The problem with sequels is that people enjoyed the first game for it's breath of fresh air, then with sequels it becomes stagnant like the breathe of a 40 year old cat lady
Question of the Day, January 6, 2011
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
I'm not saying I want to play Assassins Creed 7 or anything but when there is a game I love I always hope for a sequel and am often crushed when the game is not successful enough to warrant one. (i.e. Mirror's Edge, Prey, and that cool cel-shaded Prince of Persia)
That's what I hear but I still haven't seen hide nor hair of it. I having a sinking feeling that if it hasn't been canned already it will be.joshthor said:
My belief is that if a developer wants to get a sequel to a game made they should have to create a new IP at the same time. At least if the original idea doesn't pan out all that well they can know the sequel they just cranked out stands a decent chance of making money, since there was enough demand for them to make it in the first place.
Same as movie sequels; if the first one was popular they'll probably make money with a second one, no matter what the quality's like. For a lot of companies, that means plowing through a second game much like the first. And honestly, I can't even blame the design teams for bland sequels. Considering how much time and effort is spent on the first game, making and testing things over and over, fresh ideas are used up and who's going to spend quite as much creative energy when you know people will buy the game anyway?
They do keep the industry running, though. I think there's a happy medium for all arts/entertainment businesses where popular franchises are needed to back the more innovative projects.
They do keep the industry running, though. I think there's a happy medium for all arts/entertainment businesses where popular franchises are needed to back the more innovative projects.
Sequels or spin-offs are well and good when the new game brings innovative mechanics, new engines, or genuine game play enhancement to the forefront; or when the new game is thematically appropriate. Preferably both.
Sequels and spin-offs are bad when they don't appreciably add anything to the series, or when it's not necessary thematically or narratively.
Personally, I voted "yes, it's crushing innovation" not because innovation and sequel production are exclusive but rather because (bad) sequel production beggars development resources which could otherwise go towards innovation. Why would a developer/publisher spend money and time gambling -- and that's exactly what innovation requires -- when they could make a sequel to a successful franchise that's guaranteed to minimize development cost and maximize profit?
Sequels and spin-offs are bad when they don't appreciably add anything to the series, or when it's not necessary thematically or narratively.
Personally, I voted "yes, it's crushing innovation" not because innovation and sequel production are exclusive but rather because (bad) sequel production beggars development resources which could otherwise go towards innovation. Why would a developer/publisher spend money and time gambling -- and that's exactly what innovation requires -- when they could make a sequel to a successful franchise that's guaranteed to minimize development cost and maximize profit?
Sequels for good games are nice, but we need some innovation. The Japanese Game industry needs to get together and start thinking up some new forms of entertainment. Maybe they could start a coalition development studio and make some sort of super awesome JRPG fusing concepts from western studios and taking some of the old concepts from they're golden games like Chrono Trigger, or Dragon Quest.
The MMO-like features for multiplayer from White Knight Chronicles, or Phantasy Star Online, mixed with a solid combat system similar to the Tales of series, with a blend of unique story telling from the Shin Megami Tenshi team/s. SquareEnix could handle the CGI and cinematics as its always been one of there strong points. A unique art style would probably bring in the people who don't exactly like the 'anime-moe-blob'-style, I'm thinking whoever did Valkyrie Chronicles art would work well. Capcom should most likely handle the distribution of the game as they seem to crank out a crap-ton of games on to the PS3, 360 and PC (Sorry Wii owners).
Though thats just my idea. I'm no game programmer, I've got no idea how the hell they could put this all together let alone legally settle on a way to distribute the profits/costs of the game with so many different companies working together. I'm just a sucker for people who are in trouble working together.
The MMO-like features for multiplayer from White Knight Chronicles, or Phantasy Star Online, mixed with a solid combat system similar to the Tales of series, with a blend of unique story telling from the Shin Megami Tenshi team/s. SquareEnix could handle the CGI and cinematics as its always been one of there strong points. A unique art style would probably bring in the people who don't exactly like the 'anime-moe-blob'-style, I'm thinking whoever did Valkyrie Chronicles art would work well. Capcom should most likely handle the distribution of the game as they seem to crank out a crap-ton of games on to the PS3, 360 and PC (Sorry Wii owners).
Though thats just my idea. I'm no game programmer, I've got no idea how the hell they could put this all together let alone legally settle on a way to distribute the profits/costs of the game with so many different companies working together. I'm just a sucker for people who are in trouble working together.
Crazy idea here but what if at the end of a game you'd just completed came up saying "do you think you'd like to see another game about this?" simple yes/no question and it could bring a lot to gaming, I mean if this existed there would never of been a Bioshock sequel because gamers everyone agreed it didn't need one. But then when it comes to Mass Effect and similar sequel suited games people would obviously say yes.
It's like S. Darko, sometimes sequels should just not exist.
It's like S. Darko, sometimes sequels should just not exist.
reliance on sequels through tough years (such as the crash of 2008 through now) is probably good for the industry. It allows then to keep working their craft without the risk of a new IP flopping and having to go out of business. People stay employed and continue to try to make advances with tools they already have.
OVER-reliance on sequels is bad for the industry. The idea that all gamers want is sequels and that the sequels will sell just as well as the original is bad for the industry. hurrying a sequel out the door to cash in on it's predecessor is bad for the game the creators and the community (bioshock 2 anyone?). Gamers are happy for sequels when time has generally been put into them to make it good. Also new stuff is needed, innovation is the key to good games. sitting the same IP making sequels causes stagnation because writers and makers have to stay in the same frame of mind using the same powers and same universe rules. New Titles allow for more exploration of concepts and ideas.
In conclusion; sequels = good, ONLY sequels = bad.
OVER-reliance on sequels is bad for the industry. The idea that all gamers want is sequels and that the sequels will sell just as well as the original is bad for the industry. hurrying a sequel out the door to cash in on it's predecessor is bad for the game the creators and the community (bioshock 2 anyone?). Gamers are happy for sequels when time has generally been put into them to make it good. Also new stuff is needed, innovation is the key to good games. sitting the same IP making sequels causes stagnation because writers and makers have to stay in the same frame of mind using the same powers and same universe rules. New Titles allow for more exploration of concepts and ideas.
In conclusion; sequels = good, ONLY sequels = bad.
Quite the opposite, Reliance on sequels is keeping the industry alive, at least in the current climate.
Sequels sell, and game developers need to keep making money which is difficult with the state of the economy right now.
I'm sure soon enough we'll see the industry get a little more daring with AAA titles.
Sequels sell, and game developers need to keep making money which is difficult with the state of the economy right now.
I'm sure soon enough we'll see the industry get a little more daring with AAA titles.
A CoD killed my father and burned down my childhood home!ZeppMan217 said:
OT: Good games should get sequels (where appropriate, God of War needed no sequel), bad games could still be saved if they just pull out the good ideas and purge the rest (I'm told they did the exact opposite for Crackdown 2).
Risky propositions have the potential for greater profits and losses, that is why they make safe-bet sequels. No one at a multi-million(or even billion) dollar company wants to be the guy who let a 30 million dollar investment produce a negative return.
I voted for the Sequels are nice option because if it weren't for sequels I wouldn't be playing Guild Wars 2 or Mass Effect 3. Developers need a chance to improve on what they've already started and sequels are the best way to do that.
But it don't want this to write off new IPs, which is why I'll likely be supporting the new game Brink... if it turns out to be good.
But it don't want this to write off new IPs, which is why I'll likely be supporting the new game Brink... if it turns out to be good.
Sequels aren't hurting the industry, but franchises are.
With every new IP comes the announcement that it'll be atleast a trilogy. Instead of focussing on something new when the game's finished and making a sequel in another couple of years, developers feel the need to release a sequel every other year in order to keep the franchise popular.
With every new IP comes the announcement that it'll be atleast a trilogy. Instead of focussing on something new when the game's finished and making a sequel in another couple of years, developers feel the need to release a sequel every other year in order to keep the franchise popular.
It would depend on the sequel.
Would I want another Sonic, Tony Hawk, Medal of Honor, FIFA, Guitar Hero, etc game? No
Would I want Anachronox 2, Starcraft 3, Stubbs The Zombie 2, Carmageddon 4, Shadow Warrior 2, etc? Hell yes!
As long a series hasn't been milked to death, I'm OK with sequels.
Would I want another Sonic, Tony Hawk, Medal of Honor, FIFA, Guitar Hero, etc game? No
Would I want Anachronox 2, Starcraft 3, Stubbs The Zombie 2, Carmageddon 4, Shadow Warrior 2, etc? Hell yes!
As long a series hasn't been milked to death, I'm OK with sequels.
I believe sequels are not bad or harmful in and of themselves, the poor use of sequels is harmful. sequels should be as so; game 1 should be innovative and interesting, #2 should fix the issues of #1 and expand on the concept, #3 should take what was learned in #1 and #2 to craft a near perfect game. this doesn't happen as much as I would like, but what can you do?
Franchises could be a force for good also, imagine a futuristic stealth game in which you sneak around an alien spacecraft avoiding or defeating enemies with all kinds of cool future stealth tools(holograms, antigrav boots, etc...) sounds cool doesn't it? it would never be made, too innovative, too new. but, put our hero in in "stealth" power armor and call it
"Halo: Black Line"
publishers would be knocking down your door to work on it, and maybe FPS fans will try something new and love it, and gaming will be better for it.
Halo is just an example, I understand the difficulty involved with licences.
Franchises could be a force for good also, imagine a futuristic stealth game in which you sneak around an alien spacecraft avoiding or defeating enemies with all kinds of cool future stealth tools(holograms, antigrav boots, etc...) sounds cool doesn't it? it would never be made, too innovative, too new. but, put our hero in in "stealth" power armor and call it
"Halo: Black Line"
publishers would be knocking down your door to work on it, and maybe FPS fans will try something new and love it, and gaming will be better for it.
Halo is just an example, I understand the difficulty involved with licences.
Ultimately I think it is the RELIANCE on sequels. Sequels can be great, often they can be just as great, if not better, than the first game.
However the problem is that companies these days often think they NEED to make a sequel. Which is often not the case. So the Sequels themselves are not necessarily a bad thing, game producers making sequels without giving them the proper thought and care they deserve is.
I think that if a game(or any artistic medium for that matter) is to have a sequel, the author has to write the original leaving that option available, otherwise the end result is choppy and disappointing.
However the problem is that companies these days often think they NEED to make a sequel. Which is often not the case. So the Sequels themselves are not necessarily a bad thing, game producers making sequels without giving them the proper thought and care they deserve is.
I think that if a game(or any artistic medium for that matter) is to have a sequel, the author has to write the original leaving that option available, otherwise the end result is choppy and disappointing.
If the sequel is a step like, CoD2/3 --> CoD4 or Uncharted -> Uncharted 2 then that's fine with me.
It falls down when it's a sequel like MW2, BOps, and other games that bring nothing new.
Dante's Inferno may not have been the best game, but at least it was a new IP.
I'm just worried that now that games cost so much to make that they will become stifled, because money men won't feel comfortable taking risks with new IPs.
It falls down when it's a sequel like MW2, BOps, and other games that bring nothing new.
Dante's Inferno may not have been the best game, but at least it was a new IP.
I'm just worried that now that games cost so much to make that they will become stifled, because money men won't feel comfortable taking risks with new IPs.