I think about 2 years between sequels seems to work nicely, anything shorter generally doesn't come out feeling like a sequel, more like an add-on.
Sequels: When are they best?
- Thread starter The_Healer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think the best sequel I've come across is Half-Life 2 but, the release dates are far and few between for it.
Usually I find that in the film industry the second films are generally best as the film-writers still have plenty of ideas, and don't have a solid guarantee that everyone will see it, so they put plenty of effort in.
I think about a year is the best time for a new sequel to be made.
Usually I find that in the film industry the second films are generally best as the film-writers still have plenty of ideas, and don't have a solid guarantee that everyone will see it, so they put plenty of effort in.
I think about a year is the best time for a new sequel to be made.
Time is much of a factor when it comes to sequels. If they do a good job, then they did a good job. If they do a bad job, 3 more years wont change that
I think a year or so for expansions, a few years for sequels.
A decade or so seems a little silly (says he who is buying SC2 as soon as it comes out).
A decade or so seems a little silly (says he who is buying SC2 as soon as it comes out).
I think a longer time is best, it builds hype and actually gives you something to look forward to even if it doesn't come out for an other year. The thing is occasionaly games dont meet expectation...which sucks but still if they take longer to release it, it will probably be a much better game, and if its not....atleast it is better than it would have been if it was released sooner
Sequels should really depend on the developers. If they have a lot of ideas that didn't make it into the last release, they could choose to release it as DLC or save it for a whole new game, like the upcoming Left 4 Dead 2. Many people were upset with Valve over releasing it a year later as a separate game, but if the game strays that differently from the first it's a good idea to make it a sequel.
As for timing between them that's really up to the studios and what they've got going on. I'm happy to wait 2 years for a sequel that sequel ends up being Gears of War 2 or Saints Row 2. I have high hopes for Mass Effect 2 and Assassin's Creed 2, both are seeing slightly longer than 2 year turn-arounds due to delays.
The new Halo release is a different take on the universe and as such justifies it being it's own game. Sequels are typically better in gaming because it gives them a chance to get feedback and learn from their mistakes.
However, taking too long could really be a problem for some devs, just look at the upcoming Gran Turismo... the game has been in development for so long and the expectations for it are so high, they may never live up to them. At least with a steady release schedule and cycle the fans don't overvalue games due to extended wait periods.
As for timing between them that's really up to the studios and what they've got going on. I'm happy to wait 2 years for a sequel that sequel ends up being Gears of War 2 or Saints Row 2. I have high hopes for Mass Effect 2 and Assassin's Creed 2, both are seeing slightly longer than 2 year turn-arounds due to delays.
The new Halo release is a different take on the universe and as such justifies it being it's own game. Sequels are typically better in gaming because it gives them a chance to get feedback and learn from their mistakes.
However, taking too long could really be a problem for some devs, just look at the upcoming Gran Turismo... the game has been in development for so long and the expectations for it are so high, they may never live up to them. At least with a steady release schedule and cycle the fans don't overvalue games due to extended wait periods.
I would like less (none, preferrably) sequels. I think that sequels invalidate the original games. I would rather see expansions that add to the game, adding more content to it. In the era of DLC, considering the consoles have been sold with it in mind, it is sad to see few developers take advantage of it, rather choosing to withhold content to milk customers for it.
I still have older games with many problems and glitches that haven't been fixed with patches beyond those that are game-breaking (and in some cases, those still exist). Developers will instead focus on crafting a sequel to the game instead of fixing said older game, essentially shafting the customers that have already placed their faith in the company.
Instead of sequels, develop new games and add to the old ones. That's my take on the subject, and it's sad to see the gaming environment devolve itself into that of the movie industry all for the sake of money. No one takes pride in their work anymore, I guess...
I still have older games with many problems and glitches that haven't been fixed with patches beyond those that are game-breaking (and in some cases, those still exist). Developers will instead focus on crafting a sequel to the game instead of fixing said older game, essentially shafting the customers that have already placed their faith in the company.
Instead of sequels, develop new games and add to the old ones. That's my take on the subject, and it's sad to see the gaming environment devolve itself into that of the movie industry all for the sake of money. No one takes pride in their work anymore, I guess...
Sequels needs some time after their predecessors...
This way perhaps some time, effort and thought can be put into them. Take Metal Gear Solid for example, the main series is epic. Each one had about 3-4 years between them (if memory serves) and each one was worth the wait, despite their shortcomings.
I also must contradict myself here after the mention of Metal Gear, and just add that I prefer sequels that don't rely on knowing the backstory of the predecessors. I hate having to backtrack to an old PS1 game or even a PS2 era game when a new game comes out to be able to fully enjoy it. Thankfully MGS is the only series I know of where that's an issue and I played the series beforehand anyway, though it's still annoying not experiencing the events of Outer Haven and Zanzibarland without tracking back to the MSX era.
This way perhaps some time, effort and thought can be put into them. Take Metal Gear Solid for example, the main series is epic. Each one had about 3-4 years between them (if memory serves) and each one was worth the wait, despite their shortcomings.
I also must contradict myself here after the mention of Metal Gear, and just add that I prefer sequels that don't rely on knowing the backstory of the predecessors. I hate having to backtrack to an old PS1 game or even a PS2 era game when a new game comes out to be able to fully enjoy it. Thankfully MGS is the only series I know of where that's an issue and I played the series beforehand anyway, though it's still annoying not experiencing the events of Outer Haven and Zanzibarland without tracking back to the MSX era.
So you want the Star WWars Plan.sms_117b said:
Sequels are best when they are good games. Valve took 11 years for a sequel to TF so TF2 could be the game it is.