Sequel Sequel Sequel When the heck is it going to stop?

[swlovinist]

Ok, so we all know that a good game deserves a sequel, but how many? Four? Five? Seven? It seems like lately most of the games released tend to just be yet another sequel of a long extened game series. Dont get me wrong, I dont mind any game that is of good quality, and this post is not directed towards the games that have one to three good games in a series. I guess the real question is? When is all the "non creative sequelmania going to bite the game industry in the butt"? I know that not "all" the current games that are being released are not sequels.......but dam a whole hell alot of them are. Is it that hard to make something "new"?

[swlovinist]

Ok, so we all know that a good game deserves a sequel, but how many? Four? Five? Seven? It seems like lately most of the games released tend to just be yet another sequel of a long extened game series. Dont get me wrong, I dont mind any game that is of good quality, and this post is not directed towards the games that have one to three good games in a series. I guess the real question is? When is all the "non creative sequelmania going to bite the game industry in the butt"? I know that not "all" the current games that are being released are not sequels.......but dam a whole hell alot of them are. Is it that hard to make something "new"?

[soniko_karuto]

final fantasy XXVIII only for the psXV.

[soniko_karuto]

final fantasy XXVIII only for the psXV.

[Berty]

Its the publishers mainly who are too blame, and to a lesser extent the consumer.

From experience publishers are less likely to fork out for a new game when they a guaranteed to make money on already existing franchises that is already in the public's knowledge.

But i have to admit though, that when i like a game, i want to experience more of it. (metal slug) :P

[Berty]

Its the publishers mainly who are too blame, and to a lesser extent the consumer.

From experience publishers are less likely to fork out for a new game when they a guaranteed to make money on already existing franchises that is already in the public's knowledge.

But i have to admit though, that when i like a game, i want to experience more of it. (metal slug) :P

[Promophile]

The same thing happened to the movie industry years ago, and it shows no signs of stopping. Companies know that sequels are garunteed to rake in a certain ammount of cash, no matter how sucky the game. Ya know, now that you mention it, I just picked up suikoden 4 and RE 4. For franchises that started on the PS 4 seems to be the current number.

[Promophile]

The same thing happened to the movie industry years ago, and it shows no signs of stopping. Companies know that sequels are garunteed to rake in a certain ammount of cash, no matter how sucky the game. Ya know, now that you mention it, I just picked up suikoden 4 and RE 4. For franchises that started on the PS 4 seems to be the current number.

[FantasiaWHT]

Its the publishers mainly who are too blame, and to a lesser extent the consumer.


Other way around. The consumer dictates the market. If people stopped buying crappy rehashes, publishers wouldn't put so much of their effort into them.

The consumer always dictates the market.

Publishers crank out sequels because it's lucrative. And safe.

Think of it this way... publishers that hedge their bets by making sure-hit sequels are also more likely to take the risk on a "new" game because they can afford it if it's a bust. If a small company does that, that one bust could ruin the company for good.

[FantasiaWHT]

Its the publishers mainly who are too blame, and to a lesser extent the consumer.


Other way around. The consumer dictates the market. If people stopped buying crappy rehashes, publishers wouldn't put so much of their effort into them.

The consumer always dictates the market.

Publishers crank out sequels because it's lucrative. And safe.

Think of it this way... publishers that hedge their bets by making sure-hit sequels are also more likely to take the risk on a "new" game because they can afford it if it's a bust. If a small company does that, that one bust could ruin the company for good.

[ddockery]

It'll stop when we stop buying all of them. Since a lot of these sequels they are cranking out are actually pretty dam good games, that's unlikely to happen any time soon.

[ddockery]

It'll stop when we stop buying all of them. Since a lot of these sequels they are cranking out are actually pretty dam good games, that's unlikely to happen any time soon.

[crazyjackcsa]

Recentlly, a fair number of sequels have been good games. I have no qualms about buying good sequels. It's like revisiting a friend with a new story. It's the crappy sequels I'll have no part of.

[crazyjackcsa]

Recentlly, a fair number of sequels have been good games. I have no qualms about buying good sequels. It's like revisiting a friend with a new story. It's the crappy sequels I'll have no part of.

[rbudrick]

Sequel Sequel Sequel When the heck is it going to stop?

Ironically, they will stop when companies stop making original games. No originals games, no sequels. Hah! LOL

I really have no problem with sequels. I'm with crazyjhackcsa on this one. But to add to that, so-so sequels are a bit of a bummer sometimes too. I've always believed that sequels should be better than the first. I kind of irks me when a sequel is too similar to the first or if they only give you a little bit more.

-Rob

[rbudrick]

Sequel Sequel Sequel When the heck is it going to stop?

Ironically, they will stop when companies stop making original games. No originals games, no sequels. Hah! LOL

I really have no problem with sequels. I'm with crazyjhackcsa on this one. But to add to that, so-so sequels are a bit of a bummer sometimes too. I've always believed that sequels should be better than the first. I kind of irks me when a sequel is too similar to the first or if they only give you a little bit more.

-Rob

[RCM]

When the money stops rolling in the sequels will stop. Developers and consumers share nearly equal blame on different levels. Not all sequels are bad by the way.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[RCM]

When the money stops rolling in the sequels will stop. Developers and consumers share nearly equal blame on different levels. Not all sequels are bad by the way.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[Eternal Tune]

I want sequels to Suikoden to continue to the end of time, as well as Star Ocean. I love the sequels, so I ain't complaining.

[Eternal Tune]

I want sequels to Suikoden to continue to the end of time, as well as Star Ocean. I love the sequels, so I ain't complaining.

[evildead2099]

The makers of the Final Fantasy games don't seem to grasp the meaning of the term "final."

[evildead2099]

The makers of the Final Fantasy games don't seem to grasp the meaning of the term "final."

[MegaDrive20XX]

I still don't know why FF's are called sequels...they have nothing to do with each other, just similar gameplay styles and always having the same purpose...we gotta save the world.

Doesn't sequel mean "any litery work complete in itself but continuing a story begun in an earlier work"?

I'm sure somewhere within Final Fantasy stories, two of them connect somehow. Like the Crystals and such

RE4 is a sequel to the storyline

Final Fantasy 2 through 12 is not.

Silent Hill series as well, aren't really sequels, unless you take part 1 & 3 which is an exceptation

[MegaDrive20XX]

I still don't know why FF's are called sequels...they have nothing to do with each other, just similar gameplay styles and always having the same purpose...we gotta save the world.

Doesn't sequel mean "any litery work complete in itself but continuing a story begun in an earlier work"?

I'm sure somewhere within Final Fantasy stories, two of them connect somehow. Like the Crystals and such

RE4 is a sequel to the storyline

Final Fantasy 2 through 12 is not.

Silent Hill series as well, aren't really sequels, unless you take part 1 & 3 which is an exceptation

[rbudrick]

The makers of the Final Fantasy games don't seem to grasp the meaning of the term "final."

Well when FF1 was made, Square thought it was their swansong....I think they were in financial trouble. However, it took off and all was well.

As for FF games not being sequels in the sense of


"any litery work complete in itself but continuing a story begun in an earlier work"?

I suppose that each game is similar in style enough to the last that if Square called it something else people would say, "Hey, they're ripping off their own Final Fantasy Series and calling it something else!! How lame!"

-Rob

[Nature Boy]

It'll stop once the cost to develop a game drops (i.e. never) At least for making a movie all you need is people, a place, and a camera.

[MegaDrive20XX]

Well I wouldn't go that far to say it's ripping itself off, but I say, they should have had subtitles. The numerals just doesn't give them justice to tell them apart to the public.

You know how many consumers were confused when FFX-2 arrived? Not the fans and gamers, I just mean the average person buying them.

"Do I need to play FF "X" in order to understand FF "X"-2?" was one common question

[Iron Draggon]

Well I still say that any sequel to a "Final" Fantasy game is an oxymoron. LOL

And the same thing goes for any sequel to a "Final" Fight game too. LOL

[EnemyZero]

i dont mind sequals by any means...its like a book or a movie, sometimes you just dont want it to end...some you do...Final fantasy you can't say because X-2 is the only true sequal........some good series would be devil may cry...hopefully beyond good and evil when the next 2 games are released.....or onimusha.....then theres those that need to stop...like......tomb raider...

[Gamereviewgod]

Industry has always been like this. It didn't just start with this gen. How many Sonic game were in the Genesis? Mario on the NES? Final Fight? Streets of Rage? Mortal Kombat? Street Fighter?

It's nothing new.

[lendelin]

Sequels are a mixed bag; and a very complex thing. They are the symbol of a basic problem that burdens every creative enterprise who has to survive in a harsh economic reality: to balance money-making with new innovative ideas; in the end, both cannot be simply separated, money-making and innovation are intertwined. It is the case from the early Atari times on.

Good sequels are good, bad sequels are bad. Unlike in the movie industry, as a general rule the sequel improves over the original. The list of true classic games that are sequels is longer than the list of sleeper hits. The golden rule of sequels (‘take the good elements of the original and improve them, get rid of the bad elements’) are more often than not moderately kept. But there is one trap game designers fell into: they made the sequel just longer, added size, and new innovations were kept at a minimum. Sometimes they made the sequel more complex, which can be a good thing, but I would hang over every designers bed a rule: Make the original gameplay idea SIMPLER, not more complex. Very hard to do. But gifted game designers should strive for this goal. Good games live from great and simple game ideas. This opportunity is more often than not missed in sequels.

The economics are truly complex. Sequels of hits are money-making machines. Huge money-making machines. Time is money, but also money is time. A good financial basis of a developer/publisher that makes sure-fire sequel-hits gives them the independence and time to take risks – for new franchises, some new game ideas, all of which are big risks in the uncertainty of entertainment products. Sequels are the basis for innovation.

Ubisoft has franchises which earn in all likelihood (!there is never certainty) big profits, this gave them the freedom to make Beyond Good and Evil. Could have been a smash hit, it was a commercial flop. Today with more money at stake than ever, with tremendous developing costs, this kind of diversification is more important than ever. The bigger the publisher/developer, the easier this diversification can be done. (Which actually puts more economic pressure on smaller developers/publishers to take less risks, counter-balanced in their search for niche markets)

Don’t blame too much publishers and developers, they have to survive. The gamers decide with their wallets about their fate. In the end, we get what we deserve. Look at the all to common schizophrenic attitude of us (you, me, all of us, casual gamers AND frequent gamers alike): we complain about sequels of the games we don’t like; and if we like a game we demand a sequel. It is the phenomenon of the ‘not in my backyard’-politics. We complain about government bureaucracy, but if an issue is important to us we demand regulations and money for bureaucracies. Academics complain about too many unimportant articles written, but the one article someone writes is of course VERY important and has to be published. Katamari Damacy should have a sequel, and we complained that Metroid didn’t get one for a long time, and where is the sequel to Kid Icarus anyway?

There is one big disadvantage about sequelitis: it takes creative energy away for new game ideas from gifted designers who want to do something else. To do another Resident Evil, immediately another Metriod Prime 2 after the original, not to mention ANOTHER Tony Hawk is economically understandable, but deadly for creative designers who want to move on. In particular the Tony Hawk series should be DEAD by now. But then...ask a devoted Tony Hawk fan, and you’ll get a different answer for sure.

Sequels are so controversial because they symbolize two intertwined aspects which we usually in a very simple way separate: creative, new game ideas, and profit. Both go hand-in-hand, they do not contradict each other. There is 'only' the constant attempt to balance them out.

[GarrettCRW]

There is one big disadvantage about sequelitis: it takes creative energy away for new game ideas from gifted designers who want to do something else. To do another Resident Evil, immediately another Metriod Prime 2 after the original, not to mention ANOTHER Tony Hawk is economically understandable, but deadly for creative designers who want to move on. In particular the Tony Hawk series should be DEAD by now. But then...ask a devoted Tony Hawk fan, and you’ll get a different answer for sure.

Two good examples of developer burn-out due to sequels are Insomniac and Naughty Dog-Sony basically killed the Spyro and Crash Bandicoot series, respectively, because they demanded games on a yearly basis.

[Aussie2B]

It's never going to stop as long as the cost to produce games goes up as well as the number of people on development teams. When you're putting that much money into a project and that many people are involved, you're not inclined to take risks.

As for me, I hate sequels. The market is flooded with them, and I'm absolutely sick of it. If a sequel is good, sure, I'll buy it, but it likely won't be right away. Believe it or not, I don't even want sequels to games I like. I don't want more of the same; I want another creative game just as good and innovative as the other game.

The fact that they don't like to make sequels is one of the many reasons why I like Treasure, and I'm very happy that my favorite company tri-Ace is releasing Radiata Stories, a brand new game, instead of "Star Ocean 4" or "Valkyrie Profile 2" like everyone else seems to want.

[Nature Boy]

The fact that they don't like to make sequels is one of the many reasons why I like Treasure...

Didn't they make Gradius V? :D

(And isn't Ikaruga a sequel of sorts to Radiant Silvergun?)

[Kamino]

Endless sequels are hardly a new gig.....look at mega mans 1-6 for nes. o_O
A lot of times though, sequels are what people whine for the most. "Where's the new punch out? When's another contra coming? Are we ever going to see another 2d zelda?"(yes i know two out of three have now been answered).