When are there too many sequels?

[swlovinist]

We all know that sequels are mostly what games are now thesedays, with some major Playstation franchises now going on thier 7th to more incarnation(Tomb Raider). When is a sequel unwelcome? What defines too many sequels? For me I used to hate sequels, but now realize that some of my favorite games of all time were sequels(Super Metroid, Link to the Past, Super Mario 3). What makes a good sequel? What makes a bad one?

[jajaja]

As long as the story and gameplay are great it doesnt matter if its a sequel or not. But what sometimes happends is that the first game in a serie is great. When the sequel comes the expectations are as high as the first game.

I wonder if people would have another opinion if a bad sequel was a game of its own and not a sequel.

[Darren870]

when you cant count the number of megamans using just your fingers and toes.

[Oobgarm]

As long as storyline and playability are maintained, there's always room for a sequel. After time, it may be wise to drop the numerical suffix from the title, depending on the franchise, but that's really a non-issue.

Things I think make bad sequels:

-Poor Graphics.

It doesn't matter how much people say graphics don't matter. When you're tinkering with a franchise title, it had better live up to previous incarnations, unless an entirely new visual direction is being attempted. Even then, it's best to tread lightly.

-Poor Gameplay.

Speaks for itself. Drastic changes to the core mechanic aren't always welcomed, either.

-Poor story.

Entirely subjective...but if enough people don't like it, it could really hurt the franchise. You aren't going to please everyone, of course, but there is a line between 'meh' and 'WTF were they thinking?'.

-Too late/early sequels.

You'll alienate fans if you take too long, or burn them out if you're too quick on the draw. Once a year seems to the the status quo for big franchises, but adding in an extra year or so for building hype can really make a title shine if it's done right. of course, if you take too long developing a title, folks will move on.

[xolik]

I generally don't like the idea of a series going past three unless the stories really are related between the games. After so many games, it seems like the issuing company is just trying a make a buck by turning out as many games tied to the franchise as possible, regardless of quality.

Of course the exception is if it's acutally a well made game.

[sabre2922]

As long as its a good game I dont care if its the 200th sequel of a game.

Prime example I rented Tomb Raider legend and enjoyed it more than any TR since part 2 and plan on getting the 360 version whenever I can afford one.

Hell Tekken 5/ Gran Turismo 4 them r sum damn gooood games duuude.

But although I love Mega Man I think its time for that franchise to be retired.

[Iron Draggon]

More than a trilogy is pushing it. More than a double trilogy is really pushing it. More than a triple trilogy is just greed.

[mr_pollock]

I've been happy with Castlevania sequels and stuff as long as they aren't fully 3D. Muwahaha.

[Push Upstairs]

I still think there are far too many Mega Man games and SF2 "revisions".

But then again, this *IS* Capcom.

[kainemaxwell]

More than a trilogy is pushing it. More than a double trilogy is really pushing it. More than a triple trilogy is just greed.
Would you count the Ultima series in that then?

Sequels are always gonna be there- game get spopular, people want more so they make another one, then a 3rd one and so forth. Down the line the games and series start loosing their appeal due to "been there, done that" syndrome and the quality begins to fade.

[DeputyMoniker]

When are there too many sequels?

If that question had an answer we wouldnt have a kick ass new Tomb Raider. Sequels are no different than any first-release...if it's fun it's fun. If it isn't, the designers probably wouldn't have done any better on whatever else they would have been working on. It's just a license. The real question is "How many chances do you give a designer or publisher to shape up before you stop buying their releases prior to researching the hell out of it?"

[Griking]

You really can't put a number on it but you can usually tell when a developer just shovels out an quick, uninspired money grabbing sequel. It's generally a rare thing when a developer can make more than three games in a franchize before it jumps the shark.

[Haoie]

The worst? Those damn EA sports franchises, which can be considered sequals.

Same thing year after year after year.

[Iron Draggon]

More than a trilogy is pushing it. More than a double trilogy is really pushing it. More than a triple trilogy is just greed.
Would you count the Ultima series in that then?

Sequels are always gonna be there- game get spopular, people want more so they make another one, then a 3rd one and so forth. Down the line the games and series start loosing their appeal due to "been there, done that" syndrome and the quality begins to fade.

Yes, and the Final Fantasy series too. They're like Friday the 13th movies. There's way too many of them, even if they are good. Good franchises should be allowed to die with grace before they become tarnished by too many bad sequels, rather than milking them to death for all they can.

[njiska]

My Reqs of a good sequel

1. If story is important to the series then all sequels must advance the story in a meaningful way.

2. Sequels must show some form of refinement or improvment in controls/gameplay elements.

3. Sequels must preserve the feel of the original games. RE4, while drastically different then any RE game to come before it it maintained the zombie movie feel of the previous installments. In some ways it even improved upon it.

Snakes Revenge is an example of the opposite. It is shit.

[Push Upstairs]

The worst? Those damn EA sports franchises, which can be considered sequals.

Same thing year after year after year.

Sequels? Shit, i consider those roster-updates or "patches".

[njiska]

The worst? Those damn EA sports franchises, which can be considered sequals.

Same thing year after year after year.

Sequels? Shit, i consider those roster-updates or "patches".

Roster updates. Patches tend to solve problems and as Madden PSP proved EA only causes them.

[Gemini-Phoenix]

Tomb Raider? Just look at how many sequels some of Konami; Square; And Capcom's franchises are into then...

Mega Man
Resident Evil
Castlevania
Street Fighter
Final Fantasy

The last being the first series to have reached ten actual sequels in teh standard numbering order, with Mega Man coming a close second I believe...


And how many Mario / Sonic games are there now?

[shoes23]

Yes, and the Final Fantasy series too...

Yeah you know there are too many when they can't even number them sequentially anymore. I'm looking at you FFX-2.

[Gemini-Phoenix]

Mario Party games... Come on Nintendo, give it a rest. There are already NINE Mario Party games, do we really need any more?

And Pokemon? Have we really actually got anywhere in the last ten years? Pokemon Red, Blue, & Yellow are all the same story, plus you now have Fire Red and Leaf Green that are just remakes, but in colour. Silver, Gold, and Crystal are all the same. As are Sapphire, Ruby and Emerald. So technically, we have eleven games that tell three separate stories. To me, that is just over-kill.

At least franchises such as Resident Evil and Castlevania all have a common storyline to them that progresses with every installment. Something that can't really be said for games like Mario or Sonic, who seem to change with every new game released, with no consistency between games. Sonic Adventure II closely followed on from Sonic Adventure I, but I doubt very much if we will ever see a Sonic Adventure III to continue the story (If there actually was one in the first place???)

[DeputyMoniker]

Yes, and the Final Fantasy series too...

Yeah you know there are too many when they can't even number them sequentially anymore. I'm looking at you FFX-2.

Final Fantasy is an excellent example of what can be done with s sequel. You may or may not like the games, but to a person who likes it they all can be quite different. Like hard metal music. It all sounds the same to my parents but to me everybody has their own sound. FFX-2 is named that way because FFX-2 actually continues on the story of X. I think only one other FF actually continues a story but I dont remember what it is off the top of my head.

[Gemini-Phoenix]

FFX2 isn't exactly a sequel. Not as such anyway. In the same way that technically the Dot.Hack games and Resi Outbreak games aren't sequels. They are just a continuation of the same story, split into different parts. Think of FFX2 as being Final Fantasy X PART two...

But then, where do you draw the line? Where does the rest of the Resi series come into it? Are they all different parts of the same story, or are they full-blown sequels?

Now something like the Oddworld series. Abe's Oddysee and Abe's Exoddus are technically two parts of the same game (As admitted by Oddworld Inhabitants, and are Episodes 1 and 1.5 in theory). Munch's Oddysee is actually a proper sequel, as it has some relevence to the whole story, but from a different perspective. Stranger's Wrath is also the third in the series. Sadly, Oddwold inhabitants have scrapped the whole thing, so we shall never get to see the last two episodes of the Oddworld series...