Remedy Has High Hopes for Alan Wake 2

[scnj]

Seems that these days just about everything gets a follow-up. Must everything have a sequel?

At least they've said it'll have a satisfying ending. At least it shouldn't be a 'finish the fight' sort of thing.

Yes that's nice and all, but seriously, when people look back at this time in gaming, they'll dub it the "Age of the Sequels" and wonder why there are no truly treasurable gems that stood on their own as great games instead of having to stand as a trilogy.

Really? Because if I remember rightly, most classic games got sequels as well. Sonic, Mario, Rayman, Abe, Doom, Wolfenstein, Quake, Half-Life, Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, Fallout, Zelda etc.

 

[Mr. Mike]

Seems that these days just about everything gets a follow-up. Must everything have a sequel?

At least they've said it'll have a satisfying ending. At least it shouldn't be a 'finish the fight' sort of thing.

Yes that's nice and all, but seriously, when people look back at this time in gaming, they'll dub it the "Age of the Sequels" and wonder why there are no truly treasurable gems that stood on their own as great games instead of having to stand as a trilogy.

Really? Because if I remember rightly, most classic games got sequels as well. Sonic, Mario, Rayman, Abe, Doom, Wolfenstein, Quake, Half-Life, Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, Fallout, Zelda etc.

But you see, with most of those games, the sequels were actually vast improvements over the original, refining and adding a tonne of new stuff. These days (see: MW-MW2) there really isn't much refinement nor adding of new, innovative stuff. Back in the days, they were genuine SEQUELS, not money-grabs (yes, I know everything is technically a money-grab, but you get my point).

 

[scnj]

Seems that these days just about everything gets a follow-up. Must everything have a sequel?

At least they've said it'll have a satisfying ending. At least it shouldn't be a 'finish the fight' sort of thing.

Yes that's nice and all, but seriously, when people look back at this time in gaming, they'll dub it the "Age of the Sequels" and wonder why there are no truly treasurable gems that stood on their own as great games instead of having to stand as a trilogy.

Really? Because if I remember rightly, most classic games got sequels as well. Sonic, Mario, Rayman, Abe, Doom, Wolfenstein, Quake, Half-Life, Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, Fallout, Zelda etc.

But you see, with most of those games, the sequels were actually vast improvements over the original, refining and adding a tonne of new stuff. These days (see: MW-MW2) there really isn't much refinement nor adding of new, innovative stuff. Back in the days, they were genuine SEQUELS, not money-grabs (yes, I know everything is technically a money-grab, but you get my point).

I'd argue that some weren't improved that much. Sonic 2, Doom 2, Final Fantasy II, Fallout 2 didn't really change them that much. And today there are some sequels that change the games in radical ways, like Mass Effect 2, Far Cry 2, Red Faction: Guerrilla, Fallout 3 etc. Not all of them were successful, but they did change considerably. People just look back through nostalgia glasses and fail to realise that nothing has really changed, they just grew up and notice it more now.

 

[L3m0n_L1m3]

Already have it pre-ordered. From the trailers I've seen, it sounds like a mix between Heavy Rain and Resident Evil. Or I could be completely wrong. Irregardless, it looks like it'll be a lot of fun. Maybe even a good scare.

 

[Cabisco]

I wonder if they are doing DLC for the first game, I do really want to get the first Alan Wake but the problem is that Red Dead is landing at the exact same time. I will get around to buy this game, but it will be much later than I had hoped, I hope Red Dead doesn't take away from it's sales as I'm sure it will be a good game.

 

[Mr. Mike]

Seems that these days just about everything gets a follow-up. Must everything have a sequel?

At least they've said it'll have a satisfying ending. At least it shouldn't be a 'finish the fight' sort of thing.

Yes that's nice and all, but seriously, when people look back at this time in gaming, they'll dub it the "Age of the Sequels" and wonder why there are no truly treasurable gems that stood on their own as great games instead of having to stand as a trilogy.

Really? Because if I remember rightly, most classic games got sequels as well. Sonic, Mario, Rayman, Abe, Doom, Wolfenstein, Quake, Half-Life, Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, Fallout, Zelda etc.

But you see, with most of those games, the sequels were actually vast improvements over the original, refining and adding a tonne of new stuff. These days (see: MW-MW2) there really isn't much refinement nor adding of new, innovative stuff. Back in the days, they were genuine SEQUELS, not money-grabs (yes, I know everything is technically a money-grab, but you get my point).

I'd argue that some weren't improved that much. Sonic 2, Doom 2, Final Fantasy II, Fallout 2 didn't really change them that much. And today there are some sequels that change the games in radical ways, like Mass Effect 2, Far Cry 2, Red Faction: Guerrilla, Fallout 3 etc. Not all of them were successful, but they did change considerably. People just look back through nostalgia glasses and fail to realise that nothing has really changed, they just grew up and notice it more now.

You raise a good point there. However, the trend I'm noticing is that when they give it time, the games do actually turn out more innovative. For example, Half-Life vs Half-Life 2. No rushing there and we ended up with a very different but very awesome sequel. Fallout 3 was completely different, both through time and another development studio. Perhaps what we need is for developers to alternate between what games/franchises they're working on, so they can bring a fresh mindset to the development of a sequel after having worked on something else for a few years, as opposed to remaining in that same mindset and only tweaking things here and there.