The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Right then, flying around recently have been a lot of comments about the PS2’s large (allegedly) amount of sequels. In front of me I have the latest copy of the Official UK PlayStation 2 magazine. Inside it contains a list of every PS2 game launched yet, and release dates up to October (reliably). So, here’s my analysis:
Out of the 106 games out now there are:
59 original games
19 sequels
5 multi-format ports
23 tedious sports updates
And, of the 45 games coming out up to and including October there are:
22 original games
12 sequels
3 multi-format ports
8 tedious sports updates
So, is the PlayStation 2 a SequelStation too? Well, sequels are inevitable on all consoles, for reasons I will explain later. Now, let’s analyse the GameCube’s launch line up (provided by Reaper[oV]).
Of the 18 games set for launch, there are:
7 original games
4 sequels
0 multi format ports (I think)
7 tedious sports updates
So, while the 55% of the PS2’s games are original and 17% are sequels, the GameCube has only 38% original games and 22% sequels. In reality, everyone who says the PS2 is full of sequels should keep quiet in future, as the GameCube is even worse. Right then, I’ve finished my small dig at the GameCube now, but is it really a dig? Sequels are inevitable. Water’s wet, rocks are hard, consoles have sequels. It’s a fact of life. I don’t blame the GameCube for having sequels any more than I blame the sun for rising in the morning. Sequels are a developer’s best friend. How many people are willing to buy the exact same game every year with slightly update graphics, different players and a bigger number on the end? Millions! Just ask EA! Also, publishers are afraid of getting low review scores, but if your game is just a remake of last year’s hit, the suckers will buy it anyway. You can just keep repeating the same formula over and over again every year, and you’ll be raking it in.
Another thing is, sequels don’t just make good business sense, developers are required to release sequels. What do you think would happen if Kazunori Yamuchi announced there would be no more Gran Turismo games? There’s would be a public outcry! What do you think would happen if Shigeru Miamoto announced he wasn’t planning on a Zelda game for the GameCube? Well, Nintendo would lynch him for a start. I like sequels. If I finish a really great game, I want to keep playing on it. That’s where sequels come in. The sequel gets released, and hopefully it’s a better game as well. That way, I can keep playing my favourite game forever. GT3 is a sequel of GT2, although it’s bordering on update territory. Does this make it a worse game? I think not. GT3 is fantastic, despite its similarities.
So what do you think? Are sequels the creation of genius, or the spawn of Satan? Discuss.
Out of the 106 games out now there are:
59 original games
19 sequels
5 multi-format ports
23 tedious sports updates
And, of the 45 games coming out up to and including October there are:
22 original games
12 sequels
3 multi-format ports
8 tedious sports updates
So, is the PlayStation 2 a SequelStation too? Well, sequels are inevitable on all consoles, for reasons I will explain later. Now, let’s analyse the GameCube’s launch line up (provided by Reaper[oV]).
Of the 18 games set for launch, there are:
7 original games
4 sequels
0 multi format ports (I think)
7 tedious sports updates
So, while the 55% of the PS2’s games are original and 17% are sequels, the GameCube has only 38% original games and 22% sequels. In reality, everyone who says the PS2 is full of sequels should keep quiet in future, as the GameCube is even worse. Right then, I’ve finished my small dig at the GameCube now, but is it really a dig? Sequels are inevitable. Water’s wet, rocks are hard, consoles have sequels. It’s a fact of life. I don’t blame the GameCube for having sequels any more than I blame the sun for rising in the morning. Sequels are a developer’s best friend. How many people are willing to buy the exact same game every year with slightly update graphics, different players and a bigger number on the end? Millions! Just ask EA! Also, publishers are afraid of getting low review scores, but if your game is just a remake of last year’s hit, the suckers will buy it anyway. You can just keep repeating the same formula over and over again every year, and you’ll be raking it in.
Another thing is, sequels don’t just make good business sense, developers are required to release sequels. What do you think would happen if Kazunori Yamuchi announced there would be no more Gran Turismo games? There’s would be a public outcry! What do you think would happen if Shigeru Miamoto announced he wasn’t planning on a Zelda game for the GameCube? Well, Nintendo would lynch him for a start. I like sequels. If I finish a really great game, I want to keep playing on it. That’s where sequels come in. The sequel gets released, and hopefully it’s a better game as well. That way, I can keep playing my favourite game forever. GT3 is a sequel of GT2, although it’s bordering on update territory. Does this make it a worse game? I think not. GT3 is fantastic, despite its similarities.
So what do you think? Are sequels the creation of genius, or the spawn of Satan? Discuss.
Page:
ZP, the graphics on the PSone were at their best with GT2. Sure, it wasn't high-res or 60fps, but the cars were really detailed, the physics was spot on and you really did recognise the cars.
Turbonutter wrote:
> Indian-DudeY2K wrote:
> on the nintendo consoles most of the
> sequels have different names ,
> like zelda ocarina of time's
> sequel was Zelda Majoras Mask
> (completely different name) and
> with wave race the gamecubes version
> is called Wave Race Blue
> Storm but on playstation consoles the
> sequels are called 2 or
> 3 , like Gran Turismo 2 , 3 etc , the only
> game on nintendo
> consoles that i know of is with 2's and 3's after
> it is Turok
> , which compared to playstation sequel names is a very
> small
> minority. Also it is the same with sega , Crazy Taxi 2 and
>
> Virtua tennis 2 , no original names just 2's and 3's again.
> But
> sometimes these 2'' and 3's can help a game or console ,
> nintendo
> and sega always (i think) give their consoles a new
> name compared to
> it's predecesor (super nintendo , the
> nintendo 64 ) but with sony
> they called their new console the
> playstation 2 , i think this is
> because with the success of
> the playstation they called it
> playstation 2 to give it a
> boost of customers , most people who
> bought a playstation and
> liked it are gonna think that playstation 2
> is great as they
> loved playstation 1 . Simple but effective.
Who CARES what
> they're called? Each GT game shows a marked improvement, regardless
> of its name. If the next Gran Turismo games was called Gran Turismo:
> Evoulution, how many more people would buy it that GT4? None.
I have GT1 & GT2 for my PSX and I must admit I find them absolutely crap! The graphics on GT2 in the cars and environments aren't smooth the effects are crap, how can you say that this was a vast improvement for it's time on its last game. Compared to some of the other graphics, effects and gameplay then it must have seemed like nothing!
And I agree it is a bit stupid to make a sequel like 1, 2, 3, Ok I must admit they have added A-Spec on the end of GT3, but developers could at least try and think up a new name or something to add on the end like SSX tryicky.
> Indian-DudeY2K wrote:
> on the nintendo consoles most of the
> sequels have different names ,
> like zelda ocarina of time's
> sequel was Zelda Majoras Mask
> (completely different name) and
> with wave race the gamecubes version
> is called Wave Race Blue
> Storm but on playstation consoles the
> sequels are called 2 or
> 3 , like Gran Turismo 2 , 3 etc , the only
> game on nintendo
> consoles that i know of is with 2's and 3's after
> it is Turok
> , which compared to playstation sequel names is a very
> small
> minority. Also it is the same with sega , Crazy Taxi 2 and
>
> Virtua tennis 2 , no original names just 2's and 3's again.
> But
> sometimes these 2'' and 3's can help a game or console ,
> nintendo
> and sega always (i think) give their consoles a new
> name compared to
> it's predecesor (super nintendo , the
> nintendo 64 ) but with sony
> they called their new console the
> playstation 2 , i think this is
> because with the success of
> the playstation they called it
> playstation 2 to give it a
> boost of customers , most people who
> bought a playstation and
> liked it are gonna think that playstation 2
> is great as they
> loved playstation 1 . Simple but effective.
Who CARES what
> they're called? Each GT game shows a marked improvement, regardless
> of its name. If the next Gran Turismo games was called Gran Turismo:
> Evoulution, how many more people would buy it that GT4? None.
I have GT1 & GT2 for my PSX and I must admit I find them absolutely crap! The graphics on GT2 in the cars and environments aren't smooth the effects are crap, how can you say that this was a vast improvement for it's time on its last game. Compared to some of the other graphics, effects and gameplay then it must have seemed like nothing!
And I agree it is a bit stupid to make a sequel like 1, 2, 3, Ok I must admit they have added A-Spec on the end of GT3, but developers could at least try and think up a new name or something to add on the end like SSX tryicky.
even i admit the launch titles of the GC look poor. i think things will look up when Perfect dark zero comes out. but we are talking a whole year after launch here.
Yeah, but I ws just pointing that out.
You know, if someone gave me a GC I'd really try to sell it. It has no games that appeal to me (at all) at the moment, and any games that I do like the sound of are on the PS2 anyway. I'd rather sell it and use the money to buy one of the many PS2 games I want at the moment.
You know, if someone gave me a GC I'd really try to sell it. It has no games that appeal to me (at all) at the moment, and any games that I do like the sound of are on the PS2 anyway. I'd rather sell it and use the money to buy one of the many PS2 games I want at the moment.
I've really looked that much at the power or specs of a console. if it does the job its fine.
Agreed, but in terms of power it's not that much better. Well, it's a lot better, but not as much as the PS2.
after seeing the fight between Ganon and link at the spaceworld demo last year i think the graphics have increased dramitically for the Gamecube. And becasue of this we might see more realistic games instead of the cutsy platformers which the 64 was best suited to.
Graphics wise it's not as greater leap though.
i would say the GC from the N64 is a larger step-up compared to the Psx to the PS2. Nintendo are taking a huge step for themselves by using discs. they should be able to do so much more with all this extra storage space. they were so limited by the carts.
Very possibly. The GC is a sequel to the N64 in the same way the PS2 is a sequel to the PS1, but Sony wanted to keep the Sony brand because it is associated with quality and accessability.
Page: