I am kind of done with sequels....make it stop!

[swlovinist]

CAUTION LONG RANT****Let it be known that my love for video games is wide and diverse. I love everything from Pong to the current consoles. This is not a doom and gloom rant, nor is it a everything new is crap rant. It is just an observation of mine that currently, EVERY MAJOR GAME THAT COMES OUT IS NOW PUMPING OUT AN ANNUAL SEQUEL. It is getting quite out of hand. I miss the days of how a game would come out and then that would be it for years. The game could be played, reflected upon and appreciated. It seems more and more these days a good game comes out, only to have a sequel of it to come a year afterward.

I think that in the short run this is great and profitable for the game companies. In the long run, I feel that this has a "burnout effect" on a franchise as a whole. Too many games are getting increasingly rapid sequels. In the end, and more recently I have asked myself "do I really need to play the _____th game of a particular franchise? At the end of the day, I have decided to really just pursue games that I like and hopefully have enough time to really sit down and appreciate sequel or not. The unfortunate aspect that I see of the industry right now is that if a game does not have multiple games that could made in succession, then it is not considered a huge success. I miss the days when so many new concepts could be made, and the reliance of sequels and remakes was not a standard.

[Leo_A]

Stop buying everything EA and Activision puts out and you'd pretty much solve that.

[kupomogli]

I don't mind getting sequels as long as they're good. I don't think there's a problem with too many sequels as long as they don't end up just being made for quick cash ins. While obviously any well loved ip is going to be a cash in, as long as it's got a lot of work put into it and it's a legitimately good game, then it's fine by me.

An example is the Yakuza series. We're seeing another Yakuza game just a year after Yakuza 3(finally) made it's US release. Sega also has Black Panther Yakuza and Yakuza of the End. I already have Yakuza 4 preordered to pick it up as soon as it's released, but I'd also pick up Black Panther Yakuza and Yakuza of the End if they were also given a US release as well.

Uncharted was a well done game and Uncharted 2 while the exact same gameplay is one of the best fps/tps games I've ever played and easily worth the purchase. As long as Uncharted 3 is given the same amount of care that Uncharted 2 was given then I don't mind if a fourth is released in a quick time span either. As long as it's good.

However, there are games like LEGO Star Wars, Indy, Batman, etc. While these aren't "sequels" they're pretty much cash ins on the same types of series. The Star Wars one was great, but the Indy one is the exact same thing, and then I just tried the Batman one and even though I love Batman, the game just seemed extremely boring. It's really these games aren't that good, but the original concept was pretty neat that's why people enjoyed them and they sell less and less with each release. I will say I wouldn't mind if we'd never see another LEGO release, but I guarantee it won't happen.

FPS games I don't see the point in release after release. They're the exact same game as the previous release. I hated Killzone 2 so I won't be getting Killzone 3 and why pick up any other Call of Duty when Modern Warfare still has a lot of people playing online on it and every release is pretty much the exact same game.

Capcom is starting to milk Street Fighter again and Blaz Blue has had multiple releases.

So yeah. Sometimes having a new sequel is fine, but a lot of the time they're just milking the franchise as much as they can(yes. Hypocrite comment because I don't mind about all the Yakuza releases but every game is really good.)

[j_factor]

CAUTION LONG RANT

That wasn't that long. Liar.

[heybtbm]

I don't mind getting sequels...

He's talking about annual sequels...not sequels in general.

Anyway, I think annual sequels are a good thing. It burns a lot of shit franchises to the ground (Guitar Hero, Tony Hawk, Madden). Others will soon follow (Call of Duty, Rock Band, Assassin's Creed).

A good two year span between sequels is best IMO. I'm still sick of a game a year after I played it. Two years is that sweet spot where I get in the mood to play it again. Perfect example: Assassin's Creed II vs. AC: Brotherhood. The two years between AC I and II was perfect. Now a year later...I couldn't care less to play through Brotherhood. Even though I know it's still an A-list, worthy title.

[Jorpho]

CAUTION LONG RANT****Let it be known that my love for video games is wide and diverse. I love everything from Pong to the current consoles. This is not a doom and gloom rant, nor is it a everything new is crap rant. It is just an observation of mine that currently, EVERY MAJOR GAME THAT COMES OUT IS NOW PUMPING OUT AN ANNUAL SEQUEL. It is getting quite out of hand. I miss the days of how a game would come out and then that would be it for years. The game could be played, reflected upon and appreciated. It seems more and more these days a good game comes out, only to have a sequel of it to come a year afterward.

I think that in the short run this is great and profitable for the game companies. In the long run, I feel that this has a "burnout effect" on a franchise as a whole. Too many games are getting increasingly rapid sequels. In the end, and more recently I have asked myself "do I really need to play the _____th game of a particular franchise? At the end of the day, I have decided to really just pursue games that I like and hopefully have enough time to really sit down and appreciate sequel or not. The unfortunate aspect that I see of the industry right now is that if a game does not have multiple games that could made in succession, then it is not considered a huge success. I miss the days when so many new concepts could be made, and the reliance of sequels and remakes was not a standard.

Are you only catching on to this now ?

The Beast has grown too powerful with the passage of years. There is now stopping it now.

[Cobra Commander]

It burns a lot of shit franchises to the ground (Guitar Hero, Tony Hawk, Madden). Others will soon follow (Call of Duty, Rock Band, Assassin's Creed).

To be fair, we very well may have seen the last Rock Band game.

[Icarus Moonsight]

There were many great games with fresh ideas last gen. Only problem is, none of them sold as well as the yearly deuce dump series that have been coasting on pure inertia since the late 90's.

Inafune leaving Capcom is tied into this as well. I mean, that's like Miyamoto leaving Nintendo... I hope he can start something up and shake up gaming in Japan. If you think our market is stagnant, just look what they got going on. The only plus side over there from my POV would be all the shmups they still get releases for. Otherwise, egads!

Swinging back to NA: The real odd thing is, as an outside observer (from the 360 and PS3 happenings) I see a big transition coming. Sony is actually fixing their shithouse upright. Two years ago, choosing the 360 was a no-brainer. Last year, it was a toss up. But now... It's looking like Sony is the better way to go.

I laid that out to come to this point; There is too much confusion out there. Not just on the consumer side mind. Actually, I'd say most of it is on the producer side. And it's showing. It's hard to be confident, which is required to stand and take a risk, when slapping the year or an incremental digit on a product helps more to sales than actually improving something or creating a whole new experience.

Not to mention the fact that it costs way too fucking much to release a game on a major platform. That tilts the table toward sequelitis and same-game-different-nameness rather than fresh and innovative. You all know the cliche (which happens to be true) that you don't buy a Nintendo system these days for third party games right? Well, that's licensing for ya! Nintendo pays who to release a game on the Wii or DS? Exactly! I'm not saying it's wrong to collect license fees, but you'd think there would be an incentive program in it's stead if they wanted high quality and competitive third parties releases on their platform. The truth is, they don't. That's why there is a legally enforceable license so their non-license fee games sell more and have less high quality product to compete with. It's just not Nintendo though, everyone in hardware does it. But Nintendo, being the most competent and productive game making company that is currently in hardware too, simply needs the third parties less is all. That brings us back to Sony, who are trying to catch them fiercely. Microsoft is barely a competent hardware company to begin with. Their software proficiency stops at the office exit or a keyboard and mouse.

So, yeah, I'm pissed off too!

[SpaceHarrier]

I actually enjoy a great deal of sequels. Most everything I buy these days is a sequel, update, or spin-off of an existing property. I think I'm just tired of seeing half-hearted sequels, and the glut of mediocre copycat stuff taking up the majority of store shelves. However, just because something is original, doesn't mean it is particularly good, fun, stylish, or complete.

If we as consumers suddenly began demanding original ip's.. the industry as we know it would probably crash again. All the major players would just throw up their hands, lost at how to transition to original content. Either that or we would just see a million "me too" games aping whatever the most popular genre du jour is. Not that we don't see this already.

It's always been this way, since video games first entered our homes. Started with dozens of pong clones. As soon as any new style of game was developed, you either got ports or a bunch of wannabe's doing nearly the same thing. Ditto Pac-Man. Ditto Super Mario Bros. Ditto Street Fighter II. And so on..

I've gone a little off-topic, but you get the idea. We are probably doomed to a future filled with more sequels, ports and unoriginal content building off what has come before.

Said best here:

Are you only catching on to this now ?

The Beast has grown too powerful with the passage of years. There is now stopping it now.

[Graham Mitchell]

This has been a concern of mine for years. Honestly, when there are multiple sequels within one console generation, I sometimes feel ripped off because the sequels are often aesthecially identical to the last entry, just with some altered gameplay mechanics. I'm more for huge changes, new graphics engines and wide experimentations in sequels (for example, I think the changes between Zelda I and II are great. Regardless of one's opinion of Zelda II, it certainly is a new experience for those familiar with the first game.)

I recently bought Fallout: New Vegas. I enjoy the game, but it may as well have been some DLC for Fallout 3. Seriously. It's essentially an identical game with new voice acting.

Bioshock 2, despite using the same engine as it's predecessor, justified itself a little better, in my opinion. Whether you like it or not, playing as the Big Daddy makes for quite a different experience compared to playing as Jack.

If they want to make sequels, that's fine with me, but I wish they'd release them at a slower pace (sometimes it takes me a year to beat some of these games!) and I with they'd put more thought into them to justify the sequel's existence.

[The 1 2 P]

I usually avoided this by not playing sports games but now it's spread to almost every other genre. I don't mind the COD games that much because I was only playing the MW versions so that meant one every two years. But Halo has now had new games two years in a row. Hopefully they take the next year off(especially since Gears of War 3 is coming out next holiday season).

I don't blame people for being upset over this. I mean, most of these annual games are basically yearly updates with slightly better graphics and a few more features for added bullet points on the back of the case......all for the same $60 a year. What these companies should do for their AAA games is continue to release them atleast two years apart and during the years where a sequel isn't coming out have some sort of DLC missions to add to the current game at a reasonble(no more than $15) price. Atleast thats what I would do. Otherwise, as someone already said, even more frachises will be ran into the ground.

[Aussie2B]

Stop chasing after "major" franchises? Anyone who can appreciate classic games should also be able to appreciate budget games and other niche titles which may not have the flashiest graphics but can potentially offer a fresher experience. One of my favorite games from the previous generation is still Katamari Damacy.

Personally, I barely keep up with modern gaming as it is, at least when it can still be called "modern", and my tastes skew toward the obscure. I prefer original IPs, but I don't have to worry about endless sequels that much regardless. In fact, on the rare occasion that I am craving a follow-up, it usually does take a considerable amount of time (but you could possibly flip that and say that the length of time that has passed is what made me want a follow-up in the first place since I pretty much never finish a game and immediately think "Can't wait for the next one!"). Either way, it took 10 years to get a follow-up to Tail Concerto, and I'm looking forward to the long-awaited Mega Man Legends 3 as well.

I guess my point is that there is original stuff out there and also companies that take their time to get to a sequel if you know where to look.

[Robocop2]

I don't have a problem with the yearly sequel personally. If it brings in cash to finance more obscure products then that's fine by me. What I hate is that nearly everything made today seems like it sets its self up for a sequel with the ending. Cliffhanger endings while sometimes appropriate do not have a place in everything.

[skaar]

When you sink that much into developing assets and an engine you can't just toss it aside and build it again years later. You have teams, a studio and a lot of people that need to keep working. With the flood of shit out there, if a game does well and you've found a niche then you keep working on improving that product and refining it - and that means sequels.

It's a business, kiddo.

[The 1 2 P]

It's a business, kiddo.

Very true but theres a right way and a wrong way to go about that business. The Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero franchises are the perfect example of the wrong way to go about that business. Not surprisingly they are both from the same company.

[Swamperon]

Very true but theres a right way and a wrong way to go about that business. The Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero franchises are the perfect example of the wrong way to go about that business. Not surprisingly they are both from the same company.

Whilst Nintendo have arguably gone about it the right way.

25 years of Mario/Donkey Kong, 15 - 20 of Zelda, Kirby, Metroid, Fire Emblem etc They know how to make a franchise last.

Don't think we'll be seeing new releases of GH or CoD in another 20 years. Possibly WoW though!

[Jehusephat]

They've been making sequels to popular games for a long time. There are six different Mega Man games for the NES, and I love all of them. If a game company has already put a few years into developing a great title, and it can be easily expanded upon in a year or less using the same engine, it's a good idea for the designers to make a second or third game in the series because they can put all of their energy into things that may not have received as much attention the first time around in order to make a more polished and enjoyable sequel for less money than it cost them to make the original. It's not a smart idea to spend a lot of money on a successful product and then just sit on all of those game resources until they're too dated to be useful to anyone anymore.

[jonebone]

It really depends on the franchise to me.

Assassin's Creed for example, I was perfectly fine with playing the 2nd one only, and I'll probably never play another. Missed the first, the 2nd was good, but it didn't wow me.

On the flip side, if I get the first game in a series and it "wows" me, I'll keep buying them until one that doesn't. Examples of this would be Dead Rising 1 & 2 which I loved, and I'm also eagerly anticipating Dragon Age 2 in March of next year. One of the best RPGs I've EVER played.

[SpaceHarrier]

Honestly, if Nintendo just took every franchise they had and used the Super Mario Galaxy engine for all of them, I'd likely buy them all. Still, I could do without ever seeing Halo, Call of Duty or ANY FAKE MUSICAL INSTRUMENT GAME again..

[Jisho23]

We've been getting sequels forever. I don't think thats the problem. The problem is that the difference between sequels is becoming less and less significant to the point where they are almost entirely the same game - case and point with the "annual" games.