Question of the Day, January 6, 2011

[The Escapist Staff]

Question of the Day, January 6, 2011



Several veteran Japanese game designers have blamed a reliance on sequels [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/106686-Japanese-Game-Industry-Insiders-Blame-Endless-Sequels-for-Declining-Sales] for a shrinking Japanese game market. Do you think sequels are hurting the industry?

Permalink

 

[drbarno]

I think that Developers and publishers should be more willing to take the chance with newer ideas and not back down when people who were never going to buy the game start complaining about it.

 

[Baresark]

This industry needs innovation!?! Rubbish!!!!

For real though, the thing killing the industry is people insatiable hunger for more. I know guys who don't even beat games they professed to loving, and move on to the next biggest bullshit. It's... mind numbing.

 

[Mr. Omega]

The reliance on sequels is hurting the industry. Sequels are not hurting the industry. It's one of those things where all sides can be faulted. The companies want to have a safe investment, because games are getting more expensive to make. But let's face it, the most popular games ever made are sequels.

People ***** about the lack of creativity in the industry. But wallets speak much louder than critical praise and declarations of being art ever will.

 

[Sarah Frazier]

Sequels are good to have if they actually bring new and enjoyable ideas to the setting; and that's not even assuming that the setting isn't already old and tired to the point that customers roll their eyes at the mere mention of the characters involved. Unfortunately it seems more and more like companies are relying on one big hit and then tacking on a "Part 2" in some way and only throwing in enough gimmicks for the sake of having something new to say without actually making a fun difference.

 

[ZeppMan217]

Oh I dunno, making new CoD every year doesn't seem to hurt anyone...

 

[DanielBrown]

If a game is really good and loved by many fans, I believe it deserves a good sequel. However, when they start milking a franchise it goes too far. Just look at all the Rock Band/Guitar Hero/Spin offs from them that we have now, for example.
Bah bah bah!

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

I believe Indie games will soon enough become a new way forward.

Already it seems PSN and XBLA are fighting over Indie titles and 'experimental' projects.

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

The industry doesn't seem to be hurting from sequels at all as a whole. In many ways it's positively booming because of them. Seems you can't turn a corner in a game shop without running across some title starring Mario, Link, Samus, Ryu or some other horrible overused character... *sighs* Much like the Star Wars prequels, they may be awful, but people will still pay for them.

Not to say that the quality of the games produced isn't overall suffering. That, I'll back 100%. I haven't cared one tick for anything I've seen most of the aforementioned characters on the cover of in years. More innovation would be nice to see, more attention and interest given to some of the smaller studios and indie developers.

 

[Woodsey]

I like being able to stick with a character for more than one outing, and sequels can often help games realise their full potential.

 

[Sallix]

I don't think it's killing the industry itself per se, it's more killing the creativity and innovation of the industry, by relying on the mechanics of the preceding game(s). Although the flipside of that is that some games improve on the mechanics and make them better. Balance is what's needed.

 

[BreakfastMan]

I don't think they are hurting the industry as much as they claim. What the industry needs is a healthy balance between new IPs and established IPs.

 

[uppitycracker]

This is really a double-edged sword. It makes sense that sequels for blockbuster hits will come out, because not only does it give us additional experiences in a great game world, but also provides funding for new projects. However, where this becomes a problem is when the developers A) begin to focus completely on one franchise, and B) don't put the proper resources into the new projects. Where I have a major problem, is where innovation is placed where it shouldn't be and does not fit, but completely lacks presence in the newer projects.

If developers would realize that with these new IP's, we want to see something new instead of more of the same, then they would go a lot farther. Also, taking a new idea and putting half-assed effort into it to see if it'll catch the attention of audiences (then pumping out a sequel that has everything the original should have had, yes, I'm looking at YOU assassins creed) is just extremely poor practice.

I know that people tend to put the blame solely on publishers, and sure they have a good deal to do with it. But at the same time, developers themselves need to take a bit more time and effort into the projects they create. Otherwise we're just going to be seeing more of the same everywhere we look.

 

[Redd the Sock]

If gamers were more prone to new properties the endless sequals wouldn't get made.

And we still get several new properties every year that stick to a certain level, but after 25 years of gaming, the sequals become more prevelant because so many series refuse to die out.

 

[2xDouble]

I wouldn't say it's "reliance" on sequels that's hurting innovation, it's "dependence" on sequels. Relying on a sequel to show profit is acceptable, but making that your only profit source is ridiculous.

I'm sure it has been argued already, but there is also a tendency to make sequels simply "more of the same", with minimal if any innovation. This is lazy. If a game can't stand on its own merit, having a series label will only hurt the developer in the long run. I'll give an example, lets say the inevitable "Call of Duty 5" game (name chosen at random) sucks horribly. Fans will buy the game, thinking it will be at least as good as Call of Duty 4, and be incredibly disappointed. Many will trade in the game, and few will pick up "Call of Duty 5: random subtitle" (aka, the next game to bear the label). If the trend continues, sales will continuously drop until the series/franchise will reach Sonic the Hedgehog levels of failure.

Individual entries within a series require innovation and uniqueness in addition to the series' "distinct flavor".

 

[UnravThreads]

The industry doesn't seem to be hurting from sequels at all as a whole. In many ways it's positively booming because of them. Seems you can't turn a corner in a game shop without running across some title starring Mario, Link, Samus, Ryu or some other horrible overused character... *sighs* Much like the Star Wars prequels, they may be awful, but people will still pay for them.

Not to say that the quality of the games produced isn't overall suffering. That, I'll back 100%. I haven't cared one tick for anything I've seen most of the aforementioned characters on the cover of in years. More innovation would be nice to see, more attention and interest given to some of the smaller studios and indie developers.

Basically this.

It's not a case of sequels being bad, or being pad for the industry, it's the developers (Well, mainly the publishers) who are causing the issues. Go back to, say, just before 2000, and what did we have? Might & Magic 9, Ultima 9 (I think?), Wizardry 8, Final Fantasy was coming up on 7 (Or was at 7, maybe even 8 or 9) and so forth. If a company tried that now, people would be like "WTF?" - See the comments when a game has a third or fourth title coming out for examples of what I mean, often even a second title will bring the comments.

I also think using a series too much can be problematic - Look at Mario and Sonic, for example. Milked to utter death, but they're still being used (And they've even had cross-over titles). Yes, a title like Super Mario Galaxy will come along (But from what I've seen, it's not far removed from '64 or Sunshine), but for the most part it's rehashes and more generic titles. That, to me, is more damaging to the market than Super Mario Galaxy 3 because it blocks off other titles.

Mario is bound to sell, so Mario Kart would 'block' out other silly racers. Mario Party 'blocks' out humorous party games. You get the idea.

 

[XT inc]

The japanese market doesn't seems to want to understand that it's completely their mindset on how they make their games.

It isn't the sequels that are bad it's japanese game developers that all feel years behind game wise. The only thing "good" out of japan are those srpgs that a niche crowd loves, with quirky anime jokes, sexuality humor and japanese cultural influences westerners find new and different.

Their games however are stuck in some timewarp where gameplay stopped evolving and the graphics just got better. If you have played Resonance of Fate you know how the control feels off, but the detailed pristine backgrounds look awesome, but you can't touch them because you aren't there.

Their only tiny saving grace would be getting stuff to the west and have translations at least of some of their games, there may not be a huge market but Im sure they could sell some stuff here.

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

The industry doesn't seem to be hurting from sequels at all as a whole. In many ways it's positively booming because of them. Seems you can't turn a corner in a game shop without running across some title starring Mario, Link, Samus, Ryu or some other horrible overused character... *sighs* Much like the Star Wars prequels, they may be awful, but people will still pay for them.

Not to say that the quality of the games produced isn't overall suffering. That, I'll back 100%. I haven't cared one tick for anything I've seen most of the aforementioned characters on the cover of in years. More innovation would be nice to see, more attention and interest given to some of the smaller studios and indie developers.

Basically this.

It's not a case of sequels being bad, or being pad for the industry, it's the developers (Well, mainly the publishers) who are causing the issues. Go back to, say, just before 2000, and what did we have? Might & Magic 9, Ultima 9 (I think?), Wizardry 8, Final Fantasy was coming up on 7 (Or was at 7, maybe even 8 or 9) and so forth. If a company tried that now, people would be like "WTF?" - See the comments when a game has a third or fourth title coming out for examples of what I mean, often even a second title will bring the comments.

I also think using a series too much can be problematic - Look at Mario and Sonic, for example. Milked to utter death, but they're still being used (And they've even had cross-over titles). Yes, a title like Super Mario Galaxy will come along (But from what I've seen, it's not far removed from '64 or Sunshine), but for the most part it's rehashes and more generic titles. That, to me, is more damaging to the market than Super Mario Galaxy 3 because it blocks off other titles.

Mario is bound to sell, so Mario Kart would 'block' out other silly racers. Mario Party 'blocks' out humorous party games. You get the idea.

Basically what I was saying, yes. Sequels sell, people buy them if they're awful or not, etc etc etc.

I agree with you also on the whole of the rehashes as well. Call of Duty World at Whatever hasn't held any more interest for me than the newest God of War clone either. Pretty "Meh" worthy, really. Still, it's what the public as a whole enjoy and if it sells developers will keep cranking them out, no matter how much the hardcore segment of gamerdom complains.

Though again, I realize I seem to be in the minority on this but I've not cared for any Final Fantasy I've seen out since the SNES either... Blerf.