The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Sequels. What are they? In some cases in the computer games industry, it means a game based on its predecessor and offers an extension to a plot, or in sports games updated stats and the odd new feature. And in other cases, itís a second game to a series which offers more to the plot, or updated stats, but contains lots of extra features, new ideas within the game (often sometimes a whole new engine, completely changing what is capable) and often better graphics. These games also iron out any little problems the games before had. Every week a new sequel is released. The thing is, do we mind?
Itís a game series such a Tomb Raider that give sequels a bad name. Here, the first game was very good indeed, an offered a whole new gaming experience which instantly got every one hooked with Lara Croft. A year after release, the second game came out in the series, again, the game was good and sold millions of copies. By this time, Eidos knew they were on to something big that brought in lots of money. And so there we had it, three more games followed which were equally as boring as each other. Very little was added into each instalment other than a plot change and a new viechle here and there. However, those Lara freaks out there, only interested in one thingÖwell two actually, flocked in there numbers and bought the games. This has been the case for many games, such as the Fifa series. Here, every year all that was bettered were the graphics, updated stats and the odd new power bar. There are also many other games series than these examples.
But not all sequels are like this. Yes it may be a typical example, but the ISS series has always been improved with every new release, with the exception of the ISS 2000 on PS2. Here the game play was always improved, it was always made more realistic with extra features added. The graphics were always improved and stats updated. Not just on PS1, N64 also had a decent ISS over there. The Mario games too always offer something different, and come across many genres from platform games to carting games. But this too had a bad effect. Mario spawned off many games all along the same line, such as Banjo and other Mario games. These were all good, enjoyable games, but were all on the same line, and it was felt, by me anyway, there were too many games along this genre.
Many have critised Sony for being too un-original, and that the console had too many sequels and not enough original games. However, in my opinion, the majority of these games are ones following previous quality games from either PS1, or successful games already released on PS2. Such as the ISS series, known as Pro Evo Soccer, Resident Evil, GTA3,GT 3 Silent Hill 2, MGS 2, Tekken 4, SSX tricky, and more. But looking at these games you can see there is a lot being put into these to make them good, and better than previous games. Being a PS2 owner, I like new, original games, as any one does with there console. But that does not mean I donít want the sequels. I love being able to play a game genre such as GTA improved, and now the new one is in full 3D. Do we really mind having a large number of sequels when they look and play as good as they do? I certainly donít.
But then remember, there are too a lot of original games coming to PS2, DMC, Jack and Dax, Herdy Gerdy, Burnout and many more. We are getting our fair share of originals, as we are sequels, but when the games are this good, does that matter.?
Pro Evo
Itís a game series such a Tomb Raider that give sequels a bad name. Here, the first game was very good indeed, an offered a whole new gaming experience which instantly got every one hooked with Lara Croft. A year after release, the second game came out in the series, again, the game was good and sold millions of copies. By this time, Eidos knew they were on to something big that brought in lots of money. And so there we had it, three more games followed which were equally as boring as each other. Very little was added into each instalment other than a plot change and a new viechle here and there. However, those Lara freaks out there, only interested in one thingÖwell two actually, flocked in there numbers and bought the games. This has been the case for many games, such as the Fifa series. Here, every year all that was bettered were the graphics, updated stats and the odd new power bar. There are also many other games series than these examples.
But not all sequels are like this. Yes it may be a typical example, but the ISS series has always been improved with every new release, with the exception of the ISS 2000 on PS2. Here the game play was always improved, it was always made more realistic with extra features added. The graphics were always improved and stats updated. Not just on PS1, N64 also had a decent ISS over there. The Mario games too always offer something different, and come across many genres from platform games to carting games. But this too had a bad effect. Mario spawned off many games all along the same line, such as Banjo and other Mario games. These were all good, enjoyable games, but were all on the same line, and it was felt, by me anyway, there were too many games along this genre.
Many have critised Sony for being too un-original, and that the console had too many sequels and not enough original games. However, in my opinion, the majority of these games are ones following previous quality games from either PS1, or successful games already released on PS2. Such as the ISS series, known as Pro Evo Soccer, Resident Evil, GTA3,GT 3 Silent Hill 2, MGS 2, Tekken 4, SSX tricky, and more. But looking at these games you can see there is a lot being put into these to make them good, and better than previous games. Being a PS2 owner, I like new, original games, as any one does with there console. But that does not mean I donít want the sequels. I love being able to play a game genre such as GTA improved, and now the new one is in full 3D. Do we really mind having a large number of sequels when they look and play as good as they do? I certainly donít.
But then remember, there are too a lot of original games coming to PS2, DMC, Jack and Dax, Herdy Gerdy, Burnout and many more. We are getting our fair share of originals, as we are sequels, but when the games are this good, does that matter.?
Pro Evo
Page:
true :-)
one a year for the Tomb Raider fans wasn't bad, I've got the first 2 but only like the original, I know where everything is you see which makes it more fun.
good post :-D
one a year for the Tomb Raider fans wasn't bad, I've got the first 2 but only like the original, I know where everything is you see which makes it more fun.
good post :-D
Sequels. What are they? In some cases in the computer games industry, it means a game based on its predecessor and offers an extension to a plot, or in sports games updated stats and the odd new feature. And in other cases, itís a second game to a series which offers more to the plot, or updated stats, but contains lots of extra features, new ideas within the game (often sometimes a whole new engine, completely changing what is capable) and often better graphics. These games also iron out any little problems the games before had. Every week a new sequel is released. The thing is, do we mind?
Itís a game series such a Tomb Raider that give sequels a bad name. Here, the first game was very good indeed, an offered a whole new gaming experience which instantly got every one hooked with Lara Croft. A year after release, the second game came out in the series, again, the game was good and sold millions of copies. By this time, Eidos knew they were on to something big that brought in lots of money. And so there we had it, three more games followed which were equally as boring as each other. Very little was added into each instalment other than a plot change and a new viechle here and there. However, those Lara freaks out there, only interested in one thingÖwell two actually, flocked in there numbers and bought the games. This has been the case for many games, such as the Fifa series. Here, every year all that was bettered were the graphics, updated stats and the odd new power bar. There are also many other games series than these examples.
But not all sequels are like this. Yes it may be a typical example, but the ISS series has always been improved with every new release, with the exception of the ISS 2000 on PS2. Here the game play was always improved, it was always made more realistic with extra features added. The graphics were always improved and stats updated. Not just on PS1, N64 also had a decent ISS over there. The Mario games too always offer something different, and come across many genres from platform games to carting games. But this too had a bad effect. Mario spawned off many games all along the same line, such as Banjo and other Mario games. These were all good, enjoyable games, but were all on the same line, and it was felt, by me anyway, there were too many games along this genre.
Many have critised Sony for being too un-original, and that the console had too many sequels and not enough original games. However, in my opinion, the majority of these games are ones following previous quality games from either PS1, or successful games already released on PS2. Such as the ISS series, known as Pro Evo Soccer, Resident Evil, GTA3,GT 3 Silent Hill 2, MGS 2, Tekken 4, SSX tricky, and more. But looking at these games you can see there is a lot being put into these to make them good, and better than previous games. Being a PS2 owner, I like new, original games, as any one does with there console. But that does not mean I donít want the sequels. I love being able to play a game genre such as GTA improved, and now the new one is in full 3D. Do we really mind having a large number of sequels when they look and play as good as they do? I certainly donít.
But then remember, there are too a lot of original games coming to PS2, DMC, Jack and Dax, Herdy Gerdy, Burnout and many more. We are getting our fair share of originals, as we are sequels, but when the games are this good, does that matter.?
Pro Evo
Itís a game series such a Tomb Raider that give sequels a bad name. Here, the first game was very good indeed, an offered a whole new gaming experience which instantly got every one hooked with Lara Croft. A year after release, the second game came out in the series, again, the game was good and sold millions of copies. By this time, Eidos knew they were on to something big that brought in lots of money. And so there we had it, three more games followed which were equally as boring as each other. Very little was added into each instalment other than a plot change and a new viechle here and there. However, those Lara freaks out there, only interested in one thingÖwell two actually, flocked in there numbers and bought the games. This has been the case for many games, such as the Fifa series. Here, every year all that was bettered were the graphics, updated stats and the odd new power bar. There are also many other games series than these examples.
But not all sequels are like this. Yes it may be a typical example, but the ISS series has always been improved with every new release, with the exception of the ISS 2000 on PS2. Here the game play was always improved, it was always made more realistic with extra features added. The graphics were always improved and stats updated. Not just on PS1, N64 also had a decent ISS over there. The Mario games too always offer something different, and come across many genres from platform games to carting games. But this too had a bad effect. Mario spawned off many games all along the same line, such as Banjo and other Mario games. These were all good, enjoyable games, but were all on the same line, and it was felt, by me anyway, there were too many games along this genre.
Many have critised Sony for being too un-original, and that the console had too many sequels and not enough original games. However, in my opinion, the majority of these games are ones following previous quality games from either PS1, or successful games already released on PS2. Such as the ISS series, known as Pro Evo Soccer, Resident Evil, GTA3,GT 3 Silent Hill 2, MGS 2, Tekken 4, SSX tricky, and more. But looking at these games you can see there is a lot being put into these to make them good, and better than previous games. Being a PS2 owner, I like new, original games, as any one does with there console. But that does not mean I donít want the sequels. I love being able to play a game genre such as GTA improved, and now the new one is in full 3D. Do we really mind having a large number of sequels when they look and play as good as they do? I certainly donít.
But then remember, there are too a lot of original games coming to PS2, DMC, Jack and Dax, Herdy Gerdy, Burnout and many more. We are getting our fair share of originals, as we are sequels, but when the games are this good, does that matter.?
Pro Evo
Page: