The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Video Game Sequels - How Much is Too Much?
Shayriela
Registered User new member
Registered User new member
I'm curious about something: the video game industry has been criticized for simply cranking out sequel after sequel with nothing new or creative. Yet some argue that these long running franchises have dedicated fans who want to continue to play within these specific, established franchises. Others say companies brand a game with a big name so they can make a profit without needing to be creative or innovative (I'm looking at you CoD). So are sequels a bad thing? Are they making our gaming experience narrow and repetitive? Or does getting to immerse yourself again and again in a world that is familiar remain fun and interesting?
Discuss!
Discuss!
0
Posts
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Think about that.
Yes.
Ok. They probably don't need to do annual releases, but you know that pretty much every other version has major feature changes, right? There's way more to modern sports sims than the on-field stuff.
I disagree, but whatever.
Games that just have a skeleton story like most platformers or shumps can have sequels in perpetuity as long as the gameplay is good IMO.
I'd love a Gradius VI on any console.
When your latest entry in the series is the videogame adaptation of an inevitable box-office failure adapted loosely from the first game in the series, it's time to put the franchise out of its misery.
Very true! They are using an existing framework to implement these new ideas, though in the case of some franchises (Mario, Zelda) this method may have some degree of success.
Somewhere, in a parallel universe, a video game forum is tittering over this post, whispers of "fuckin' casuals" delivered and received in equal measure
On the black screen
...are sequels a bad thing?
This can't really be answered with a "yes" or "no", seeing as each video game franchise has their own separate set of circumstances, but in today's industry, we can generalize and say yes, sequels are a bad thing, but, they haven't always been. I believe that if a sequel improved upon it's predecessor's mechanics, while contributing a significant amount to the franchise's story, then it can be considered a good sequel. But lately, we've seen that the video game industry isn't about the consumer anymore; it's about the profitability of a game, and if a formula of game mechanics work, then you bet that we'll see more of it in sequels, or even "copycats".
Are they making our gaming experience narrow and repetitive?
In my opinion, this question probably exemplifies a pessimistic, but true opinion. Yes, sequels narrow our experience, but, we have to think that we still have a choice in the games we play. We aren't forced to narrow our gaming horizons, but in a way, the crop of games to choose from does get narrowed by sequels. Again, the industry is more about profitability than ever, and if they see a formula that works, then the developer will keep pumping it out until they find another.
...does getting to immerse yourself again and again in a world that is familiar remain fun and interesting?
This depends on your initial immersion to the game itself. We see something like the world of Tamriel, and of course we get immersed in every Elder Scrolls "sequel", but if we play with a game which bores us in terms of its setting, then it wont be fun, no matter how many sequels are there, or whether they are there at all. Immersion factor isn't an objective factor, so I can't really judge. It's like saying that games aren't fun anymore, when our ideas of fun differ individually.
There are a jillion new franchises out there.
A good game is a good game. Sequel or not.
There are plenty of fictional universes out there with scope for practically infinate sequels if they have writers good enough to continue the story in an entertaining way. It's completly subjective as far as I'm concerned, if I enjoy a game I don't much care how many numbers are at the end of its name, equally I won't give a bad game a free pass because a previous game with the same name was good.
Can you even call Sports Game 2013 a sequel to Sports Game 2012? You certainly don't call this years season a sequel to last years.
Bioshock Infinite is a sequel to Bioshock and outdoes it in every way, while feeling like a totally new game. I feel like it's Bioshock 1 heritage is a big part of why I like it so much, and if I didn't have the first game to contrast to I wouldn't love Infinite quite as much as I do. But then, there aren't many franchises that handle sequels like this. See Bioshock 2. :I
For example, I think that most of the Madden games would be fine with a major release every few years (maybe once or twice per console generation) and DLC / expansions to update the rosters and add the few minor features and tweaks.
On the other hand, some sequels are great. For example, I'm very glad that Microprose released TFTD, even if it wasn't much more than a pallet swap with the original X-Com. Or that id released Doom 2, even though it was little more than an expansion pack of Doom. You can find more than a handful of recent games that stand on their own, but a casual player wouldn't even know they were different games. Borderlands pops into my head, but I'm sure if I thought about it I could come up with more.
As a PC gamer who buys most of their games on sale, on Steam, I'm probably bothered less by unnecessary sequels than many people, especially console gamers. There are very few games I pay the full retail $60 for at release... After all, if there are a few versions of the game out, it usually means I can pick up the original game (even if it's relatively recent) for five or ten bucks if I wait for a sale. Or, I can usually get a 'franchise pack' that will let me get two games and their DLC - usually for less than the price of one game.
I don't know - I find more games is a good thing, even if it's basically the same game with a few minor tweaks / improvements that wouldn't even qualify as an expansion in the old days. My mileage would probably vary if I was a console gamer who didn't have the same purchase options, or I was a person who buys games soon after release.
Sequels allow you to distill the core concept, add in new elements that the originals would have been better for, and jettison elements that didn't work, and refine elements that could have worked better.
Granted, there are a lot of franchises that are just being wrung out and milked for the revenue stream. Nintendo, I'm looking at you.
It's only been the most recent generation of consoles where there is anything resembling ubiquitous internet connectivity and digital distribution methods. Even then, that's been more the later part of this generation and quite a few users still aren't connected.
In the last generation, hard drives weren't even a standard feature. I think the XBox had a small / medium sized (for the time) HDD, but the PS2 needed an expansion. The game was what was on the disk, and that was it. Might as well be a cartridge except cheaper to manufacture.
With those limitations, anything - even the most simple patches, additional content, or roster updates become incredibly difficult to distribute. If you are releasing a 'roster update' for Madden, you are going to need to press, package, and distribute it anyway to reach most of your market. If you're going through that much trouble, it only makes sense to go whole hog - throw a new year on it and sell it for full retail price.
I think we would / will see things change a bit with respect to sequels as / when most of the market (including consoles) have internet capability, but even then, it'll be a while before most users have the broadband connections you need for a true digital distribution model. After all, in most cases releasing a $25 expansion instead of a full retail new game is cheaper - since you don't need the same marketing and manufacturing effort.
Well, I do remember Sega attempting to do the updates with 2K's football games, even during mid-season with injuries, but the updates couldn't be used in online games.
Edit: On the Dreamcast.
For me I like the certain sense of nostalgia of revisiting a world I already know, and going back to something that I enjoyed in the past.
WoW
Dear Satan.....
O_o
To each his own, I guess. But as someone who loves Fallout 1 & 2, and Wasteland before them, I still regard Fallout 3 as a masterpiece, and actually remember the originals even more fondly because of the way FO3 expanded upon the setting and avoided the trap of repeating Black Isle's excessive self-aware humor.
Oddly enough, I'm a huge fan of the original Fallouts, Wasteland, and Mines of Titan (anyone else remember that?), and I didn't like Fallout 3 or Fallout: New Vegas. Sorry Chris Avellone. It's not your fault.
Then you have the Call of Duty series...
With film, you have to keep the story fresh. With games, while keeping the story fresh is certainly a plus, it's more about the interactive experience. The Mario series (the main platforming series, not counting offshoots like Mariokart, Marioparty, etc) has had the same basic story since its inception, yet each game adds new elements, and often provides an experience far beyond what the previous game was capable of. It would be insanity to suggest that Mario 3 and Super Mario 64 were remotely the same experience. Both are great, and both have similar stories, but they provide extremely different experiences.
The interactive element of games is what sets them apart, and sadly, many developers in their strive to make games more 'cinematic' have gotten away from that. Game are at their best when they embrace that. Whether it be a game that has very little narrative like Mario, or a game that uses narrative in a way that probably wouldn't work in film, like Portal (the interactive component in Portal keeps the player engaged for several hours, which are needed to build the game's narrative, while a film would struggle to keep the viewer's attention while building the same sort of world and intrigue). The portal story works so much better as a slow build, and with gradual player discovery. While it could probably be adapted as a film, it honestly works much better over the longer period of time that can only be provided through interactive player interest.
Video game sequels are often used poorly (Madden, Guitar Hero past 3, Tony Hawk past 4, etc), but when done well, with an actual creative interest, there's far more potential for interesting long running series than there is with film, film being better suited to a small number of installments.
It seems like a huge portion of the disdain for sequelitis has crystallized around the once beloved CoD franchise, but why is that exactly? I get that the way Activision treated Infinity Ward was terrible, and it looks like the former heads are going to seriously get paid (if they haven't already), but are the modern CoDs that bad? I played the original+expansion, 2, skipped three, played the shit out of MW, and beat MW2, and they've always struck me as great linear shooters polished to a mirror sheen that successfully combine spectacle with an extremely refined shooting mechanic. If it's not your thing, it's not your thing, but the amount of hatred the series generates utterly confounds me.
On the black screen
Yeah I've picked one up every two or three years. Had fun every time. Not enough to want one every year but evidently some people do so, you know, whatever.
Everybody's rockin' legends and she gets a Jigglypuff?