Why do you guys downplay sequels?

[random_bars]

Because the whole culture of sequels just feels really, really cheap. First of all, it means that developers can be lazy with their games, and don't need to spend much time refining them - why bother when you can just do that in a sequel?

Secondly, the plots of sequels, and generally the whole concept, never really makes sense. The game always has to make hundreds of excuses as to why the events of the last game are just happening again, and depending on how well the first game closed up all its loose ends this can range from slightly jarring to completely ridiculous.

And finally... I just hate the whole idea of "hey, this game sold well. Let's make a Popular Game 2!" Just the whole way everyone's reaction to a game that's even mildly good is "sequel time!" really pisses me off. And it's not even like there's any thought put into it. When you make an original game, you need a concept, an idea, you need to develop it, to build it into a whole game, a whole world. For a sequel? You take the name of the first game, slap a 2 at the end, then think about what complaints the first game got so you can make slight improvements... Then you make up an excuse for the events of the previous game to repeat themself.

It shouldn't work like that. Players should not be treated like unpaid playtesters, and when you release a game you should do so without the mindset of "when should we start the sequel?" It's just overall a really crap system.

 

[The Rookie Gamer]

I like sequels, as they take gameplay people liked, and improve it. I swear, the way some people talk, you'd think they would need to change the games genres for the sequels. You don't always need MASSIVE CHANGE. Just refining it, and adding some new features is okay.

 

[octafish]

ME2 isn't a sequel it is a second part of a trilogy that was planned from the begining. That said some sequels are great, like Jagged Alliance 2, and some just take the franchise in the wrong direction like anything beyond XCom: Terror From The Deep. Even more sequels just get boring.

 

[Telemachus]

The problem with sequels are the series' that weren't made for sequels. Mass Effect, and Ass Creed were designed to be made in parts. While Gran Turismo, and other games like CoD, are basically a newer version every few years with updated graphics, physics, new features etc.
The sequels that are problematic are the games that weren't designed for sequels. The ones that were just left open ended so they could have a sequel if they made enough money. (cough-cough Bioshock cough-cough)

 

[Azure-Supernova]

My favourite game is a sequel.

Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater.

There's nothing inherently wrong with sequels; but there's an odd paranoia that more sequels equates to less new IPs. Also you have to realise that a good percentage of people who watch Zero Punctuation will often come away after being rubbed up the wrong way and might have been swayed.

 

[voetballeeuw]

I don't dislike sequels. Hell, plenty of games I own are sequels. It's nice to see a great game perfecting itself.

 

[Oirish_Martin]

I'm not against sequels myself - I'm usually happy to revisit a particular story/setting a second time. The sequels that really stand out however are ones that make radical changes to the story and/or setting - Half Life 2 springs to mind with the complete change of setting from military base to urban; Fallout 3 going from iso-RPG to FPS-RPG is another good example for me.

 

[jack583]

good sequals are good.
bad sequals suck.
it's logic!

 

[Lybs]

well where are good sequels like Half-Life 2, Driver 2 and Resident Evil 4 but then again we have sequels like Caine and Lynch 2 and (shutters) Blood Omen 2 that makes me wanna bash my controller to the ground.

 

[KissofKetchup]

Because if you've made something too original, you've raised the bar too high to ever be able to better it in any way that people will like.
See COD 4.

COD 4 wasn't original, except for the nuke scene.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

I'll just copypasta what I typed in the "2011 best year ever" topic not a moment ago:

Oh look, here come the "hur hur sequels = cash-ins = suck" crowd.

Super Mario 3 was a sequel. Super Metroid was a sequel. Half Life 2 was a sequel. Metal Gear Solid 4 (or 3, or 2, take your pick) was a sequel. Resident Evil 4, Mass Effect 2, Majora's Mask, Uncharted 2, Persona 4, and so on? Sequels.

You go ahead and crap on those titles for being sequels. See how well that goes.

I mean yeah, we get the occasional over-hyped over-sold titles that don't live up to their predecessors (see Halo/CoD/FF/Fable/etc.), and yes, Yahtzee is right - some games really, really should have never had a sequel (Bioshock, God of War, etc.), but to crap all over a game automatically just because it might have a number in the title? That's all kinds of ignorant.

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

What are you talking about I love Sonic the hedgehog 2

Call of Duty Black Ops

? What

I crossed it out because its a terrible example of a good sequel

 

[mjc0961]

It depends on the game. For example, I hate that inFamous gets a sequel. A game that bad doesn't deserve a sequel, it deserves to have all copies confiscated and burned in one giant pile somewhere (I vote whatever building Sucker Punch works in).

Seriously though, I don't care. Sequels are fine by me. It's just a bunch of whining from people who think sequels just means milking/cashing in. Sure, sometimes it does (Hey there Call of Duty, Rock Band, every sports title ever, and so on), but sometimes it doesn't (mmm LittleBigPlanet 2). It's just another sweeping generalization people make that falls flat on its face.

Majora's Mask

I'd rather crap on it because it was a bad game full of boring sidequests and bad dungeon design, not because it wasn't the first in the series.

EDIT: You know what's worse than sequels? Blindly parroting "Yahtzee said it so all his fans say it too".

 

[RatRace123]

I don't hate sequels, in fact in a lot of cases I actually prefer sequels, a familiar sense of coming home to old friends is always appreciated.

Even if the old friends are ghostly white mass murderers, assassins and snarky treasure hunters.

 

[Jroo wuz heer]

they are dangerous, it is hard to improve on an exhausted premise eith a sequel

 

[Thunderhorse31]

It depends on the game. For example, I hate that inFamous gets a sequel. A game that bad doesn't deserve a sequel, it deserves to have all copies confiscated and burned in one giant pile somewhere (I vote whatever building Sucker Punch works in).

Majora's Mask

I'd rather crap on it because it was a bad game full of boring sidequests and bad dungeon design, not because it wasn't the first in the series.

EDIT: You know what's worse than sequels? Blindly parroting "Yahtzee said it so all his fans say it too".

I am shocked that you would blaspheme both Infamous AND Majora's Mask in the same post. Shocked, and appalled.