

I think one of the problems is that a lot of the folks that buy those endless sequels aren't "gamer nerds" like you and me. They just buy the game to entertain them. They don't care about innovation or games that stimulate the player mentally. They don't associate games with art.
All they want is to shoot the bad guys and watch things go boom.

Very good point.