Poll: Why u no like sequels?

[PrototypeC]

I agree with Donnie... the fact of the matter is that we hate terrible games, not sequels. The overlap between terrible game and sequel can become hard to ignore, however, especially when we loved the original. It breaks my heart a little every time a glorious expected sequel turns out to be rubbish, because it had farther to fall from grace.

Sequels don't HAVE to be rushed, unholy cash-ins, but that is becoming the case more and more. It's just another symptom of the unfortunately stagnating video game industry at present.

One thing I think game companies should do to help deflect this is have a plan for a sequel, just in case. Is there another part of this world we as players can explore? Do we have to tie it into the story of the first one or can it stand on its own? Do any of the characters even have to come into contact? I think it's always worth thinking about.

 

[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

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.

Yes, Duke Nukem was "in development" for over a decade, but only a year of that was probably in any way a contribution to the final product.

I'm sorry, I only insult people when they fail to properly read anything that I write and even when I prove them wrong, continue on like they're the earthly manifestation of christ

Sincerely, I'm sick of talking to you, stop replying to me

 

[Jake0fTrades]

I liked the first Gears of War, and Call of Duty is fun with friends, but it's about time both of those series fell off the face of the Earth.

 

[Dutchy115]

I agree with Donnie... the fact of the matter is that we hate terrible games, not sequels. The overlap between terrible game and sequel can become hard to ignore, however, especially when we loved the original. It breaks my heart a little every time a glorious expected sequel turns out to be rubbish, because it had farther to fall from grace.

Sequels don't HAVE to be rushed, unholy cash-ins, but that is becoming the case more and more. It's just another symptom of the unfortunately stagnating video game industry at present.

One thing I think game companies should do to help deflect this is have a plan for a sequel, just in case. Is there another part of this world we as players can explore? Do we have to tie it into the story of the first one or can it stand on its own? Do any of the characters even have to come into contact? I think it's always worth thinking about.

Rushed, unholy cash-ins are the sin of the gaming world, but Call of Duty games, with two year development cycles for each game, are far from rushed, even if they are cash-ins (I'm not accusing you of believing such, just using you're post as a channel of delivery)

 

[Muspelheim]

Rushed, unholy cash-ins are the sin of the gaming world, but Call of Duty games, with two year development cycles for each game, are far from rushed, even if they are cash-ins (I'm not accusing you of believing such, just using you're post as a channel of delivery)

Well, I can only vouch for what I see when I start playing, can I? And for what I can see, those two years aren't really spent on much more than upping the graphics slightly and throwing together some new multiplayer-perks.

It's a bit of a mystery, really. Where on earth did all that time go if all we recieve is Modern Warfare again, with slightly more ludicrous set-pieces and slightly different corridors to get goaded through?

 

[Dutchy115]

Rushed, unholy cash-ins are the sin of the gaming world, but Call of Duty games, with two year development cycles for each game, are far from rushed, even if they are cash-ins (I'm not accusing you of believing such, just using you're post as a channel of delivery)

Well, I can only vouch for what I see when I start playing, can I? And for what I can see, those two years aren't really spent on much more than upping the graphics slightly and throwing together some new multiplayer-perks.

It's a bit of a mystery, really. Where on earth did all that time go if all we recieve is Modern Warfare again, with slightly more ludicrous set-pieces and slightly different corridors to get goaded through?

Take the "slightly more" and "slightly" out of that concluding statement and it will make marginally more sense bro

 

[Muspelheim]

Take the "slightly more" and "slightly" out of that concluding statement and it will make marginally more sense bro

I'm sorry, but it was a rather silly corridor-blasting affair from the very start. It's just that Modern Warfare 1 somehow managed to keep a balance, as well as being their first take on a modern setting. At the time, for instance, their experiments with the quantum-leaps into other perspectives was quite innovative and effective. But the sequels, for all their time and money, have only really focused on the tiresome features of Modern Warfare. That is, the Tom Clancy-reject storyline, their weird logic of having at least one "shocker" per game and all the corridor-enviroments.

 

[lacktheknack]

Play the first missions of each respective title, then shut up and keep you're ridiculous opinions to yourself. Of course this is a forum, so this statement was issued with the intention of starting a discussion, so by all means, discuss away...

OT: It's not so much that I dislike sequels as much as I dislike the sequel-to-new-IP ratio.