Viewing Thread:
"Is the PlayStation 2 a SequelStation too?"

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.

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.

only reason why playstation 2s sequel percentage is higer is becasue the console has a load of low profile original games. THe main games are a majority sequel.

Anyway, I think an example of good sequels would be the wrestling games on the 64 made by THQ. WCW/nwo world tour, WCW/nwo revenge, WWF wrestlemaina and WWF no mercy. these are the order they were released in and they are in the order of quality. Each game was bettter than the last and improvmements in the game were so drastic that the games be-fore it felt slow and boring.

Actually, after reading your post I think you're maybe replying to someone else as your post is in no way a condensed version of mine. Not saying what you wrote was/is wrong or anything - just you have one point, I had many.

Look it's late, we've all had a bit to drink, maybe we should just leave it :)

Eloquent is the word you’re looking for ;)

Which is nice!

Which is a long drawn out version of what i just said!

I think the real problem is the nature of sequels. Sequels in themselves are not a bad thing, believe it or not. Look at Zelda on the NES and OOT on the N64. They are two very, very different games and both warrant existence as they bring different items to the tombola of gaming goodness.

When Tomb Raider is criticised for its sequels its fans often complain that there are more titles in the Mario franchise and they're all praised to high heaven. As a statement it is correct, but it neglects the fact that Mario has been around for over three times as long as Lara. Each Mario game has been truly fresh and developed the playing mechanism, taking it to a new level. Has this really occurred in something like Tomb Raider? Have we seen any drastic evolutions in the franchise like the Switch Towers and the different caps? (I’m sidestepping the 2D to 3D change as Tomb Raider missed out on that due to the fact that it is a child of the 32-bit era) Sure, they are small changes in themselves but they open up a wealth of different ways a level can be designed and how the character interacts with surroundings and enemies. Does Lara's new curvier body and sidestepping move really do the same thing? Nope. The changes between the Tomb Raider games seem more like Level Expansion packs seen for games such as Half Life. Look at Super Mario World 1 and 2 on the SNES - drastically different games and a totally different playing experience (well as far as you can go while staying in the platform genre).

Look to the FIFA franchise. EA are often criticised for this - why? EA are a business and people keep buying the games and making them money, so why would they change a proven formula? To develop a totally new game would not only cost many times more in terms of development, but it wouldn't be guaranteed the same level of success as the a FIFA title is guaranteed. It’s a brand, just like Coke or McDonalds. We trust the brand and are loyal to it. Why risk trying that new ISS game that everyone says is so good when we know we like FIFA? Gaming Apathy, love it or loathe it it's a fact.

I don't have a problem with the continuing sequalisation of game like FIFA and Tomb Raider for one reason - I don't have to play them. Sure, if they really are good I'll buy them and enjoy them. Until the day I'm sat down and forced to play FIFA over something else I'll ignore it, just like the hundreds of other games I ignore every time I make a gaming purchase. There's also the cash cow issue. If EA can bank on their cash cows, such as FIFA, they can afford to take risks and develop titles that may be a bit more risky. As innovation and progression is born out of risk taking that's a good thing. I suppose you could also say that it may push other developers, or more importantly investors, to throw cash at making games as they can see the huge rewards that are possible.

The sequel "problem" is a fabrication. It does not really harm anyone and has really only been created by the sort of gamers who call themselves "hardcore" and refer to "the industry". Basically, what it comes down to is if someone buys FIFA and enjoys it, who am I to deny him his pleasures?

I have said many a time sequels are fine but...

Having one each and every year go damn! Tomb raider 5!!!!!!

We get Wave Race 2 (or 3 if you count the GB version) and they are all on different consoles!!!!!!!!!

I'm worried the PS2 will release a sequel after sequel i can guarentee they'll be at least 3 Timesplitters games by the end of the PS2's life!

I know what you mean er-no. He has just to read my post for an explanation.
I hope you understand what I mean?

TBN, you must have got confused with what is classifed as a gaming sequel and what is not!

A series of games is different to a sequel of series of games, I can explain if you don't understand!