The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Having read Turbonutters topic about Gamecube having a higher percentage sequels than the PS2, well I'd better explain the stats.
Firstly, most of those sequels have come from the likes of Midway, EA and Acclaim.
Third party publishers.
These games have been put in to take in the casual gamers.
Secondly, the other sequels tend to be slightly different to your average sequel. Let me explain.
Take 2 PS2 sequels, say Metal Gear Solid 2 and Smugglers Run 2. Both are titles yet to be released with the letter 2 strapped on the back.
is your average sequel. Release only a year after the original, not much improvemnts other than slightly polished tracks, a couple of extra options etc.
No real thought into it.
These are the sequels that everyone despises.
Then there's MGS2.
The original was on a lower format and that was a few years ago.
The difference between the two games is tremendous. More thought out ideas, the same classic gameplay but now with new twists and possibilities.
It's not a simple update. A lot of thought and time has gone into this, making it a special game.
It might not make the same impact that a totally original game of this quality would, but it's the sort of sequel that everyone appreciates.
All the sequels from Nintendo and Rare for the Gamecube are of this type.
The last version was made over 2 years ago and many major updates have been made. The games best bits have been worked on are are more finely tuned than before.
Things that weren't possible in the previous versions are now in with the new machines power.
You see there's sequels and sequels.
Originality and sequel don't necessarily have to be on different sides of the room.
Originality and original games don't necessarily go together (there's loads of games with original titles that just turn out to be clones of other titles.)
When people talk about sequel in a bad way, they mean the average type.
How can you tell the difference?
There has too be atleast a 2 year gap between the releases.
And there must be a lot of new ideas placed in there too.
Perfect Dark was a sequel to Goldeneye yet you played it and it seemed like a whole new game.
And that's when they were using the same hardware...
Firstly, most of those sequels have come from the likes of Midway, EA and Acclaim.
Third party publishers.
These games have been put in to take in the casual gamers.
Secondly, the other sequels tend to be slightly different to your average sequel. Let me explain.
Take 2 PS2 sequels, say Metal Gear Solid 2 and Smugglers Run 2. Both are titles yet to be released with the letter 2 strapped on the back.
is your average sequel. Release only a year after the original, not much improvemnts other than slightly polished tracks, a couple of extra options etc.
No real thought into it.
These are the sequels that everyone despises.
Then there's MGS2.
The original was on a lower format and that was a few years ago.
The difference between the two games is tremendous. More thought out ideas, the same classic gameplay but now with new twists and possibilities.
It's not a simple update. A lot of thought and time has gone into this, making it a special game.
It might not make the same impact that a totally original game of this quality would, but it's the sort of sequel that everyone appreciates.
All the sequels from Nintendo and Rare for the Gamecube are of this type.
The last version was made over 2 years ago and many major updates have been made. The games best bits have been worked on are are more finely tuned than before.
Things that weren't possible in the previous versions are now in with the new machines power.
You see there's sequels and sequels.
Originality and sequel don't necessarily have to be on different sides of the room.
Originality and original games don't necessarily go together (there's loads of games with original titles that just turn out to be clones of other titles.)
When people talk about sequel in a bad way, they mean the average type.
How can you tell the difference?
There has too be atleast a 2 year gap between the releases.
And there must be a lot of new ideas placed in there too.
Perfect Dark was a sequel to Goldeneye yet you played it and it seemed like a whole new game.
And that's when they were using the same hardware...
Sequels has turned into quite a popular subject at the moment hasn't it. Let me take a good look at this.
Sequels are seen by developers as a mean of improvement. But, sometimes, when you hear of a developer talking about a sequel being the means of putting the things right what was wrong in the original, I wouldn't be surprised if they were lying.
Consider this, when did you last walk into your local games store, look at the shelves and see a sequel to a games that you have never heard of or was so crap, that you used it as an ashtray or something? The most likely answer to this is never.
I mean, come on, finding a sequel on the shelves to a game that you can't remember. This doesn't happen very often, that's if it does happen at all.
Sequels ate very rarely made unless the original made money. I mean, what would be the point in a sequel, if the original was a pile of pants, and wasn't successful at all.
Alright then, what if the original was complete and utter tosh. Why would there be a sequel? The answer. The original actually made enough money for a sequel to be possible, and this fact would most likely mean that people would buy the sequel (unless of course, they did find it completley crap). Want an example. OK then, FIFA games. Ok, so these aren't appauling games, more average footy sims than anything else. But they sold by the bucket loads, outselling the brilliant ISS series.
So then, what can be made from this. Well, I am sorry to say, that most sequels only exist because the original made money.
There is that question: Why do publishers favour sequels? Well, this really isn't the case anymore, as we know the answer to this: low risk and high profits. Bit sad isn't it.
The question now is: How are sequels approached? Could it be just as a cash in, just a way of making money easily and quickly, or is it because they want to put right what went wrong in the original and add more besides.
The answer I favour is the first one. I mean, the gaming industry is a business after all isn't it. If the original games sells well, people obviously like it, so the publishers are bound to release a sequel.
Who decides when the sequels are too be made? Simple answer really. The publishers. The developers are the brains behind the games, where as the publishers are essentially the wallet, so they decide when the sequel is to be made. The problem here is, in most cases, developers do what they are told. If they are told to do the same agian but better, thats what they do. If it turns out pants, they are the ones that get the flak. Not right if you ask me.
In a lot of cases, the intention of a sequel is genuine, and is to improve over the original, and this is the kind of sequel that I like, and I expect everybody likes.
So, in a lot of cases, sequels are a good thing, thank god!
Sequels are seen by developers as a mean of improvement. But, sometimes, when you hear of a developer talking about a sequel being the means of putting the things right what was wrong in the original, I wouldn't be surprised if they were lying.
Consider this, when did you last walk into your local games store, look at the shelves and see a sequel to a games that you have never heard of or was so crap, that you used it as an ashtray or something? The most likely answer to this is never.
I mean, come on, finding a sequel on the shelves to a game that you can't remember. This doesn't happen very often, that's if it does happen at all.
Sequels ate very rarely made unless the original made money. I mean, what would be the point in a sequel, if the original was a pile of pants, and wasn't successful at all.
Alright then, what if the original was complete and utter tosh. Why would there be a sequel? The answer. The original actually made enough money for a sequel to be possible, and this fact would most likely mean that people would buy the sequel (unless of course, they did find it completley crap). Want an example. OK then, FIFA games. Ok, so these aren't appauling games, more average footy sims than anything else. But they sold by the bucket loads, outselling the brilliant ISS series.
So then, what can be made from this. Well, I am sorry to say, that most sequels only exist because the original made money.
There is that question: Why do publishers favour sequels? Well, this really isn't the case anymore, as we know the answer to this: low risk and high profits. Bit sad isn't it.
The question now is: How are sequels approached? Could it be just as a cash in, just a way of making money easily and quickly, or is it because they want to put right what went wrong in the original and add more besides.
The answer I favour is the first one. I mean, the gaming industry is a business after all isn't it. If the original games sells well, people obviously like it, so the publishers are bound to release a sequel.
Who decides when the sequels are too be made? Simple answer really. The publishers. The developers are the brains behind the games, where as the publishers are essentially the wallet, so they decide when the sequel is to be made. The problem here is, in most cases, developers do what they are told. If they are told to do the same agian but better, thats what they do. If it turns out pants, they are the ones that get the flak. Not right if you ask me.
In a lot of cases, the intention of a sequel is genuine, and is to improve over the original, and this is the kind of sequel that I like, and I expect everybody likes.
So, in a lot of cases, sequels are a good thing, thank god!
Having read Turbonutters topic about Gamecube having a higher percentage sequels than the PS2, well I'd better explain the stats.
Firstly, most of those sequels have come from the likes of Midway, EA and Acclaim.
Third party publishers.
These games have been put in to take in the casual gamers.
Secondly, the other sequels tend to be slightly different to your average sequel. Let me explain.
Take 2 PS2 sequels, say Metal Gear Solid 2 and Smugglers Run 2. Both are titles yet to be released with the letter 2 strapped on the back.
is your average sequel. Release only a year after the original, not much improvemnts other than slightly polished tracks, a couple of extra options etc.
No real thought into it.
These are the sequels that everyone despises.
Then there's MGS2.
The original was on a lower format and that was a few years ago.
The difference between the two games is tremendous. More thought out ideas, the same classic gameplay but now with new twists and possibilities.
It's not a simple update. A lot of thought and time has gone into this, making it a special game.
It might not make the same impact that a totally original game of this quality would, but it's the sort of sequel that everyone appreciates.
All the sequels from Nintendo and Rare for the Gamecube are of this type.
The last version was made over 2 years ago and many major updates have been made. The games best bits have been worked on are are more finely tuned than before.
Things that weren't possible in the previous versions are now in with the new machines power.
You see there's sequels and sequels.
Originality and sequel don't necessarily have to be on different sides of the room.
Originality and original games don't necessarily go together (there's loads of games with original titles that just turn out to be clones of other titles.)
When people talk about sequel in a bad way, they mean the average type.
How can you tell the difference?
There has too be atleast a 2 year gap between the releases.
And there must be a lot of new ideas placed in there too.
Perfect Dark was a sequel to Goldeneye yet you played it and it seemed like a whole new game.
And that's when they were using the same hardware...
Firstly, most of those sequels have come from the likes of Midway, EA and Acclaim.
Third party publishers.
These games have been put in to take in the casual gamers.
Secondly, the other sequels tend to be slightly different to your average sequel. Let me explain.
Take 2 PS2 sequels, say Metal Gear Solid 2 and Smugglers Run 2. Both are titles yet to be released with the letter 2 strapped on the back.
is your average sequel. Release only a year after the original, not much improvemnts other than slightly polished tracks, a couple of extra options etc.
No real thought into it.
These are the sequels that everyone despises.
Then there's MGS2.
The original was on a lower format and that was a few years ago.
The difference between the two games is tremendous. More thought out ideas, the same classic gameplay but now with new twists and possibilities.
It's not a simple update. A lot of thought and time has gone into this, making it a special game.
It might not make the same impact that a totally original game of this quality would, but it's the sort of sequel that everyone appreciates.
All the sequels from Nintendo and Rare for the Gamecube are of this type.
The last version was made over 2 years ago and many major updates have been made. The games best bits have been worked on are are more finely tuned than before.
Things that weren't possible in the previous versions are now in with the new machines power.
You see there's sequels and sequels.
Originality and sequel don't necessarily have to be on different sides of the room.
Originality and original games don't necessarily go together (there's loads of games with original titles that just turn out to be clones of other titles.)
When people talk about sequel in a bad way, they mean the average type.
How can you tell the difference?
There has too be atleast a 2 year gap between the releases.
And there must be a lot of new ideas placed in there too.
Perfect Dark was a sequel to Goldeneye yet you played it and it seemed like a whole new game.
And that's when they were using the same hardware...