All sequels all the time


Sure - sequels refine and expand and often improve, but they also tie up a resource that could be doing something else. Having made 3 Stalker games, wouldn’t something else be more interesting from the Stalker guys now? Likewise all your favourite high-numbered games - they all stopped you getting project Z from those guys… some of those project Zs would be being enthused over on this board right now.

Doesn’t this get said maybe every couple of years or so? How is this any different from previous times wherein we’ve been inundated with sequels?

I have hopes for Fallout 4 and TES VI … Also looking forward to Dishonored, which is a new IP.

There’s even more of them now?

I don’t think I mind sequelitis. It’s probably the main reason I’ve begun to pay attention to small time developers the last few years, and increasingly do so.

And like others have said, sequels tend to be better than the originals. I loved Thief and loved Thief 2 even more. If anything, I’m sad I’m not playing Thief 4 right now, and even though Thief 3 wasn’t nearly as good as the first two, it was still a pretty great game.

Speaking of threequels, though, have anyone else noticed those tend to be the worst? Thief, Civ, MoO, Doom, Fallout… Only Exception that springs to mind is HoMM3.

ARE there more of them now? If so, maybe because there have been more successful and/or good games in the past few years?

I don’t mind sequels either. They’re a necessary part of the industry.

It’s funny, my friends and I were discussing how this happens with superhero movies as well. Superman, Spiderman, X-Men, the 90’s Batman movies…

Oh, in terms of games, another exception would be SWAT 3, if you ask me. ;)

Nothing wrong with sequels, wouldh have been a shame if the following series stopped at the first:

  • Resident Evil
  • Final Fantasy
  • Persona
  • Baldur’s Gate
  • Elder Scrolls
  • Wizardry
  • Heroes Of M & M
  • Castlevania

I could keep going.

And it’s a shame we’ve never seen a sequel to Daikatana or Superman 64.

Probably not. I don’t think all developers can capture lightning in a bottle twice. That’s usually limited to brilliant designers. Whereas developers that stumble upon something are better off iterating.

Sequels in games are OK with me because (so far at least) certain franchises tend to dominate certain experiences. If every movie about a couple finding love in Paris was a sequel that would be really weird. But that the Fallout games keep delivering the experience of roaming an apocalyptic wasteland seems fine.

Technically, there has to be more of them now. They didn’t stop making them, after all.

Slightly more seriously, I don’t know that there are more AAA sequels to originals now than ever, but it does feel that way. And I suspect we have a lot to do with it. Us people talking about games online, I mean.

With games, it’s pretty obvious to try to re-create a “classic” experience, because whatever the size of the market back when the classic came out, it’s probably at least 5 times larger now, and however compellingly presented it was, it can probably be done at least 5 times better now.

More, with digital distribution extending shelf-life towards infinity and publishers covering increasingly diverse genres and platforms, brand recognition becomes more and more important for awareness. FPS#28746587461348157 is hard to care about, especially when you have instant 24/7 access to all the others, at a far lower price. Even if you spend obscene amounts on advertising, you still kind of need that “oh yeah, I remember the first one, it kicked ass” reaction to sell.

Does what get said? That we won’t see new series at this stage in the cycle? How could I say that at some other stage in the cycle?

I think the real news in this thread is that FieryBalrog thinks Ultima 8 was the best in the series.

People complain about “sequelitis” and so on.

I’m not seeing the problem. Mass Effect 3, if it maintains the play of the demo, will be deserving of its sales. Torchlight 2, even incomplete at PAX, was a blast. Civ V, while not for everyone, can’t be accused of being a low quality game. Saints Row 3 was awesome. Guild Wars 2 looks like it’s going to have some great art and interesting concepts. Borderlands 2 is an unknown, but I’m willing to give it a chance. All of them seem to be adding or will add new gameplay elements to the series.

I could understand the complaint if all sequels to games now were like sports games of old that were little more than roster updates, but I don’t think anyone can argue that. As long as the quality, and dare I say it - fun - of these games is of sufficient value, who cares whether it’s a new IP or a sequel? I got just as much value for dollar out of SR3 as I did Dungeons of Dredmor.

I must have phrased it badly. I’ll be quiet and go away.

Actually… Why is that bad?

If I want a sequel, I’m not looking for a different experience, I’m looking for a continuation of a very specific experience. Obvious and easily traceable evolution of stuff not intrinsic to the gameplay of the original, is basically what I’m after. And maybe a fix or two for some problems of the original gameplay. But I’m not after something truly new and certainly not something truly different.

For example, I’m sure FarCry2 is a good game. Possibly even better than the original. But I played the hell out of the first game and was looking for a continuation of it. I played maybe 15 minutes of FarCry2 before dropping it forever, because it wasn’t actually a sequel. It was an entirely different game that just happened to share the name and genre of a game I once loved.

TFTD I loved to bits. A continuation of the first game, with a few minor twists to exactly the same gameplay, and significantly increased difficulty. Precisely what I want from a sequel: a continuation of the experience of the first game.

Oh my no.

I have a love-hate relationship with sequels. I think good ideas should be extended and continued, because it’s satisfying to have a gaming experience that spans multiple titles. It allows for a deep backstory, continuous character development, and refinement of gameplay ideas that I enjoyed during the initial installment.

However, sequels can also lead to stagnation and oversimplification as publishers seek to minimize risk on new projects. Alternatively, sequels can end up taking risks that don’t pan out. This whole thing with sequels is tricky and somewhat subjective; there are definitely sequels I like and dislike.

Sometimes we get Baldur’s Gate 2, and sometimes we get Star Control 3.

My main issue with modern sequels, is that the gameplay seems to be devolving rather than evolving as the numbers grow.

Here, I’m specifically talking about Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Diablo, and other high profile titles.

It seems to me that a sequel should first and foremost be about EXPANDING the breadth of gameplay, the overall feature set and the scope of the game itself.

This is also the case with “spiritual” sequels like Bioshock and Elemental. I mean, seriously?

Oh well…