The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
There's nothing wrong with sequels really, but those who say that the Gamecube has its fair share- Consider this...
Most of the 'Sequels' for the Gamecube are updates or a Sequel to the prequel (Stick with me) that was released YEARS before.
For instance Starfox Adventures: Dinosaur planet, a Sequel? (It isnt at all!) it just uses the same characters and the game is 100% original and new. How long ago have we seen the Starfox characters? hmmmm?
What about Smash Brothers melee? A True sequel yes, but think back to the release of Super Smash Bros...how far back was that???
It certainly isnt a Sequel game such as FIFA, TombRaider, Medal of Honour, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot oooh and so many others that we saw being released year after year.
Its those type of games that people class as the 'Dreaded sequels'. Games that come out year after year to either cash in on the franchise or to grab a top spot during the Christmas game buying surge.
For instance Grand Turismo 3 isn't really a 'Dreaded sequel' its refreshing and is a sequel to a game that was released about three years ago.
Its those Fifa's, Tomb Raiders etc.. that everyone is sick to the teeth of. But yet there are people who cant resist the temptation and keep them atop the charts, silly people.
Most of the 'Sequels' for the Gamecube are updates or a Sequel to the prequel (Stick with me) that was released YEARS before.
For instance Starfox Adventures: Dinosaur planet, a Sequel? (It isnt at all!) it just uses the same characters and the game is 100% original and new. How long ago have we seen the Starfox characters? hmmmm?
What about Smash Brothers melee? A True sequel yes, but think back to the release of Super Smash Bros...how far back was that???
It certainly isnt a Sequel game such as FIFA, TombRaider, Medal of Honour, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot oooh and so many others that we saw being released year after year.
Its those type of games that people class as the 'Dreaded sequels'. Games that come out year after year to either cash in on the franchise or to grab a top spot during the Christmas game buying surge.
For instance Grand Turismo 3 isn't really a 'Dreaded sequel' its refreshing and is a sequel to a game that was released about three years ago.
Its those Fifa's, Tomb Raiders etc.. that everyone is sick to the teeth of. But yet there are people who cant resist the temptation and keep them atop the charts, silly people.
Hey TB, if you're [;anning on comparing PS2 sequels to gamecube sequels then read my sequel topic.
When a new console is released, sequels are inevitable, as well as updates.
Tekken Tag is a good example of an update. The arcade version used Namco's board that was very similar in design to the Playstation, so basically, I could say that the PS2 version is an update of a PSX version. It has revamped graphics, and some extra features, but in essence, it is still the same game.
This is quite a regular occurance when a new console is released. Old games get updated with flashier graphics and a couple more features, but it is still essentially the same game.
When we talk about sequels, the story is similar. A more powerful console has just been released, so that power must be used to make the original tonnes better. Hence a sequel is released, taking the original ideas to new levels. Better graphics, more realistic environments and things like that.
But, what are the good and bad points of this?
Well, the main good point is that the original idea can be made even better. The original game can be drastically improved on with the new power of the new console. Let's take GT3, for example. This really does improve over the first two. Well, with the power of the PS2 behind it, the originals were bound to be improved. The graphics are stunning, it is more realistic, the cars look fantastic even if there aren't as many.
The extra power of new consoles enables games to be taken to a new level, and this includes revamped games and sequels.
The main Bad point is that old ideas being used again and just revamped to make a game can get tedious and repetitive.
When the Gamecube arrives, as well as the Xbox and also the PS2, old games will be updated and revamped. Gouls and Ghosts is getting a 3D update in the form of Maximo, the Gamecube is bound to get a Mario Kart sequel, and there is already one sequel in the form of Smash Brothers Melee (is this a sequel or an update, I am not sure). The Xbox is also getting updated games, in the form of games like Starwars Starfighter: Special Edition, which is the same as the PS2 version, but with extra features and some graphical enhancements. Will people enjoy it more? Possibly, but it can't be much more than the enjoyment that was gained from the original.
I will always welcome sequels and updates, just not loads of them. I like to see more original games, then sequels and updates.
Tekken Tag is a good example of an update. The arcade version used Namco's board that was very similar in design to the Playstation, so basically, I could say that the PS2 version is an update of a PSX version. It has revamped graphics, and some extra features, but in essence, it is still the same game.
This is quite a regular occurance when a new console is released. Old games get updated with flashier graphics and a couple more features, but it is still essentially the same game.
When we talk about sequels, the story is similar. A more powerful console has just been released, so that power must be used to make the original tonnes better. Hence a sequel is released, taking the original ideas to new levels. Better graphics, more realistic environments and things like that.
But, what are the good and bad points of this?
Well, the main good point is that the original idea can be made even better. The original game can be drastically improved on with the new power of the new console. Let's take GT3, for example. This really does improve over the first two. Well, with the power of the PS2 behind it, the originals were bound to be improved. The graphics are stunning, it is more realistic, the cars look fantastic even if there aren't as many.
The extra power of new consoles enables games to be taken to a new level, and this includes revamped games and sequels.
The main Bad point is that old ideas being used again and just revamped to make a game can get tedious and repetitive.
When the Gamecube arrives, as well as the Xbox and also the PS2, old games will be updated and revamped. Gouls and Ghosts is getting a 3D update in the form of Maximo, the Gamecube is bound to get a Mario Kart sequel, and there is already one sequel in the form of Smash Brothers Melee (is this a sequel or an update, I am not sure). The Xbox is also getting updated games, in the form of games like Starwars Starfighter: Special Edition, which is the same as the PS2 version, but with extra features and some graphical enhancements. Will people enjoy it more? Possibly, but it can't be much more than the enjoyment that was gained from the original.
I will always welcome sequels and updates, just not loads of them. I like to see more original games, then sequels and updates.
New Jimmy wrote:
> The reason that there are so many sequels is because games cost to
> much these days. Consumers thus tend to go with what they know,
> usually this means a sequel.
If games prices dropped people would
> still spend the same amount of cash on games, but they would buy
> more games...and maybe even a few games that were a bit
> different.
I believe the industry should lower there prices and
> encourage innovation more!
Just the sort of thing the X-Box may very well excel at?
> The reason that there are so many sequels is because games cost to
> much these days. Consumers thus tend to go with what they know,
> usually this means a sequel.
If games prices dropped people would
> still spend the same amount of cash on games, but they would buy
> more games...and maybe even a few games that were a bit
> different.
I believe the industry should lower there prices and
> encourage innovation more!
Just the sort of thing the X-Box may very well excel at?
The reason that there are so many sequels is because games cost to much these days. Consumers thus tend to go with what they know, usually this means a sequel.
If games prices dropped people would still spend the same amount of cash on games, but they would buy more games...and maybe even a few games that were a bit different.
I believe the industry should lower there prices and encourage innovation more!
If games prices dropped people would still spend the same amount of cash on games, but they would buy more games...and maybe even a few games that were a bit different.
I believe the industry should lower there prices and encourage innovation more!
We are lacking original games big time. The PS has been running on sequels for a few years.
Meka_Dragon wrote:
I
> bought one version of ISS for my N64, and didn't see the point in
> the rest, as they added little to the game - but I can see why
> developers do it - to make sure that the best version of the game is
> always available, rather than one that's slighly out of
> date.
Ive often wondered about this...
(I think I wrote a topic on it, but I forget so I may not have?)
Anyway... :)
People seem to buy FIFA or ISS...
then the following year, the next version is released...
Everybody complaines that theres hardly any difference... but then buys the game anyway..
If the game is exactly the same, why buy the release... why not wait for the next year... or the next, when a decent amount of changes have been made to the game to warrent another purchase?
I
> bought one version of ISS for my N64, and didn't see the point in
> the rest, as they added little to the game - but I can see why
> developers do it - to make sure that the best version of the game is
> always available, rather than one that's slighly out of
> date.
Ive often wondered about this...
(I think I wrote a topic on it, but I forget so I may not have?)
Anyway... :)
People seem to buy FIFA or ISS...
then the following year, the next version is released...
Everybody complaines that theres hardly any difference... but then buys the game anyway..
If the game is exactly the same, why buy the release... why not wait for the next year... or the next, when a decent amount of changes have been made to the game to warrent another purchase?
Turbonutter wrote:
> I agree, EA sports killed originality.
The Xbox will be the most
> original, but then again, there will be a helluva lot of PC ports.
lol... how is that a bad thing? :)
> I agree, EA sports killed originality.
The Xbox will be the most
> original, but then again, there will be a helluva lot of PC ports.
lol... how is that a bad thing? :)
Exactly Meka. Some games add little to the series such as FIFA games, and they just annoy everyone who doesn't like football. I'd consider getting FIFA 2001 (The first FIFA game on the PS2) but none after that.
F1 games, however, always seem to be differant. If I liked F1 (which I don't. It's so boring following the best racing line all the time), I can see myseld getting it every year.
Then there are games such as WipEout. Every WipEout game had been vastly different to the last, which is a very good thing. I didn't buy WipEout 3 however, because it was poor, but this is a price we pay for sequels. If we want different games, we've got expect some not to be as good as others. If WipEout 3 had been like WipEout 2097, I would probably have bought it because WipEout 2097 was class. It's the same as GT3. GT3, although bearing a little too many similarities to GT2, is still a class game and people are buying it in their droves.
GT3 isn't really a good example though as it's very hard to make each one original. You can't change the physics so what else is there?
Anyway, I'm rambling. The point is, most games will spawn sequels and these sequels are liable to be as good or better than the first. As long as the sequels are good, they're acceptable. Where does this leave EA then? Well, it leaves them with a urine-poor reputation and a huge bank balance.
F1 games, however, always seem to be differant. If I liked F1 (which I don't. It's so boring following the best racing line all the time), I can see myseld getting it every year.
Then there are games such as WipEout. Every WipEout game had been vastly different to the last, which is a very good thing. I didn't buy WipEout 3 however, because it was poor, but this is a price we pay for sequels. If we want different games, we've got expect some not to be as good as others. If WipEout 3 had been like WipEout 2097, I would probably have bought it because WipEout 2097 was class. It's the same as GT3. GT3, although bearing a little too many similarities to GT2, is still a class game and people are buying it in their droves.
GT3 isn't really a good example though as it's very hard to make each one original. You can't change the physics so what else is there?
Anyway, I'm rambling. The point is, most games will spawn sequels and these sequels are liable to be as good or better than the first. As long as the sequels are good, they're acceptable. Where does this leave EA then? Well, it leaves them with a urine-poor reputation and a huge bank balance.
Turbonutter wrote:
> Ha, who cares anyway if there are more sequels on such-and-such a
> console?
The thing is, if an original game is any good, the first thing that happens when people finish it, is ask when the sequel is out....
Then they get upset that there are so many sequels....
To me it doesn't matter.
I bought one version of ISS for my N64, and didn't see the point in the rest, as they added little to the game - but I can see why developers do it - to make sure that the best version of the game is always available, rather than one that's slighly out of date.
With a sequle to a series, with different levels and all, what's the problem, as long as you enjoy it?
> Ha, who cares anyway if there are more sequels on such-and-such a
> console?
The thing is, if an original game is any good, the first thing that happens when people finish it, is ask when the sequel is out....
Then they get upset that there are so many sequels....
To me it doesn't matter.
I bought one version of ISS for my N64, and didn't see the point in the rest, as they added little to the game - but I can see why developers do it - to make sure that the best version of the game is always available, rather than one that's slighly out of date.
With a sequle to a series, with different levels and all, what's the problem, as long as you enjoy it?
Page: