Support NeoGAF

[Mason]

Personally, I cannot stand how developers/publishers cash in on a game's success with sequels only months or a year or two after the previous game. Take Splinter Cell for example. Excellent game, but now they're cranking out sequels on an almost yearly basis. We're going to get tired of them or they're going to plateau as far as new ideas.

The Jak and Daxter series started this generation. We're up to the third game now.

Ratchet and Clank? We're up to three on that one also; all on one console, in one generation.

Timesplitters started this generation. Third game in the series is soon to be released.

I can see maybe one sequel for a game like Halo, that saw enormous success and was a launch title. But three Ratchet and Clank games? Is that really necessary?

Sports games are a slightly different story. Due to the constantly-changing nature of sports, they need upgraded a little more often. But.....

The Tony Hawk series. They're all excellent games, and quite frankly, I'm amazed the quality has stayed as high as it has for so many sequels. But what are we at now? Five? With a sixth soon to be released? All on two generations? Why?

And as for actual sports games: do we REALLY need a new Madden every year? For the online consoles, why can't they offer the new season's roster as a free download? And for the GameCube, maybe like a free disc you can pick up that saves the new roster on your memory card that the game reads. Then maybe they could release a new game every two years. Like a Madden 05-06, so they have plenty of time to overhaul the graphics engine, add lots of new features, tweak gameplay and AI, etc.

Honestly, it tickles me shitless when a game that came out YEARS ago gets a sequel. Like Metroid or Ninja Gaiden. Where they've taken something and completely revamped it for a new time, rather than just changed things up.

I want to see more original games, and it's not that sequels are bad, I just don't want them as often. There's nothing more fun than a game you love getting a sequel years after you've had time to let it sink in and you actually really want a sequel. It's not so much that the quality is bad with sequels; many of the games metioned aren't Tomb Raider; they actually have good sequels. it's just that it's much more pleasant to not be bombarded with cash-ins just because a game was good or sold a lot.

 

[Barnimal]

tony hawk in 2 gens? try one starting with dreamcast. pathetic. what year had 2 tony hawk?

 

[belgurdo]

Mario/Sonic/etc. had a sequel every year. What makes anything different nowadays?

 

[golem]

if people still enjoy the games/storylines i dont mind.. but i would like developers to try something new occassionally

 

[Grubdog]

I can usually look past a "2" in a games title and enjoy the game for what it is. Sequel or not, I don't care, as long as it's a great, fun game.

 

[cvxfreak]

So far, the sequelized games I've bought this gen were Silent Hill 2/3/4TR, Resident Evil REmake/Zero/Outbreak/Dead Aim/2/3N/CVX, Pokemon R/S and FR/LG, and the Mario Party series. For Pokemon it works, for RE and SH it doesn't seem to. Mario Party works though.

 

[Mason]

tony hawk in 2 gens? try one starting with dreamcast. pathetic. what year had 2 tony hawk?

One started on PS1......what exactly is your point, or can you just not count?

 

[Manick Joe]

Hey as long as a game is fun and expands or improves on the past title I disregard the number and enjoy it.

 

[Barnimal]

One started on PS1......what exactly is your point, or can you just not count?

geez. calm down. no need to get all uppity. it was on both the ps1 and dc around the same time therefore qualifies for all tony hawks being in THIS generation. Sonic and Mario HAVE NOT had sequels every year. And what year had 2 tony hawks?

 

[Mason]

Who said any year had two Tony Hawks?

 

[Dan]

Hey as long as a game is fun and expands or improves on the past title I disregard the number and enjoy it.

Yeah, I don't mind if the game evolves in some way. But if it's generally the same kind of experience, two in a generation is more than enough for me.

 

[Barnimal]

I DID!!!! its called a QUESTION. the same question that was in my first post and the same one i just posted, both followed by question marks! GEEZ! unless the first THPS was on DC in 99 but for some reason i'm thinking spring 2000 on both psx and DC.

 

[hobbitx]

I think multiple game sequels are ok depending on the game. I like it alot how the most popular and well loved series stick to about two titles each gen, like Zelda. I also hope GTA keeps the trend they started, one original game with a new engine set in Liberty, then two more expansions on that engine. Multiple sequels only become a serious problem when companies get greedy and start trying to release a new game every single year, with Sports games it's sensible and they pretty much always deliver except for the lowest rung of titles. I've seen alot of decent series wear themselves out with too many sequels like Tomb Raider and I see alot of new good ones heading down the same path. I love sequels as they long as they try to enhance and expand, not cash in and rehash.

 

[Mason]

I knew there would be the "I don't mind as long as they're improving/innovating" type responses.

Honestly, yeah, it's not like you're being forced to buy it or anything, and if it improves, then why not?


Well, because, like I said, the novelty of getting a sequel after you've have time to let the original take it's place. Look how incredibly excited people were when a new Metroid was announced. I want more of that feeling, that "OH YES! I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS FOREVER" type thing, rather than, "Cool, the last 4 games were great, I'm sure this one will be also."

 

[AniHawk]

Mario/Sonic/etc. had a sequel every year.

What are you talking about?

Anyway, I'm content if they move onto a new franchise next gen. Insomniac and ND might do with R&C and Jak like they did with Spyro and Crash while they focus on new characters and different gameplay.

 

[SolidSnakex]

"Cool, the last 4 games were great, I'm sure this one will be also."

This is the one thing I don't get with people that complain about multiple sequels, since when has it been a bad thing to know you're goin to be getting a great game?

 

[Ristamar]

IIRC, Tony Hawk was out on the PS1 at least 2 or 3 months before it ever hit the Dreamcast.

 

[Goreomedy]

Not only do I accept multiple sequels on one platform, I'd welcome episodic gaming.

Where a developer creates an engine for a game that can span multiple chapters(like .hack, but a good game from a decent genre). Let's say the first installment of an episodic action game has 8 hours of gameplay. They release it during the Christmas season for $20. Then, every three months, they can release the next 5-6 hour chapter priced at just $10.

It can be a bridge for what we should expect when disc media is phased out by direct, digital delivery systems in the future.

 

[Ristamar]

bleah, double post. stupid browser.

 

[bjork]

I remember buying THPS in September or October of 99 and then getting the DC version in February, but it was still pretty new when I got it.

 

[Jumpman]

Not only do I accept multiple sequels on one platform, I'd welcome episodic gaming.

Where a developer creates an engine for a game that can span multiple chapters(like .hack, but a good game from a decent genre). Let's say the first installment of an episodic action game has 8 hours of gameplay. They release it during the Christmas season for $20. Then, every three months, they can release the next 5-6 hour chapter priced at just $10.

It can be a bridge for what we should expect when disc media is phased out by direct, digital delivery systems in the future.

No. That would never work. The first episode would be released at $50, followed by part 2 at another $50, and so on and so forth. Game companies haven't shown the episodic model to be attractive to the consumer. I'm sure they would love this though.

 

[bjork]

Not only do I accept multiple sequels on one platform, I'd welcome episodic gaming.

Where a developer creates an engine for a game that can span multiple chapters(like .hack, but a good game from a decent genre). Let's say the first installment of an episodic action game has 8 hours of gameplay. They release it during the Christmas season for $20. Then, every three months, they can release the next 5-6 hour chapter priced at just $10.

It can be a bridge for what we should expect when disc media is phased out by direct, digital delivery systems in the future.

Wasn't that what Capcom tried with that series on Japanese Dreamcast? I forget the name of it... something's Gate or something?

 

[SolidSnakex]

Wasn't that what Capcom tried with that series on Japanese Dreamcast? I forget the name of it... something's Gate or something?

El Dorado's Gate. They also didn't run at full price, they were 25 dollar a piece.

 

[bjork]

El Dorado's Gate. They also didn't run at full price, they were 25 dollar a piece.

Did it sell well as a whole? Also, did they all come out? I remember it spanning twelve discs or something. It'd be interesting to know that such a concept worked.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I don't think it ended up selling too well. The first one did but the series really wasn't that great from what I remember. Capcom just wanted to finish it up. I actually don't think they ever did, they announced details on El Dorado's Gate Chapter 5. That's the risk of doing games like that, if they aren't succesful enough companies will just stop making them so you're left with a cliff hanger that'll never be completed.

 

[DCharlie]

"do we REALLY need a new Madden every year?"

Konami seem to think we need a new Winning Eleven every 2 months!

 

[Blackace]

Mario Party had two versions this Gen... and 3 on the 64.... But the funny thing is most of the franchises that the first post spoke of are Sony PS2 games.... The leader in the industry will always milk it...no matter who they are...

 

[snaildog]

I've got no problem at all with sequels as long as there's a balance of new games. I'm a huge Nintendo fan, but this generation there's been bugger all new franchises from them; I hope they don't carry on like this.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Mario Party had two versions this Gen... and 3 on the 64.... But the funny thing is most of the franchises that the first post spoke of are Sony PS2 games......

They're also working on their 3rd Zelda game for this generation.

 

[DDayton]

They're also working on their 3rd Zelda game for this generation.

Eh... I don't think you can count 4 Swords as being part of the LoZ "series" any more than you can count Mario Kart or Mario Golf as being part of the Super Mario Bros. series... it's more of a unique spinoff.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Eh... I don't think you can count 4 Swords as being part of the LoZ "series" any more than you can count Mario Kart or Mario Golf as being part of the Super Mario Bros. series... it's more of a unique spinoff.

Well 4 Swords still has gameplay that's very similar to the regular Zelda's, those Mario games you mentioned are completely different in terms of gameplay compared to the actual Mario games.

 

[AniHawk]

Yeah, as much as I hate to agree with SSX (just kidding), he's right. Four Swords is like Final Fantasy Online. Zelda X = FFXI.

Though like the Final Fantasies this gen, the Zeldas have had different styles and modes of gameplay, and weren't really an evolution of each other.

 

[MoxManiac]

If the games are good, it doesn't bother me.

Honestly, I don't understand the complaint. Unless it's some kind of elitist thing to appear like some sort of distingushed gamer that wants 'original', 'innovative' new experiences. I use those words in quotations not because I am against games with those qualities, but because said people generally masturbate over such quirky games even when they suck ass.

 

[MoxManiac]

Eh... I don't think you can count 4 Swords as being part of the LoZ "series" any more than you can count Mario Kart or Mario Golf as being part of the Super Mario Bros. series... it's more of a unique spinoff.

Well, there's the new GBA Zelda which could be considered the 2nd or 3rd Zelda game this gen..

 

[AniHawk]

Well, there's the new GBA Zelda which could be considered the 2nd or 3rd Zelda game this gen..

More than that. Seriously, ever since Ocarina of Time we've been getting at least one Zelda game a year:

1998: Ocarina of Time
1999: Link's Awakening DX
2000: Majora's Mask
2001: Oracle of Seasons
2001: Oracle of Ages
2002: A Link to the Past and Four Swords
2003: The Wind Waker
2004: Four Swords Adventures
2005: The Minish Cap
2005: Fuck You All

Even though some are ports/remakes/spinoffs, the series has really been put into overdrive lately.

And I solely blame Capcom.

 

[MoxManiac]

I don't blame Capcom at all, the Oracle games were some of the best Zelda ever.

 

[Comfort_Eagle]

As long as they are good, I dont give a shit. I just dont want a company to turn the franchise into crap by really rushing things. But with say, the Ratchet and Clank series the first two have been nothing but fun and the third looks great as well.

 

[Kon Tiki]

There should only be 1 Madden per generation.

 

[Die Squirrel Die]

If Koei release one more Warriors game this gen, someone needs punching. Four games, 2 expansions, with another expansion on the way, is ridiculous. Particularly considering that they've been getting worse since 3.

Which is usually a good sign to give a series a break, when you can't improve with the sequels.

 

[Ar_]

I knew there would be the "I don't mind as long as they're improving/innovating" type responses.

Honestly, yeah, it's not like you're being forced to buy it or anything, and if it improves, then why not?


Well, because, like I said, the novelty of getting a sequel after you've have time to let the original take it's place. Look how incredibly excited people were when a new Metroid was announced. I want more of that feeling, that "OH YES! I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS FOREVER" type thing, rather than, "Cool, the last 4 games were great, I'm sure this one will be also."

Thats weird. You want to wait longer for the things you desire?
Well, no one forces you to play the game on release day. Leave it sealed for a few years, so that the excitement for the moment in which you will play can build up as much as you like =D
Or just skip all even numbered sequels, if you want to see bigger improvements between the games =p

There are games of which I welcome sequels, and Jak is one of them.
Id have bought Jak 3 a month after Jak 2, if I could. I finished the game, liked it, wanted more of it. Dont even care for improvements, just give me some new levels to play.

In other cases, sequels annoy me.
See Final Fantasy. No worthwhile innovations, worst battle system ever.
Square made more interesting and playable RPGs, but in FF refused to improve the formula, maybe for fear to lose their fans.

I love originality, for it alone rate games a lot higher. Siren and BoFDQ are two that catched me greatly for being different from what I was used to. Silent Hill 4, again, I liked a lot for being different; worse in parts, but at least changed a formula which was getting boring.
The fiirst Silent Hill, the first Wipeout, are my favorite in their franchises - in part because, being new experiences, had a stronger impact.

Original is great, no doubt, but in plenty instances even a sequel, more of the same, will do, if the old was still sweet enough.

 

[dark10x]

I generally agree, though there are exceptions...

I am thrilled, for example, that there have been three Silent Hill titles this gen. Hell, I'd take a forth if they could make it.

 

[Suerte]

If the game sold well enough and there's demand for it, I don't see what's wrong about sequels.

 

[Vargas]

What about the six MegaMan games on the NES? I say we start complaining if we are playing Jak 6 in three years on the PS2.

 

[Die Squirrel Die]

If the game sold well enough and there's demand for it, I don't see what's wrong about sequels.

It's not that sequels are bad, it's when they are thrown out on tight development cycles. There's less room for improvement, for adding fresh things that are going to enhance a game.

R&C2 is a much loved game on this forum, but it didn't click with me, even though I was a huge fan of the original. It wasn't broken, it wasn't a buggy mess or anything like that, but I don't accept the argument of some that because you can turn around a finished game in a year, in so much as finisihed means it's not falling apart at the seams, that it means that you should.

R&C2 was bland and flat to me, where the original had been exciting. The advantage of sequels is that you can build on what's gone before, the danger is that because there's already been something then you risk fatiguing the series. You have to work twice as hard to make it fresh. To me R&C2 didn't feel like it had much effort put into it, other than to have a game that was stable, featured X number of levels and could bullet point some mini-games on the packaging. The actual level design was probably the biggest culprit, so often incredibly bland.

 

[AniHawk]

I don't blame Capcom at all, the Oracle games were some of the best Zelda ever.

I was just joking, and the Oracle games were far from the best Zeldas ever.

 

[Patrick Klepek]

i've been meaning to get into the rachet & clank games, and i'll admit the fact that there are three games coming out this generation kind of turns me off from entering the series. i don't know why. i know they're not rehashes - but i just get this feeling that turns me away.

 

[MoxManiac]

I said some, not the, and the Oracle games had excellent, challenging dungeon and overworld designs and combat, putting them up there near the top.

 

[Dr.Guru of Peru]

Before this E3, I would have agreed that Nintendo was pumping out too many Zeldas and that they should space out the titles abit more. But after the E3 video....I want The Legend of Zelda: Fuck You All right now

 

[Wellington]

R&C2 was bland and flat to me, where the original had been exciting. The advantage of sequels is that you can build on what's gone before, the danger is that because there's already been something then you risk fatiguing the series. You have to work twice as hard to make it fresh. To me R&C2 didn't feel like it had much effort put into it, other than to have a game that was stable, featured X number of levels and could bullet point some mini-games on the packaging. The actual level design was probably the biggest culprit, so often incredibly bland.

While I will agree with you that the level designs were overall better in R&C than in R&C2, I think you're way off base on your judgement of R&C2. The game was an extremely refined form of the original. It introduced a couple of new genres to the series, let alone gameplay elements.

 

[MrPing1000]

If the quality and idea's are there then yes. if its only for money no