Poll: Why u no like sequels?

[Waaghpowa]

I hate most sequels because, in this generation at least, they tend to be shameless cash ins. Do we need a Halo 4? Speaking as someone who spent a great deal of their high school life playing the first two, no. They're terrible now and far too focused on multi player for a game that started as single player focused. There are some exceptions, the witcher being one such game that warrented a sequel. They improved on just about everything from the first as well as progressing the story and narrative.

Most of these shooter, specifically the mmulti pplayer ones, don't need to be released as frequently as they are now.

 

[Laser Priest]

I love sequels. They provide an opportunity to expand on a good story or a good universe and to refine the formula of their predecessor.

Too often, as evidenced by Call of Duty and Guitar Hero (before Activision ran it into the ground) the sequels are made simply to try to profit off of previous successes without any actual improvements.

Sequels have great potential which is squandered far too often.

And no, sequels are not meant to deliver more of the same. Expansion packs are for that. Your entire argument is based on a flawed idea. Sequels are meant to improve on the familiar, not give us the same damn thing.

And yes, every Call of Duty I've played feels entirely identical.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Sequels are not bad on their own. A good second game can come out of anything. There is just a few things that can piss all over the original.

1) Continuing a story that was clearly ment to end- All the loose ends were tied up in the climax of the last game but they pump out another as a cash grab. So the story makes no sense now.

2)They gave it to another developer- Spyro and Crash, I knew the well. We can add Sly Cooper to this list soon as well. The new guys never seem to get it right.

3) Some many sequels it's running the fancise into the ground- Call of Duty pretty much. You see the game out with a new version so much your sick of playing it. How can I miss you if you dont go away?

EDIT: On 2, its suppose to be GAVE it to another DEVELOPER. Like when a developer is done with a series and some new developer cocks it up. I shouldnt write in threads when I'm sleepy.

 

[Zen Toombs]

Amusingly, of the games you mentioned I enjoyed Call of Duty: Modern Warfare as well as Halo: Combat Evolved. I did not really like any of the other CoD games, and was more "meh" about the other Halo games. Don't get me wrong, I am not inherently biased against sequils. I love Portal 2, I love the whole Mass Effect series, I love Spiderman 2. Some bad apples do not ruin all apples everywhere.

That would just be silly.

 

[Muspelheim]

There are good sequels. Team Fortress 2, Skyrim, Dawn of War 2, Fallout 3 & New Vegas and so forth. There's plenty of reasons to keep a working series going.

However, I don't like the CoD/Halo model of sequels, just flinging them out the studio every other year for their own sake. Obviously, that model is used for raking in more cash as opposed to advance the series in any way that matter.

A sequel should be a change and an improvement. Yes, the core gameplay can remain fairly as it is, but just slapping on some better textures and perhaps one or two new perks in the multiplayer isn't reason enough for an entire new release on its own. And when it comes to keep advancing the story, then it would be a massive aid to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare if that storyline hadn't gone more and more stupid over the years in an effort to just keep topping their shocker-moments.

 

[TheFinalFantasyWolf]

Sequels aren't a bad thing, in fact two of my favourite games are sequels, Metal Gear Solid 2 and Silent Hill 2. A sequel should not dwell too much on its predecessor, it should take what made the game great, and add new features, or a new focus around it. With Silent Hill 2 the only thing that was taken from the previous game was the town itself, and with that, a completely new character with a new conflict arose to create a different story and setting. That's not to say that for a sequel, one needs a different character altogether, in fact I enjoy playing many games that all surround the same character. Nothing I love better than to finish an entire series just to see a happy ending, or perhaps just an ending to their story. However, IF in the previous game the characters conflicts were all resolved and every single loose end was tied up, then it doesn't feel like the story was even meant to go on anymore, it just feels like a quick money-grab.

 

[Windcaler]

The formula for a good sequel is to take the good parts of the game and expand on them with more good parts. Then they remove or tweak the bad things that the previous games had

In some of your listed franchise choices, nearly zero tweaks have happened to remove the bad parts and very few, if any, new things have been added to the good parts of the core gameplay. COD might bet he best example of bad sequels, besides a game mode what did it add from Black ops? I really cant think of anything off the top of my head so yeah to me it seems like little more then a change up in maps which should be DLC not a new game

On the other hand Halo added new things through its sequels but kept the good parts of the core game. The problem with Halo, IMO, was that the story never made much sense, was often poorly written, and Master chief was lacking of any personality so far as I could tell.

If I ignore the story and poor writing/pacing, Gears of war was a set of good sequels

In the case of battlefield, Ive only played Bad company 2 and battlefield 3 so I dont think I can give an informed opinion on whether or not they were good or bad sequels. If I compare just those 2 games multiplayer Ill say Bad company 2 was the superior game making battlefield 3 a bad sequel. It just has a multiplayer that I think flows better

 

[Dutchy115]

Too often, as evidenced by Call of Duty and Guitar Hero...

To even suggest placing games like Guitar Hero and Call of Duty in the same boat proves you're an idiot, With each new Guitar Hero, they add new songs, that's it (oh wait, they added singing and drumming a while back, my bad). With each new Call of Duty, they need to intricately design a series of new single-player missions, as well as multiplayer maps, as well as Character and weapon designs, they need to hire new voice actors and continue to pay the old ones and hire animators for cutscenes, as well as write the entire freakin story (regardless of the quality of the narrative, MW3 is a long campaign that was hardly written overnight), and I'm sure there's more stuff going on back there that I don't know about, but MW3 would have been just as hard and expensive to design and manufacture as MW2, if not more so.

Perhaps you should make a game, then make a sequel, of course the original game take longer to make in regards to thinking up the entire concept the game is based around, but in regards to actually making the games (designing levels, characters, etc.), they would be equally challenging

 

[Laser Priest]

Too often, as evidenced by Call of Duty and Guitar Hero...

To even suggest placing games like Guitar Hero and Call of Duty in the same boat proves you're an idiot, With each new Guitar Hero, they add new songs, that's it (oh wait, they added singing and drumming a while back, my bad). With each new Call of Duty, they need to intricately design a series of new single-player missions, as well as multiplayer maps, as well as Character and weapon designs, they need to hire new voice actors and continue to pay the old ones and hire animators for cutscenes, as well as write the entire freakin story (regardless of the quality of the narrative, MW3 is a long campaign that was hardly written overnight), and I'm sure there's more stuff going on back there that I don't know about, but MW3 would have been just as hard and expensive to design and manufacture as MW2, if not more so.

Perhaps you should make a game, then make a sequel, of course the original game take longer to make in regards to thinking up the entire concept the game is based around, but in regards to actually making the games (designing levels, characters, etc.), they would be equally challenging

Their stories are bullshit, their characters are generic, their weapons are based off of REAL WEAPONS and all of them feel entirely bland, and every bit of change in their games does nothing to the overall forumla of bland, boring bullshit.

And I can't make a game. I am one fucking person. But guess what! I can fucking play them, and I've played enough sequels to see when they are shit.

Best to learn that this is not the site to insult people and tell them that their opinions are wrong.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

Because they're unnecessary, most of the time. They rarely add anything substantial or interesting to the series that results.

They're also usually used as an excuse to make a mediocre game as a test to gauge interest, then spend their big budget on the next game now that they know it might sell. It's just lousy design in the modern industry's desperate attempt to save money they can't prove would have been gone otherwise.

And I can't make a game. I am one fucking person.

Ahem. Many independent games on the market today have been developed by one person. Some don't even ask that you pay for 'em.

Just saying.

 

[Dutchy115]

Sequels are not bad on their own. A good second game can come out of anything. There is just a few things that can piss all over the original.

1) Continuing a story that was clearly ment to end- All the loose ends were tied up in the climax of the last game but they pump out another as a cash grab. So the story makes no sense now.

2)They game it to another studio- Spyro and Crash, I knew the well. We can add Sly Cooper to this list soon as well. The new guys never seem to get it right.

3) Some many sequels it's running the fancise into the ground- Call of Duty pretty much. You see the game out with a new version so much your sick of playing it. How can I miss you if you dont go away?

1) Yes, a thousand times Yes. If a story ends in one game (and this can apply to movies, books etc.) and there was no planned sequel, then it is almost always a mistake to make one, look at Transformers, an amazing movie, but completely butchered by an unnecessary sequel (IMO Dark of the Moon did save the series a bit, but it was still somewhat ridiculous), this example can also be applied to Pirates of the Caribbean.

On the other hand, a movie like Toy Story, amazing, and a childhood favourite of just about everyone who has ever lived, no sequels were intended, and yet Toy Story 2 and 3 were both just as good (if not better) than the original

It all depends on the writers really, if you strike gold with a script for a sequel, then it has the potential to be incredible, but just making a sequel for money (Transformers, PotC) will tend to flop

2) Look, I love you, but you shouldn't have left school this early, I have no clue what you're saying

3) I see what you mean with Call of Duty, making a new game every year is a bit excessive, but when you consider that each game gets two years development time, Activision is hardly sh*ting out sequels. However, I must disagree in terms of Modern Warfare, which was intended as a trilogy from the start

 

[lord.jeff]

I know were talking games but one of my favorite movies of all time is Toy Story 3.

I think part of the problems sequels have is that they get compared to the first to much, I understand where that logic comes from but I think it's more important to judge a game by if you had fun playing it, not how much fun did you have playing it in compression to this other game. Also the you have to make it new but you can't change the core experience makes it a difficult task to make a sequel.

 

[Donnie Restad]

By my standards, sequels are judged the same way as original games are. Some are great, some are crap.
Yes, some sequels do their best to expand on their property and include new, nifty ideas, such as Portal 2, or Arkham City, Skyrim, Half-Life 2, Assassin's Creed II.
But then you have sequels where you can just tell the developer's heart wasn't really in it, or it was just completely unnecessary, such as Bioshock 2 or KOTOR II, or any brown and grey gritty shooter with chest-high walls (Yes, I agree with Yahtzee, sue me).
It's not a question of sequel vs. original, it's just a question of crap vs. not crap.

 

[Laser Priest]

And I can't make a game. I am one fucking person.

Ahem. Many independent games on the market today have been developed by one person. Some don't even ask that you pay for 'em.

Just saying.

Fucking rad.

Those people happen to have experience and/or resources.

I have a shit computer that can't even run games and not enough people study what I want for my school to even bother having a course on it.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

I have a shit computer that can't even run games and not enough people study what I want for my school to even bother having a course on it.

Then that should have been your excuse, is what I was getting at.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Sequels are not bad on their own. A good second game can come out of anything. There is just a few things that can piss all over the original.

1) Continuing a story that was clearly ment to end- All the loose ends were tied up in the climax of the last game but they pump out another as a cash grab. So the story makes no sense now.

2)They game it to another studio- Spyro and Crash, I knew the well. We can add Sly Cooper to this list soon as well. The new guys never seem to get it right.

3) Some many sequels it's running the fancise into the ground- Call of Duty pretty much. You see the game out with a new version so much your sick of playing it. How can I miss you if you dont go away?

1) Yes, a thousand times Yes. If a story ends in one game (and this can apply to movies, books etc.) and there was no planned sequel, then it is almost always a mistake to make one, look at Transformers, an amazing movie, but completely butchered by an unnecessary sequel (IMO Dark of the Moon did save the series a bit, but it was still somewhat ridiculous), this example can also be applied to Pirates of the Caribbean.

On the other hand, a movie like Toy Story, amazing, and a childhood favourite of just about everyone who has ever lived, no sequels were intended, and yet Toy Story 2 and 3 were both just as good (if not better) than the original

It all depends on the writers really, if you strike gold with a script for a sequel, then it has the potential to be incredible, but just making a sequel for money (Transformers, PotC) will tend to flop

2) Look, I love you, but you shouldn't have left school this early, I have no clue what you're saying

3) I see what you mean with Call of Duty, making a new game every year is a bit excessive, but when you consider that each game gets two years development time, Activision is hardly sh*ting out sequels. However, I must disagree in terms of Modern Warfare, which was intended as a trilogy from the start

EDIT: On 2, its suppose to be GAVE it to another DEVELOPER. Like when a developer is done with a series and some new developer cocks it up. I shouldnt write in threads when I'm sleepy.

 

[Laser Priest]

I have a shit computer that can't even run games and not enough people study what I want for my school to even bother having a course on it.

Then that should have been your excuse, is what I was getting at.

Please, I don't think you're being nearly condescending enough.

I was making the point that you don't need to have made something to judge something else of the sort. I wasn't writing an essay on why I'm not making games.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

I have a shit computer that can't even run games and not enough people study what I want for my school to even bother having a course on it.

Then that should have been your excuse, is what I was getting at.

Please, I don't think you're being nearly condescending enough.

I was making the point that you don't need to have made something to judge something else of the sort. I wasn't writing an essay on why I'm not making games.

It's hard to make a good argument when your basis is steeped in false statements, though.

 

[Laser Priest]

Too often, as evidenced by Call of Duty and Guitar Hero...

To even suggest placing games like Guitar Hero and Call of Duty in the same boat proves you're an idiot, With each new Guitar Hero, they add new songs, that's it (oh wait, they added singing and drumming a while back, my bad). With each new Call of Duty, they need to intricately design a series of new single-player missions, as well as multiplayer maps, as well as Character and weapon designs, they need to hire new voice actors and continue to pay the old ones and hire animators for cutscenes, as well as write the entire freakin story (regardless of the quality of the narrative, MW3 is a long campaign that was hardly written overnight), and I'm sure there's more stuff going on back there that I don't know about, but MW3 would have been just as hard and expensive to design and manufacture as MW2, if not more so.

Perhaps you should make a game, then make a sequel, of course the original game take longer to make in regards to thinking up the entire concept the game is based around, but in regards to actually making the games (designing levels, characters, etc.), they would be equally challenging

Their stories are bullshit, their characters are generic, their weapons are based off of REAL WEAPONS and all of them feel entirely bland, and every bit of change in their games does nothing to the overall forumla of bland, boring bullshit.

And I can't make a game. I am one fucking person. But guess what! I can fucking play them, and I've played enough sequels to see when they are shit.

Best to learn that this is not the site to insult people and tell them that their opinions are wrong.

While you may have read my reply, you clearly did so far to quickly, for one obvious example, "their weapons are based off of REAL WEAPONS" ... ... ...Bravo Watson, its a realistic shooter set on planet Earth, during the modern time, try and forgive them for not arming every character with Ray Guns and Asgard Beam Weapons, and I wasn't refuting any of your points, yes, the story isn't amazing, yes, the characters are generic, yes the weapons are from the real world, but that doesn't change the fact that MW3 would have been bloody hard to make, and as you'll recall from my initial statement at the very beginning of this thread, that's all i'm trying to establish, that developers put a lot more effort into sequels than anyone gives them credit for

But I stick with my original thought, you comparing guitar hero and call of duty in any universe proves you're a retard

What I was saying was that designing weapons (one of the burdens you seem to claim the have) is not difficult when the weapons fucking exist. And I don't care how hard it was to make. Hell, Duke Nukem took years and it was garbage, just like Call of Duty. Effort =/= Quality. I don't care how hard you worked to shit on that canvas, it isn't art.

And nice job on the personal insults. Really gets your point across.

 

[Dutchy115]

Sequels are not bad on their own. A good second game can come out of anything. There is just a few things that can piss all over the original.

1) Continuing a story that was clearly ment to end- All the loose ends were tied up in the climax of the last game but they pump out another as a cash grab. So the story makes no sense now.

2)They game it to another studio- Spyro and Crash, I knew the well. We can add Sly Cooper to this list soon as well. The new guys never seem to get it right.

3) Some many sequels it's running the fancise into the ground- Call of Duty pretty much. You see the game out with a new version so much your sick of playing it. How can I miss you if you dont go away?

1) Yes, a thousand times Yes. If a story ends in one game (and this can apply to movies, books etc.) and there was no planned sequel, then it is almost always a mistake to make one, look at Transformers, an amazing movie, but completely butchered by an unnecessary sequel (IMO Dark of the Moon did save the series a bit, but it was still somewhat ridiculous), this example can also be applied to Pirates of the Caribbean.

On the other hand, a movie like Toy Story, amazing, and a childhood favourite of just about everyone who has ever lived, no sequels were intended, and yet Toy Story 2 and 3 were both just as good (if not better) than the original

It all depends on the writers really, if you strike gold with a script for a sequel, then it has the potential to be incredible, but just making a sequel for money (Transformers, PotC) will tend to flop

2) Look, I love you, but you shouldn't have left school this early, I have no clue what you're saying

3) I see what you mean with Call of Duty, making a new game every year is a bit excessive, but when you consider that each game gets two years development time, Activision is hardly sh*ting out sequels. However, I must disagree in terms of Modern Warfare, which was intended as a trilogy from the start

EDIT: On 2, its suppose to be GAVE it to another DEVELOPER. Like when a developer is done with a series and some new developer cocks it up. I shouldnt write in threads when I'm sleepy.

It's cool dude, everyone's silly when their sleepy, *clears throat dramatically* 2) I completely and whole heartedly agree, every amazing series, and I'll reference games by Naughty Dog here, has been screwed over upon transferal to another developer, Crash Bandicoot 1, 2, 3 and Crash Team Racing were all amazing and by fair the gems of the PS1, but once Naughty Dog signed off, they become the mud beneath my shoe, this also happened to Jak & Daxter and is bound to happen to Uncharted.