View Full Version : Game Sequels

11-15-2003, 10:46 PM
I was looking around the shelves of my local electronics boutique store and found that most games nowadays are sequels. Im applying this to games of all platforms because sequels are simply everywhere, heres to jot down a few: Xtreme racer 3, Dynasty tactics 2, Dynasty warriors 4, Zelda 3, Socom 2, Max payne 2, Resident evil 3, Baldurs gate 2, Halo 2, Quake 4, Doom 3, Blood omen 2, Bloody Roar 4, Armored core 3, Commandos 2, Clock tower 3, Devil may cry 2, Mario party 5, Project gotham 2, GTA 3, Warcraft 3, etc...
Of course you have the disguised sequels that tend to not use numbers to indicate that they are sequels but i think everyone gets the picture.

What im trying to say is, are all these sequels a sign of the fountain of creativity and originality beginning to dry up? Or are these sequels simply the next generation games aimed at the next generation gamers who probably have never played the prequels? Sequels might not be a problem for some gamers, but it certainly is for others. Just check forums for the endless complaints of titles like Unreal 2 for their lack of originality.

Final fantasy series move from number to number (ff7 to ff8) showing that they are sequels when they are probably not. i reckon this just adds more confusion to this issue. But im just glad that if my dads name was "Stevo" than i wouldnt have to be named "Stevo 2".

I said too much already, so my opinion is that i dont know if sequels are going to do us good or bad, but at this point, i think they are doing us bad by polluting the game shelves.

Isamu Hajime
11-16-2003, 07:23 AM
Well, it really depends on the game's prequel. Max Payne, Warcraft, GTA, Quake, Armored Core, and Devil May Cry were games that i thought were both exceptional for pc and console. all the games that i did mention above were games that normally stand out from other games because they have that special something that large amounts of people have agreed upon =D

11-16-2003, 11:26 AM
I'm fine with most sequels. Sequels usually happen to games that either had good potential, sold well, or have a cult following. Barring unforeseen Lameness, I will enjoy the next GTA game as much, if not more then GTA:VC. My problem is when companies release Lame/Buggy/Boring sequels that are most obviously meant just to earn more money (Case in point: Jak 2. That game sucked HARD).

Most sequels are a Good thing. Their presence isn't necessarily an indicator of less originality in the gaming industry; so much as it is good marketing practice (Terminator 1 sold well, So a second one will sell well also)

One Winged Angel
11-20-2003, 09:48 AM
I must agree that some sequels are extremely good (recently Max Payne 2 for example)

The whole point in making a sequel boils down to 3 basic concepts. One, how can a company make more money. Two, what did they leave out of the predecessor that they could put in the next installment. And three, is there a huge demand from the fans. (which is really correlated to 1)

I also agree that the level of creativity for some companies has dwindled to nothing. *did someone say NINTENDO?* When you're making the same games for over 20 years and you are at the bottom of the "Profit race" then that should definitely tell you someting...

...fanboys/girls, fight me on this subject if you must, but you know I'm right. :P

11-20-2003, 11:05 AM
I dunno man... Nintendo's still going strong. And Mario Kart Double Dash is really darn cool.

But yes, the fact is, most of the good ideas have to be marketed.. And why try to create publicity for a new name, when you can just pull the market from a name people recognize? Somewhat shrewd, I think, but it makes a lot of sense.

11-20-2003, 06:13 PM
If a game is great, then why not continue the story or expand upon the gameplay? If they put in the right amount of effort, then I welcome a sequel. It's when they just throw the game out there, with little or no care as to the content, that I have a problem.

11-23-2003, 04:00 AM
I agree with you guys. Looks like i forgot to mention the many good sequels out there, because i'd be damned if they stopped at quake I, final fantasy I, gta1, street fighter I, command and conquer, super mario bros, etc. Everyone knows a lot of sequels rock and we all highly anticipate their next sequels, but im kinda poking at other titles that rely only on their reputable name, fans, improved graphics or other little techniques to catch their market again.

It kinda seems like a lot of the sequels out there are getting too caught up with their fanbase, profits, or the saying "If you do what you always did, you'll get what you always got". Im not being as critical on this as i sound, because sequels are what keep me alive. I look at my highly aniticipated games list and see quake 4, doom 3, ff12, the sims 2 (just kidding) and deus ex 2. Likewise with other stuff as i anticipate the PS3, pentium 5, comfy seat 12, and so on. Looks like there will always be good and bad sequels out there.

Though, i like thinking extreme in my spare time and thought that some game genres might actually turn duopolistic, oligopolistic or whatever in the long run; Just like real economic industries, or something greater than CS's hold on the online gaming area. If everyone sticks with strong titles and their sequels, rather than new names in the genre, than who knows? It could happen and i could annoy the hell out of everyone and say "i told you so!" :D

05-03-2005, 06:38 AM
Woah, this thread is still alive! O.O ...i thought it died ages ago. XD

Oh well, my view on game sequels is half the same as what it was a year and a half ago.

Thunder wolf
05-07-2005, 02:22 PM
i think that sequils r fine 4 some games like a second is fine if some people like the game or a third mabie if its really good, however once it gets 2 things like a 6th then ur getting rediculus.