Question of the Day, January 6, 2011

[Jacking]

It works if the sequels are of good quality, if not they may ruin the franchise. If they're good, however, they may continue or expand upon the story and give more enjoyment to the fans or bring a new perspective to the game. Not to mention, devs have a right to milk their own cows and all that.

But that being said, new titles must also be produced in order to keep things fresh and innovative.

 

[Ipsnicerous]

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

I think this is the key point here - you need to follow the money to understand the industry. The video-games industry is really very similar to the film industry in this regard. Sequels are a safe investment, while new, innovative, and experimental titles are risky. Large publishers leave risky innovation to independent developers. The big publishers will then buy up any hot IP that the indie developers churn out and turn it into a AAA series with a full budget.

Personally, I have been enjoying what seems to me an excellent time for gamers; there are so many great games out there right now. Of course, I mostly play indie games or smaller titles which for $5-10 give me 5-20 hours of great gameplay, or for <$5 give me a few cheap thrills, as well as a few select AAA titles (*cough* Valve *cough*). Online distribution avenues seem to be a great thing for independent developers.

It is also important to note that the Japanese games market may not be the same as the Western/US games market. I'm not certain how the indie-games market is doing in Japan. Japan is also the home of the big franchises, as many people have mentioned. Mario, Sonic, Final Fantasy all have a huge number of titles and have crossed genres from their original concept (e.g Dr. Mario, Sonic Pinball, Final Fantasy Tactics). I could certainly see that Japan is so hung up on there franchises that they have been ignoring hot titles or concepts when they come up. It is hard to say though, since you have to consider what Japan is actually making vs what is being imported to the West.

 

[Sarah Frazier]

It looks like a majority of people are in agreement. Sequels are fine and actually healthy in keeping the industry going in economic low swings. The problems arise when a game idea becomes nothing but sequels and ultimately beats the horse dead and then some.

 

[loc978]

Hey, I can't wait to get my hands on the sequel to American McGee's Alice... but I wouldn't even consider Final Fantasy XV. That series died before it made it to the PS2.
So, uh...

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.

-what he said.

 

[TerranReaper]

Sequels are fine, since you can innovate and expand on what is already there. However, you can also stagnate with sequels and achieve nothing new.

 

[AwesomeExpress]

I wouldn't want to do away with sequels altogether because there are many sequels that I'd hate to have missed out on, but at the same time there are many sequels that are absolute rubbish, and if someone decides to make another one, I'ma beat someone in with a crowbar, then light them on fire, pee on them, and repeat.

 

[spartan1077]

I would like more new games but let's look at Blizzard. They are a million dollar company with only three current game franchises. They built their company on sequels and do them amazingly. If all companies did sequels as good as Blizzard, then it would be amazing. Also with any other sequels, people will buy them. The companies want money and they will almost guarantee that with sequels.

 

[TheWeis]

These questions are good, but they always have too many options, and the middle of the road options always get flooded while the others are left out to dry.

 

[kakaomasse]

one has to stop on the top. i never really cared for sequels just because i liked the original game.

 

[GeneticallyModifiedDucks]

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)

mirrors edge is getting a sequel.

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.

Mirror's Edge sold pretty damn well. Approximately 4 million on all platfroms. If that doesn't warrant a sequel, I don't know what does. They'd be fools to can a sequel like that. Mirror's Edge was a breath of fresh air which was just poorly executed. With some relatively minor improvements, they can make a damn masterpiece, easily.

 

[Bobic]

Economically, no. Artistically, yes.

 

[v3n0mat3]

New things are hard to come up with, and I love to see new things over a sequel. However, sequels aren't really destroying the industry. Case in point: Look at the Call of Duty series.

 

[Luke Cartner]

I think sequels in the sense of over arching stories over multiple games (especially when the story is really meant for one game but is artificially extended for multiple) often result in games of lower quality than the original.
However games set in the same "world" are a useful way to tell stories you otherwise couldn't due to the difficulty in setting up the background in addition to the story line. For example would WoW have worked as well without the warcraft series?

 

[crudus]

Sequels and innovation aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Arkvoodle]

In many cases I've found sequels to be SUPERIOR to the original games (examples include Assassins Creed 2, Gears of War 2, Zone of Enders 2 and arguable Mass Effect 2), so the chance to make a second game allows the industry to learn from its mistakes.

What's harmful is "rushed" sequels (IE- Force Unleashed 2) that are essentially incomplete games shoved out onto the market before completion just for the sake of cash-grabbing.

 

[Fuselage]

Without sequels we would not have the utter awesome that is Mass Effect 2.

 

[vxicepickxv]

Sequels have one really big advantage over original IPs. They're pretty much going to print a company money. IPs don't have that advantage. Until a majority of the shareholders at a company become gamers, then sequels will become more the norm, as cash flow is important.

Smaller companies will do more work with original smaller IPs, because that's a different market. Indy style games are going to become the norm with IPs. The lower cost is going to make them easier to make, and more desirable to make. Why spend 40 million dollars on a brand new IP that might not succeed at 60 bucks a sale(which becomes 12 bucks per game in the end), when you can make one for much less and sell it for much less.

Everyone sees the sales of games like Call of Duty and Madden as the norm for titles of their ilk, when they're more the exception than the rule. I'm surprised that I don't see more small scale titles slapped onto XBLA, Steam, and PSN as original IPs. If those do well, then the sequels will probably be made closer to AAA titles. That might work better than just trying to make a AAA title from nothing, and losing a lot more cash if it fails.

 

[Danallighieri]

While I like some sequels and all, I get the feeling certain things should just be left to die

 

[rekabdarb]

Short term, no

Long term, yes

 

[Vainglory]

A sequel should be a post-production idea. They should make the game, then look back at how it did, and decide "people liked that, and theres more we can do with it, lets make another"

currently, the thought process is more "this is part one of a 3 part series, so leave it open so we can milk these people for 3x the price"