Are Sequels Ruining Gaming?
0
Games have been coming out in greater and greater quantity and us fan’s couldn’t be happier; but are we really getting a thousand new games or just a thousand remakes. If you think about what games you want the most this year do not most if not all of them have 2’s, 3’s or 4’s on the end? Here is just a small list of game sequals coming out this year. Madden NFL 10, Tiger Woods PGA TOUR 10 , Fight Night Round 4, Halo 3: ODST, Lost Planet 2, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Mass Effect 2 , Modern Warfare 2 , Tekken 6, Left for Dead 2, Bio Shock 2, Assassin Creed 2, God of War 3. This is just a small number of the sequels coming out this year.
Is this what video games are about, playing Halo 54 and COD 67 years from now? Was it not the original game play, and thrilling new stories that drew us to these games? Dose this not confine some of the best developers like Infinity Ward, Valve, Blizzard, Epic Games, Ect… to only one or two works of art? Epic games has been stuck remaking Unreal Tournament for years; their newsiest franchise Gears of War looks to trap them in the same slump. Game developer Infinity Ward has one series Call of Duty and nothing else. Have we not trapped these great minds to a one way of thinking?
There is of course games that have improved after it’s sequels like GTA, Resident Evil, The Legend of Zelda, Call of Duty, Silent Hill; but is this really worth a decreasing number of new and exciting games? Do we not all want new ways of gamming look at Portal was that not a phenomenal achievement for game play? What made Portal so good was because it broke game play barriers on how movement in games should be; it blew our minds having us jump though a portal and end up half way across the map. When shooter’s went “live” on the internet was it not amazing to fight people around the world? Have we now reached a point where gaming will always be the same?
Even so we are lucky enough to have a plethora of gaming companies at our despoil so the new games will hopefully never end, but it is the great companies who suffer the most by this, their creativity snuffed by constant sequels.
Is this what video games are about, playing Halo 54 and COD 67 years from now? Was it not the original game play, and thrilling new stories that drew us to these games? Dose this not confine some of the best developers like Infinity Ward, Valve, Blizzard, Epic Games, Ect… to only one or two works of art? Epic games has been stuck remaking Unreal Tournament for years; their newsiest franchise Gears of War looks to trap them in the same slump. Game developer Infinity Ward has one series Call of Duty and nothing else. Have we not trapped these great minds to a one way of thinking?
There is of course games that have improved after it’s sequels like GTA, Resident Evil, The Legend of Zelda, Call of Duty, Silent Hill; but is this really worth a decreasing number of new and exciting games? Do we not all want new ways of gamming look at Portal was that not a phenomenal achievement for game play? What made Portal so good was because it broke game play barriers on how movement in games should be; it blew our minds having us jump though a portal and end up half way across the map. When shooter’s went “live” on the internet was it not amazing to fight people around the world? Have we now reached a point where gaming will always be the same?
Even so we are lucky enough to have a plethora of gaming companies at our despoil so the new games will hopefully never end, but it is the great companies who suffer the most by this, their creativity snuffed by constant sequels.
0
I don't mind sequels at all. I don't think it is fair to say that the increase in sequels is hurting innovation and new IPs. I think there are fewer new IPs because new gaming developers just aren't taking those risks. It isn't really the fault of popular gaming developers just creating sequel after sequel.
0
I'd like to add something to this and ask people responding to this a question before they respond.
1. Do you own Psychonauts (Main character is Raz)?
If you do then you should be proud of yourself for you will help game developers take a chance on creating new IP's, or so it would be true if Psychonauts sold more copies. It's kind of a risk creating new IP's now and days. The good news is that sometimes companies make a lot of money on sequels and use that to take a chance of creating new IP’s so I'd say sequels are a good thing if the game is fun and entertaining.
1. Do you own Psychonauts (Main character is Raz)?
If you do then you should be proud of yourself for you will help game developers take a chance on creating new IP's, or so it would be true if Psychonauts sold more copies. It's kind of a risk creating new IP's now and days. The good news is that sometimes companies make a lot of money on sequels and use that to take a chance of creating new IP’s so I'd say sequels are a good thing if the game is fun and entertaining.
0
I'll be antagonistic and say that the "original gameplay" is a bit of a myth. Everything looks rosy in retrospect, that's nostalgia. It was easy to be original back in the day, because even the most basic things hadn't been done yet (such as your example of online shooters).
Even if you look at "original", "indie" games such as Darwinia (which I loved) or Psychonauts (which I largely loathed), at the end of the day they're still a squad-based tactical RTS and a platformer with some funny dress-up.
Psst:
That said, yeah, COD6879567 and Tomb Raider348690458659067 are just the publisher milking a dead cow. But really, who plays that stuff any more, other than the bought game reviewers?
There's games where the sequel was better than the original (ground control 2, tf2, wic), there's games where the sequel was worse (gta 3, gta san andreas - both of which I found terrible), but I agree with Tsurayu that sequels alone don't hurt new IP. It's the consumer demand that does, and management's fear of it.
Tight development time budgets hurt original IP much more than anything else.
Even if you look at "original", "indie" games such as Darwinia (which I loved) or Psychonauts (which I largely loathed), at the end of the day they're still a squad-based tactical RTS and a platformer with some funny dress-up.
Psst:
Spoiler:
That said, yeah, COD6879567 and Tomb Raider348690458659067 are just the publisher milking a dead cow. But really, who plays that stuff any more, other than the bought game reviewers?
There's games where the sequel was better than the original (ground control 2, tf2, wic), there's games where the sequel was worse (gta 3, gta san andreas - both of which I found terrible), but I agree with Tsurayu that sequels alone don't hurt new IP. It's the consumer demand that does, and management's fear of it.
Tight development time budgets hurt original IP much more than anything else.
0
Most don't some do. Sequels are all for the money. Personally i hate sports game because imo its the same year after year. Most official sequel are good ( Gears / GoW / MGS / etc) not counting unofficial sequel (FF/not the same story)
0
Everyone knows in sequels of games/movies,if you go past 3 then its called milking the franchise.
Then again...
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
Operation Flashpoint 2
Mafia 2
Bioshock 2
Assassins Creed 2
Battlefield Bad company 2
Mass Effect 2
Crysis 2
Left 4 Dead 2
Then again...
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
Operation Flashpoint 2
Mafia 2
Bioshock 2
Assassins Creed 2
Battlefield Bad company 2
Mass Effect 2
Crysis 2
Left 4 Dead 2
0
Not all are Milking. Could you say GTA series was milking? I think the evolution from all 4 games + Vice City & San Andreas was pretty amazing. PErsonally i didn't like GTA4 like the others but, i personally think they didn't ''milk'' the series. IMO milking a series is when a different developer takes a series and makes a worst product than it was previously. Now that milking in my opinion. Someone using the success work of others to try to make they're own blockbuster success.
The best I can think of is Call of Duty 3 ( which CoD fan think is the worst in the series, and it is)
But in all, we really have to think about the word ''sequel''. It can be told in so many different ways
edit:
GameOn, sure there's alot of 2 and 3 and 13's coming out, but if the game product is of high quality and people enjoy it, milking or not, thats fine. If its fun,who cares? Now making a bad game, that's a different story
The best I can think of is Call of Duty 3 ( which CoD fan think is the worst in the series, and it is)
But in all, we really have to think about the word ''sequel''. It can be told in so many different ways
edit:
GameOn, sure there's alot of 2 and 3 and 13's coming out, but if the game product is of high quality and people enjoy it, milking or not, thats fine. If its fun,who cares? Now making a bad game, that's a different story
0
GTA can be classified as a milk. I mean with all the spin-offs with vice city stories etc. Then again each game has a different story so its just a sequel by name not story.
0
Out of the list you've put, L4D2 is the only one i consider milking since they haven't even done anything extreme with the first game (lots of promises not complete) and the little that you gain in the second installement for 50$ is seriously cheap. More maps! (can get that in mods) new characters! (who cares?) MELEE WEAP! new zombies!. Seriously all can be done in a small DLC pack, but no...a full priced game, a year after!
anyway sleep now -.- painful tomorrow
anyway sleep now -.- painful tomorrow
0
No.
Originality is only one aspect of games, and very often, it's really hard to take something new and make it great on the first try. A lot of the time, it takes multiple games for new concepts to realize their potential or even become playable. I'm all for developers taking chances on new concepts, but if the first use of an innovation contains major flaws or is otherwise deficient, then a second attempt gives designers a chance to integrate the idea into a better game and often have the idea reach a higher level.
Also, many sequels are genuinely good games in their own right. Many times they do try and do things differently, or at least adapt to changes in the gaming world. Mario 64 adapted the essence of Mario gaming to the world of 3D graphics. Sands of Time added something that wasn't present in previous Prince of Persia games with its "rewind" function.
And even if a sequel doesn't really change anything and just provides more of the same stuff the original provided, that may not be a bad game. Some people will want more levels or another campaign, and if it is well designed, then fine. Eventually people will want something new, but one game may not be the saturation point.
Even personally, if it comes down to it, I'd generally rather play a well designed game than an innovative game with a good idea or two and otherwise poor design.
Originality is only one aspect of games, and very often, it's really hard to take something new and make it great on the first try. A lot of the time, it takes multiple games for new concepts to realize their potential or even become playable. I'm all for developers taking chances on new concepts, but if the first use of an innovation contains major flaws or is otherwise deficient, then a second attempt gives designers a chance to integrate the idea into a better game and often have the idea reach a higher level.
Also, many sequels are genuinely good games in their own right. Many times they do try and do things differently, or at least adapt to changes in the gaming world. Mario 64 adapted the essence of Mario gaming to the world of 3D graphics. Sands of Time added something that wasn't present in previous Prince of Persia games with its "rewind" function.
And even if a sequel doesn't really change anything and just provides more of the same stuff the original provided, that may not be a bad game. Some people will want more levels or another campaign, and if it is well designed, then fine. Eventually people will want something new, but one game may not be the saturation point.
Even personally, if it comes down to it, I'd generally rather play a well designed game than an innovative game with a good idea or two and otherwise poor design.
0
I pretty much agree with what WhiteLion said, but I do have this to add:
Sequels aren't going to ruin gaming because sequels have been around for decades. They are not new at all. I don't even think that the number of sequels is increasing in the gaming industry.
Sequels aren't going to ruin gaming because sequels have been around for decades. They are not new at all. I don't even think that the number of sequels is increasing in the gaming industry.
0
Well some of those games are okay to have sequels for because of the relevance to the story and how they want to continue to show it through gameplay to the gamers. Or take a different approach to it and make more additions to the story or any other extras to make the gaming better and keep the gamer interested in it. But yeah as for games like Left4dead 2 its just messed up because they hardly did anything to the first one and they are now bringing out a second one? And I don't think the games will even last that long like you said for halo54 or cod67, a game can only go on for so long then that will be the end of it and for the future there will probably just be copies of it but completely different.
0
technically, Halo 3:ODST is a standalone expansion and is more of a spinoff of the original Halo trilogy than an actual sequel, hell, its not really a sequal anyway, its more of a prequel to Halo 3.
I dont really think sequals are ruining gaming. Fans might rant on and on in forums and blogs about how shit a sequal is compared to the original, but deep down inside they feel a guilty pleasure in enjoying a game that they originally love. Its one of the reason some people wait from midnight to dawn to wait for the game to be released.
I dont really think sequals are ruining gaming. Fans might rant on and on in forums and blogs about how shit a sequal is compared to the original, but deep down inside they feel a guilty pleasure in enjoying a game that they originally love. Its one of the reason some people wait from midnight to dawn to wait for the game to be released.
0
GameON wrote...
GTA can be classified as a milk. I mean with all the spin-offs with vice city stories etc. Then again each game has a different story so its just a sequel by name not story.how about the half life series(episodes do count). or halo. or total war. or starcraft. arma. shit........
0
I think sequels are awesome. If it's a sequel, it's because the original one was good, and that right there is a stamp of quality. (most of the time. Sometimes the companies just get greedy and fuck it up)
0
Kuroneko1/2 wrote...
I think sequels are awesome. If it's a sequel, it's because the original one was good, and that right there is a stamp of quality. (most of the time. Sometimes the companies just get greedy and fuck it up)What he said.
0
not really. what's ruining gaming is piracy.
sequels are fine. i really like cliffhangers at the end of the 1st game and the reason i play sequels is to find out what happens next kinda like in FEAR 1-2 and the resident evil series oh and metal gear solid series.
its just that it would be nice if they would put more innovations in sequels while still retaining the feel of the original game.
sequels are fine. i really like cliffhangers at the end of the 1st game and the reason i play sequels is to find out what happens next kinda like in FEAR 1-2 and the resident evil series oh and metal gear solid series.
its just that it would be nice if they would put more innovations in sequels while still retaining the feel of the original game.
0
the_zac wrote...
not really. what's ruining gaming is piracy. Heh. Publishers' favorite excuse since 1972.
