Are You Sick Of Sequels?

[wraggster]

Here's how it works: We ask a question, you answer it. Simple and no strings attached! This isn't some marketing survey or whatever. It's an emotional investment in you. Yes, we're interested in knowing you, reader person.

You probably know oodles about us - more than you even want to, we're sure. But, hey, we'd like to know about you. That way you won't be some faceless blob - and we might feel a tinge of guilt when we ban ya. Or not, because really we're incapable of human emotion.

So, our question is:

Are you tired of spin-offs and sequels?

http://kotaku.com/5226882/are-you-sick-of-sequels

[Jeric]

It all depends really. A sequel, or even trilogy works. However churning out spinoff after spinoff that increasingly has less to do with the initial concept save for Easter egg or shout out type things that exist solely to go 'hey look, see, I'm a sequel!' (phantasy star universe/PS0 I'm looking at YOU). In these instances developers should take the ideas they thing might be cool for brand x or y and figure out how to retool it so it can stand on its own, because many games would be really good IF they wern't tied to a brand that theyr'e plainly not taking in a direction the fanbase wants.

Sports games is something of a loophole in this because you have to keep up with current rosters. However that's a whole 'nother ball o wax that I cannot adiquitly go into.

[Sterist]

based off of what happened with Resistance, YES!

resistance 2 is crap and resistance retribution is programmed in LUA!!

sincerely,
Sterist - #1 in world w/ auger in resistance ;)

[apex05]

No-one's being forced to buy sequels, i mean you buy an EA sports game you know it'll be 96% identical to the last version but people have to have the latest team lineups, so really the developers have no incentive to be inventive.

[ojdon]

If it is a needed Sequel then yes.

A Money-Grabbing sequel then no. :P

Saints Row is one of the latest titles that needed a sequel because of the small cliffhanger ending from the first game. Yet, does it really need a Saints Row 3? Who knows!

Titles like all of the latest Sonic titles don't need a sequel right now, only because the games are just for making money, that's it.


...programmed in LUA!!

Lua is great when used correctly. ;)

It's just that there are very few games that use Lua efficiently.

[fg-54]

If its a good sequel then i am all for it, but if its another guitar hero game, or another DDR game where they could just make the songs downloadable, then I don't think its necessary.

[mike_jmg]

thought you'll never ask

Yes I'm sick of sequels mostly of the bad ones.
Don't know if this was where the question was going but it's what I got from it.

I'm tired of seeing game after game after game of the same franchise, I mean, what's up with most of this gen games being sequels: DMC4, RE5, Tekken 6 (can't wait to play it, but is a sequel), Silent Hill Homecoming (No.5), Burnout Paradise (No.6), God of War 3 (this is really needed but still a sequel), Halo 3, Soul Calibur 4, FFXIII etc.

Not that all of these are bad but the thing is, there are very few new and original games, Gears of War 1 and 2, Resistance 1 and 2, can't remember any more.

When the ps2 and the 1st xbox were out, all of this franchises where a success, therefore they got sequels but I think there is some point where it gets boring. Don't get me wrong, a lot of this games are great but we really need some new originals

[WhizzBang]

I'm not sick of sequels. Some work, some don't, but i think the computer game industry is better at doing them than the film industry where sequels are generaly poorer than the original.

Most Tomb Raider sequels weren't necessary but TR Legend was excellent. Resident Evil 4 was a great revival of a license that was going stale.

I am sick of the Halo sequels though. The original is still the best.

[havoc_012]

I hate sequels. Give me more original games.

Some sequels even tarnish the original games: see FFVII spinoffs, any Sonic game made after 1994, Devil May Cry 2, Tony Hawk's American Wasteland, Call of Duty 3.

Some sequels highlighted the previous games weaknesses. Some felt so soulless that they sucked the art and craftsmanship out of the originals. Either way, time spent developing sequels is time that could be better spent on new IPs.

[DCRich]

wow. now there's a loaded question really. without sequels, in general, the industry would fall apart. most people fail to realize that the majority of the profits ( on AAA titles anyway ) actually come from the sequel using the same engine.

Someone mentioned final fantasy...seriously, those are hardly sequels, and they don't always use the same engine, so costs to produce such a title are absolutely huge. And for Burnout Paradise, as long as they keep doing what they're currently doing, they won't need to make a sequel, and they will still make good profit; it's a win win situation for everyone.

Now to answer the question. for those franchises that produce sequels in the vein of GTA, I don't see a problem, as you are getting a completely new story, better graphics, and more features. and for the latest big sonic game, they added a completely new twist to the gameplay, so I think it's good as well.

While there are definitely games that benefit huge from sequels, there are far too many that seem to just try and re-hash old products with nothing new put into it. Most sports games and FPS games come to mind. FPS games have a focus on online play, so single player is seriously lacking. Essentially all they are doing is changing the enemy models and modifying the guns....the experience remains the same. Although it's still fun.