What is with the hate on sequels?

[ScottyMuser]

I think the issue with many games, mainly shooters, is the sequel really is nothing more then a small new campaign, and some new MP maps (hello, COD)
I really don't get the comments re AC:B being like an expansion pack - as a game it is as big as the original (in fact for a similar % complete around 85% I put in MORe time in brotherhood as it was so good), has an all new storyline set after the first, new combat system, new brotherhood system (with assicated quest mini-games), all new VR training, all new MP that was built from the ground up, etc. Pretty much the only thing that wasn't new was the game engine and the name and backstory of the main characters.

 

[parasyteFMA]

I just can't stand BioShock 2. When I heard about it, I was pretty excited. Then they announced multiplayer. Never bought it.

 

[KrabbiPatty]

I have no problems with sequels. For that matter, moving on to movies, I have no problem with remakes either.

Basically the problem is this: there are some people who think that they're being somehow "edgy" or "different" or "non-conformist" or whatever by hating sequels, remakes, reality TV, Justin Beiber and whatever else is chic to hate today. Forget for a moment the irony of supposed non-conformists all acting and thinking in lockstep (but don't forget it for too long, cause it's hilarious to watch) but consider this for a moment.

These people choose what to play based purely on subjective opinions. Not a single one can raise an objective critique of these games, so the term sequel simply becomes a buzz word or code word for some nebulous, impossible to define "flaw" only they can see. Just like movie critics are, to the point of exclusivity, subjective and unable to raise a single objective critique of most movies so they use codewords like "loud and stupid" to define some supposed flaw, never mind that the word "loud" has no meaning with regard to a movie with sound in it because all movies are loud (assuming they mean "loud" literally, they don't, which makes it even more subjective since the term is now used as a codeword for something that doesn't exist).

At any rate, to thse people, the word "sequel" doesn't actually mean "a game that came after the original", it means "I don't like it! Why? Err...um, I don't know, its unoriginal!" which again has NO meaning and makes absolutely NO sense as every single original idea has been used by now in almost every medium and genre due to the fact that, at heart, we're still telling the same stories we did 2000 years ago just with better special effects.

Unable to raise a genuine critique of the game, they just throw up the concept "it's a sequel it must be unoriginal" without ever explaining why.

And no it does not stifle creativity. Frankly that too is another pointless code-phrase that has no inherent meaning. Not only is it undefined, but even if it were true it would still be irrelevent since the point of games is not creativity but GAMEPLAY. You know, because it's a GAME.

 

[zfactor]

The problem is sequels are either too different and so people hate it for not being what they wanted or they are too the same and people hate it for being a copy.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

I don't mind sequels myself. But the problem is that too many producers (whether film or game) lose sight of what made the original great, and the sequel just can't measure up. Plot lines become cheesy because they're trying to extend a story that was neatly wrapped up. Or they try to play it up, make it more dramatic and full of suspense when it makes little sense for the series. Characters don't continue to change and grow, and they lose all of the magic of the first.

 

[Prometherion]

Sequels are great, the problem is you need to make a popular game first.

Or as Activision sees it a horse which they can stomp the life out of.

 

[suubersnake]

Sequels are fine. The problem is reliance on sequels as a cash influx, see madden. Sometimes sequels make sense, such as continuing a story or creating a spin-off that works as a standalone title. Other times creating another game with slightly altered mechanics and new multi-player servers is just an excuse to print money. It's more or less the players faults for this, because we're the ones giving them money for it, but it doesn't make it any less of a problem.

All in all I'm apathetic to the term sequel. If the game is good, like New Vegas or Starcraft II, I'll still play them. I'm just wary about seeing a game that has a number on the side of the box that exceeds 5 without giving us anything particularly new or creative.

 

[moretimethansense]

I really don't see how people can call Bioshock 2 a bad game without them just wanking to the first game, sorry.

Bioshock 2 had a more engaging plot, a antagonist I truly wanted to stop, better gameplay, more story, better characters (besides Andrew Ryan, ofc) and by the end a lot more emotional. By the final few stages of the game I truly wanted to save Ellanor and prevent her implied fate if you failed. Bioshock 2 was a much better game, imo. It just didn't have any "OMGWTF" moments like the first game.

Quoted for the fucking truth!

I just can't stand BioShock 2. When I heard about it, I was pretty excited. Then they announced multiplayer. Never bought it.

Well then you don't really have any right to complain then, do you?
I mean for gods sake you hear they are adding a multiplayer and immediately start bawling
"BIOSHOCK IS RUINED FOREVER!" frankly I'm sick of seeing it, you don't think you'll like it, then fine don't play it, but if you don't you forfeit all right to complain.

OT: As you may guess from the above I have no real beef with sequels, I only hate them if they lose what made the original great, are badly made or they have nothing to do with the original.

 

[Omnific One]

Why all the hate for Bioshock 2? It was a cash grab, sure, but the story, while a bit cliché, was incredibly well done and Eleanor was insanely well characterized. It didn't have the same atmosphere as Bioshock 1, but I loved it for the story as it was actually enjoyable, rather than depressing like the first.

 

[KindlySpastic]

Sequels (especially of the nigh endless variety) tend to suffer from the same problems as TV shows that go on forever. Sooner or later the recycled story, concepts and ideas of the original start to go stale. There are of course some exceptions to this, though I can't think of any right now.

I have a feeling that gaming companies generally don't make sequels because they think the result will be a good game, but because it's a safe investment. Me thinks that kind of mindset might not always result in the best games.

Look at the Prince of Persia series for example. Admittedly the best game of the series came right in the middle of it, but then it took a huge plunge in quality. I hope they can get back to the Sands of Time level of awesome sometime in the future. It's not like they're going to stop making PoP games any time soon.

 

[parasyteFMA]

Well then you don't really have any right to complain then, do you?
I mean for gods sake you hear they are adding a multiplayer and immediately start bawling
"BIOSHOCK IS RUINED FOREVER!" frankly I'm sick of seeing it, you don't think you'll like it, then fine don't play it, but if you don't you forfeit all right to complain.

Did I say I haven't played it?

While the game had a lot of the same gameplay elements that made me love the first one, it lacked the mystery and awe which made it's predecessor a game I loved .BioShock didn't need a sequel. The only reason to put that game out was for the tacked on multiplayer... which was awful.

Just shows that 2K and Irrational Games were just cashing in.

 

[Moeez]

I was playing Alan Wake on nightmare mode, already beat it once, but its just such a good game, I love the atmosphere and the story, yea the game-play isn't all that great and combat could use refinement, but that is far from why I play it. I turn off all the lights and just absorb the atmosphere and the well thought out story. I want an Alan Wake 2, not sure how they will make it, but the atmosphere is so good I want them to make more like it. Maybe just make another game like it, not all sequels need to haev a 2 on it, just make it another game that follows the design of the first would be awesome!!

Have you played the 2 DLCs? They added new combat mechanics with the floating words acting as buffers, so like a word like "fireworks" or "rocks" could benefit you. Also, the combat design was tighter, less repeating of locales, and enough newness to pretty much act as a sequel. Remedy put so much into these expansions, I can't wait what they could do with an actual sequel!

 

[moretimethansense]

Well then you don't really have any right to complain then, do you?
I mean for gods sake you hear they are adding a multiplayer and immediately start bawling
"BIOSHOCK IS RUINED FOREVER!" frankly I'm sick of seeing it, you don't think you'll like it, then fine don't play it, but if you don't you forfeit all right to complain.

Did I say I haven't played it?

While the game had a lot of the same gameplay elements that made me love the first one, it lacked the mystery and awe which made it's predecessor a game I loved .BioShock didn't need a sequel. The only reason to put that game out was for the tacked on multiplayer... which was awful.

Just shows that 2K and Irrational Games were just cashing in.

I'm going to assume yopu borrowed it then, since you explicitly said you never bought it.

I'll grant you that there wasn't any real mystery, but that was hardly a deal breaker for me.
The gameplay, I find, was quite improved.
The moral choices actually made sense and had a little bit of depth, in that the endings made sense and killing the Little Sisters was not as painfully stupid as the first game, I mean the good path gets more Adam and unique plasmids? I call bullshit.
And the story fleshed out Rapture and helped explain how it fell so hard.

If you don't like it as much fair enough, but claiming that it was made purly for the multiplayer is quite frankly bullshit, though I will agree that Bioshock didn't need a sequal, Bioshock 2 wasn't anywhere near as bad as everybody says it is.

 

[parasyteFMA]

I'll grant you that there wasn't any real mystery, but that was hardly a deal breaker for me.
The gameplay, I find, was quite improved.
The moral choices actually made sense and had a little bit of depth, in that the endings made sense and killing the Little Sisters was not as painfully stupid as the first game, I mean the good path gets more Adam and unique plasmids? I call bullshit.
And the story fleshed out Rapture and helped explain how it fell so hard.

If you don't like it as much fair enough, but claiming that it was made purly for the multiplayer is quite frankly bullshit, though I will agree that Bioshock didn't need a sequal, Bioshock 2 wasn't anywhere near as bad as everybody says it is.

I just hate it when games have tacked on multiplayer and have an abysmal single player element. While BioShock 2 didn't do it nearly as bad as most games that do so, it's still leads me to believe that they would have worked on the multiplayer instead of the single player.

The multiplayer sucked so I'm hoping they didn't dwell on it too much, then again they could just be bad at making a great multiplayer experience.

 

[Sleekgiant]

Most people get tired of sequels because a bunch are just money grabs.....ACTIVISION?TREYARCH

Take yer half arsed sequels and $20 map packs and shove it.

 

[moretimethansense]

I just hate it when games have tacked on multiplayer and have an abysmal single player element. While BioShock 2 didn't do it nearly as bad as most games that do so, it's still leads me to believe that they would have worked on the multiplayer instead of the single player.

But they clearly didn't, as you said the mutiplayer sucked, the single player was perfectly good.

The multiplayer sucked so I'm hoping they didn't dwell on it too much, then again they could just be bad at making a great multiplayer experience.

I'd much rather they had a tacked on multiplayer, than an afterthought singleplayer.

Also:

If it having multiplayer caused you to not buy it then why the fuck would you care if it sucked?
You sir make no fucking sense.

 

[CaptainKoala]

Usually its with movies. For example:
Name any animated movie (other than Toy Story) where the sequel doesn't suck. I dare you.

 

[badgersprite]

I don't have a problem with sequels. Some of my best friends are sequels! Err, I mean, some of my favorite games are sequels. I think what people have a problem with, myself included, are sequels to bad games or games they don't like to begin with, as well as sequels that lack what made their favored predecessors great and original, or even sequels to great games that are just disappointing or mediocre.

Nobody bashes on genuinely good sequels. The problem is generally more with sameyness in games across the board rather than whether it has a number on the end or not.

Usually its with movies. For example:
Name any animated movie (other than Toy Story) where the sequel doesn't suck. I dare you.

Rescuers Down Under. Do I win?

 

[parasyteFMA]

I'd much rather they had a tacked on multiplayer, than an afterthought singleplayer.

Also:

If it having multiplayer caused you to not buy it then why the fuck would you care if it sucked?
You sir make no fucking sense.

Too many games are adding a crappy multiplayer just to get into that market. It's retarded.