Sequals. Yay or Nay?

[Drummodino]

I just want good games. Assassin's Creed 2 was a good game (IMO). Assassin's Creed 3 was a bad game (again IMO).

Just because it's a sequel doesn't mean it's unoriginal or tired. Some series benefit from years of refining an amazing formula (e.g. Pokemon). Others can vary wildly between entries (e.g. Final Fantasy).

Sequels can be good or bad. Sequels are cynically pumped out for cash by developers and publishers, but if the game is still good I don't care.

 

[Lightknight]

It does us no harm for sequels to be made. What do I care if Batman has a million sequels? It's not like you or anyone else HAS to buy and play it.

So yeah, as long as there's a market for it, yay.

 

[josemlopes]

For me as long as the series is rather unique I dont mind much since if that series end there will be nothing more like it.
For example: I would like to see a Timesplitters sequel, however...

More games in series to tell an ongoing story? Sure.

Sticking another game onto a completed successful one because you know it will sell? Eh, I'd prefer something new.

...Zhukov is right, and to be honest the story of Timesplitters doesnt really have anywhere else to go so for that I guess the best thing to do would be like what they did with Goldeneye/Perfect Dark and Demon Souls/Dark Souls where its basicly the same game mechanics being applied to a new IP.

Although the time travell nature of the story of Timesplitters is rather important for the game itself since its the reason why you can play a deathmatch game against a robot weilding a crossbow in a 70's disco using a cowboy with a flamethrower.

Did you really play Timesplitters for the story, though? Hell, did the first game actually have a story? If I remember correctly the campaign mode was just about picking up bags from different time periods for some reason.

There's plenty of places Timesplitters could go in terms of new characters, gamemodes, maps and other random crap, and at the end of the day that's what was important to that series anyway. A sequel could add or improve lots, and I'd be first in line to buy it.

If it hadnt been for the third one I would say no but the story really became a big part of the series for me after that and for them to go back to the mission design of the first one would be awfull (I do enjoy the random missions in time feel of the second one since the mission design is very apropriate for each era).

Its just that going back to Timesplitters without Cortez just feels wrong for me and to have them being random again feels like a somewhat missed opportunity to tell another great story, I guess thats basicly it.

They could make a new IP where instead of time travel you would travel parallel universes, that doesnt sound too bad either

 

[Weaver]

There's nothing inherently wrong with sequels. I do think that games with yearly installments can get slightly tiring, however.

 

[babinro]

Yay!

I'd rather have to much content to choose from than not enough. It's nice having that one excellent experience to remember but sequels often bring sparks of excellence or can even surpass the original.

Imagine missing out on Resident Evil 4, Final Fantasy 6 (3 for SNES), Zelda: A link to the Past / Ocarina / Wind Waker / Majora's Mask, Warcraft 3, Diablo 2, Civ 4, Street Fighter 2, Castlevania 3 / Symphony of the Night, Super Metroid / Metroid Prime, etc. The list goes on and on for hundreds of games.

People tend to hate Mass Effect 3 but yet it gave us great moments like Tuchanka.
Dragon Age 2 gave us an awesome villain in the Arishok along side a great character Varric.

If I had my way then pretty much all games would be made using the CoD, EA Sports formula. Games come out year after year with tweaks and improvements along the way. People who want more of the same or effectively an 'expansion pack' can buy the game every single year. Those who want to experience a true shift in the game would pick it up once per console generation. Everyone wins.

When developers take their time the games sometimes feel sweeter but they also sometimes fall flat.
Skyrim got a huge reception where as Starcraft 2 was 'meh' and Diablo 3 was loathed.

Note: My statements on games expressed in this post are an attempt to convey the 'majority' opinion of a game. They do not actually reflect my opinion on these games. For example, I absolutely love Diablo 3 and easily consider it superior to Diablo 2. An opinion shared by almost no one

 

[IllumInaTIma]

Title is kinda misleading. It makes me think "Are you opposed to the very idea of sequels?". In this case my answer is FUCK NO! All my favorite games ARE sequels. Front Mission 3, Persona 3, Persona 4, Dino Crisis 2, Torchlight 2. All of these games have taken some ideas from previous games and improved on them. And, honestly, I don't even care about yearly sequels. After disappointment in Black Ops I just stopped buying Call of Duty games.

 

[Nazulu]

I used to love sequels. They used to improve in different ways and become more interesting, including having more content in general. I think all of my favourite games are sequels and that may go for nearly all of us. However, now most of them feel like they just exist to make a quick buck, or has run dry already, or has even been pounded into dust. What can I say, I don't look forward to any of them anymore. I'll say Yay because I don't think it matters at the moment. That Batman series seems to be getting better each time.

 

[Pieturli]

Sequels in settings/themes/stories that still have something to give? Absolutely


Repetitive, excessive sequels? NAAAYY


I can't really understand why so many people are opposed to sequels from the get go. Maybe they are just hipster scumbags who want to seem artsy and alternative, and if that's the case, then fuck those people.


I can think of more examples of me liking sequels more than the original than the other way around.


Half-Life 2 was better than HL1.

Bioshock Infinite was better than the first one and a whole hell of a lot better than the second one.

GTA 5 > GTA 4 > GTA 1, 2 & 3

Skyrim, tied with morrowind > all the other TES games

Not strictly a sequel, but WoW with expansions > vanilla


Finally (and I know I am in SUCH a minority with this) Portal 2 > Portal



This isn't true of all series obviously, but I'd honestly say that the sequel being superior to the original is much more the rule than the exception.

 

[DrOswald]

So with the recent release of the new Batman game, I was wondering if we really need or want sequels to games. Of course there are some games that I feel need a sequel (even a spiritual successor, Psychonauts, I am looking at you) but for something like the Batman: Arkham series, do we really need more?

If the team who made the game desires it, I am always for a second entry in a series. Often the first title is a proof of concept that is greatly flawed in a number of ways. A second game gives the team a chance to iron out the rough spots and improve on what they built. This essentially gives the developer the chance to make the game that should have been. For example, Mario Galaxy was a very good game but Mario Galaxy 2 improves on the original in nearly every possible way. Mario Galaxy 2 is Mario Galaxy as it should have been.

After the second game, however, things get a bit muddy. As long as the quality remains high there is no reason for them to stop making sequels. The unfortunate fact, however, is that many times sequels cannot maintain their standards, especially in story. In this way the "story" of Mario has served well. There is nothing there to be disappointed in.

Finally (and I know I am in SUCH a minority with this) Portal 2 > Portal

I actually like Portal 2 more than Portal 1 as well. The puzzles were very nearly as good and the variety in those puzzles, the writing and just about everything else was better.

 

[EyeReaper]

Think about it this way, If there were no sequels, there would have been no Lord of the Rings (a sequel to the Hobbit) and No army of Darkness (a sequel to evil dead) and frankly, that is not a world I want to live in.
Hell, most classic video game favorites are sequels. I don't know anyone who would say the first Super Mario or the First Megaman was the best of the series, same with others like Halo, Donkey Kong, Half life, Pokemon, etc.
All in all, I'd rather say no reboots than no sequels, but even then I can't deny some games deserve an HD Remake (I'm looking at you, oddworld)

 

[VoidOfOne]

I'm always down for new IP's, and then seeing those turn into a good series, if the first one had great promise, and great enjoyment. That said, I'm not a big fan of prequels, or rather the concept of, in gaming, since there runs the risk of the story having to be constrained. But they can be done very well.

I also do think that a series should have an end, and we just move on to other stories out there. I don't think we need more sequels, but if done well, bring it on.

I'm still waiting for Jade Empire 2...

 

[Ironbat92]

I'm fine with Sequels, just as long as certain games are just one off games, like The Last of Us.

 

[ianeddy44]

The way I see it, there are two simple ways of looking at whether or not a sequel is wanted or needed. First, economics. I don't mean hoity-toity political economics (which is bullshit), rather the science of what people want and what they will do to achieve those goals. If a video game can produce revenue that makes it worthwhile to create and market, then it was a valuable contribution to society, which is evidenced by people buying it - essentially "rewarding" the maker for what was made. On another hand, but on a related note.. Take for example the Star Wars movies announced by Disney after acquiring the means to make them. I'm sure a lot of you have heard of the divided opinions about whether or not that should be a thing. The beauty of creating and marketing a product is that participation and purchase is completely voluntary. If you buy a ticket or rent/buy a DVD of it, then it must have had enough value to you to make that worthwhile. So why complain? If you didn't participate or purchase in it, then why complain? You weren't forced to partake in something unenjoyable. If you were forced to pay money to see/rent/buy/play it, then there's a genuine and valid complaint. If you're omplaining about something being recognized as canon, then just ignore it. Bam, simple as that. Quit crying.

TL;DR

If it has value to you and you bought it, don't complain. If it doesn't have value to you and you didn't buy it, don't complain. If it doesn't have value and you were forced to buy it, then you have a valid complaint.

 

[KazeAizen]

The Arkham series, which is based off of a comic book character that has been running since what, 1939? That's literally decades worth of stuff to make games out of right there. Why wouldn't they pump out sequel?

People need to get over the mentality that more than one sequel = bad. Sure some series go overboard like Assassins Creed, however they have all been solid titles.

Kingdom Hearts has actually gone over board too. I believe in an interview Tetsuya Nomura said that they were trying to release one every year. Here's the difference with him. Sometimes those releases are redos, remakes, etc to a previous iteration. Re: Chain of Memories, Re: Coded, KH Final Mix, KH Final Mix 2, KH: Birth by Sleep Final Mix, KH: 1.5 HD. All re-releases and updated versions of the original game. I think they don't get as much crap though because pretty much all of the Final Mix games had been Japan exclusive up until 1.5 and the next to be released 2.5. Unless you were a devout fan you didn't catch that they were pumping out games as much as Ubisoft or Activision. Its also telling an ongoing story.

Now I'm sure over half this stuff they didn't even think of before it became a hit. However they've handled it in a way that it doesn't really seemed forced. The most forced one I can say is Coded and that is the story of what Mickey wrote on the note at the end of KH: 2 and why he wrote it. Assassins Creed on the other hand at this point does feel kind of forced. I am aware of what happened to Desmond at the end of 3 and so this Black Flag game seems incredibly forced to me. Also they seem to want to jump on the Pirate wagon about 5 or so years after that ship sailed with Pirates of the Caribbean.

 

[Evonisia]

We should have sequels but if they've got nothing to improve on from the previous game then there's no point to them (other than to make money, obviously). Of course there are some exceptions to that rule, like with BioShock 2. That game was just unnecessary despite it's gameplay improvements.

 

[putowtin]

The Arkham series, which is based off of a comic book character that has been running since what, 1939? That's literally decades worth of stuff to make games out of right there. Why wouldn't they pump out sequel?

People need to get over the mentality that more than one sequel = bad. Sure some series go overboard like Assassins Creed, however they have all been solid titles.

Assassins Creed on the other hand at this point does feel kind of forced. I am aware of what happened to Desmond at the end of 3 and so this Black Flag game seems incredibly forced to me. Also they seem to want to jump on the Pirate wagon about 5 or so years after that ship sailed with Pirates of the Caribbean.

Black Flag, so far, is turning into a better game than III. My main problem with ACIII (apart from the boring as hell main character) was the Modern day Assassin bits, and the whole end of the world uber plot. Black Flag (again, so far) has none of that, there is no "new" assassin/Desmond Miles. It's you, your working for abstergo, and that makes the game easier to pick up if your new to the series, and gives us veterans a break from the whole "ahh, the worlds doomed, and I only have Mr Boring and his ragtag team to save it with!"

 

[KazeAizen]

The Arkham series, which is based off of a comic book character that has been running since what, 1939? That's literally decades worth of stuff to make games out of right there. Why wouldn't they pump out sequel?

People need to get over the mentality that more than one sequel = bad. Sure some series go overboard like Assassins Creed, however they have all been solid titles.

Assassins Creed on the other hand at this point does feel kind of forced. I am aware of what happened to Desmond at the end of 3 and so this Black Flag game seems incredibly forced to me. Also they seem to want to jump on the Pirate wagon about 5 or so years after that ship sailed with Pirates of the Caribbean.

Black Flag, so far, is turning into a better game than III. My main problem with ACIII (apart from the boring as hell main character) was the Modern day Assassin bits, and the whole end of the world uber plot. Black Flag (again, so far) has none of that, there is no "new" assassin/Desmond Miles. It's you, your working for abstergo, and that makes the game easier to pick up if your new to the series, and gives us veterans a break from the whole "ahh, the worlds doomed, and I only have Mr Boring and his ragtag team to save it with!"

In all honesty I haven't played nor do I really have any intention of playing Black Flag. While I'm sure it is a solid game as even I have to admit from a game play standpoint all of the CoD games really do have solid mechanics that work. I can't deny that even if its the same game being pumped out. At least with AC I can tell the difference and it gives me a distinguishable character on the box which it may be the only game that does that from these "1 every year" titles. Back on point though even if Black Flag is a really solid game after knowing the end of AC 3 I can't help but think this is really just a forced sequel to a franchise Ubisoft wants to wring for every penny. Instead of you know their original no limbed mascot that was awesome. So just from a story telling standpoint and an outsider looking in it appears forced as all hell. I'm ok with forced sequels on the condition that you don't make them look forced.

 

[putowtin]

Snip

snippy

Mc Snippy

In all honesty I haven't played nor do I really have any intention of playing Black Flag. While I'm sure it is a solid game as even I have to admit from a game play standpoint all of the CoD games really do have solid mechanics that work. I can't deny that even if its the same game being pumped out. At least with AC I can tell the difference and it gives me a distinguishable character on the box which it may be the only game that does that from these "1 every year" titles. Back on point though even if Black Flag is a really solid game after knowing the end of AC 3 I can't help but think this is really just a forced sequel to a franchise Ubisoft wants to wring for every penny. Instead of you know their original no limbed mascot that was awesome. So just from a story telling standpoint and an outsider looking in it appears forced as all hell. I'm ok with forced sequels on the condition that you don't make them look forced.

If a sequel is released every 12 to 18 months (Assassin's Creed, CoD, Battlefield) then it's going to seem forced.
If the sequel is nearly a carbon copy of the original/ last sequel (the only changes being aesthetics) then its forced.
If a sequel can add new gameplay, a new story or something else that sets it apart, maybe it shouldn't be looked at as a sequel, but a new entry into an existing series?

 

[hermes]

I have no problem with sequels, on a philosophical level. If it is a good game, I couldn't care less if its part of a franchise or not.

The issue with Batman Origins is not that its a sequel, but an unnecessary one. The game feels like a Arkham City DLC, with pretty much the same gadgets as the last game and almost no new elements. I mean, I am in the middle of Gotham, yet there are no cars, no civilians, no stray dogs, no life at all, except for henchmen and corrupt policemen (at least B:AC explained it by being a secluded section of the city reconditioned as a mega-prison); they even went so far as to remake part of my progression: I got gadgets in the middle of the game that I picked up in the previous (chronologically later) ones...

Besides, for a character with over 70 years, they decided to make a prequel with one of the most obvious premises of a prequel there is. I am not spoiling it, but the only way they could have made it more cliche is if they remake Batman Begins.

 

[rasputin0009]

If it's primarily multiplayer (Battlefield, CoD), sequel away! If it's mostly unrelated primary characters (Assassin's Creed, Zelda), sequel away! If it's an adventuring adventurer that has a different adventure each time (Tomb Raider, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank), sequel away!

But if it's the same character doing the same stuff because cash-in, fuck off. And if it's a prequel of any sorts, especially fuck off. Prequels are never good.