The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I have heard compaints that the PS2 will only have sequels on it, but is that really always such a bad thing? I can see it being bad if the new game is just like the previous, with better graphics etc. But when it is a series that is always evolving in terms of gameplay surely this is acceptable. A good example of this are the Super Mario games. Even the 3 Nes games build on the previous to such an extent that they are not so much parts 2 and 3 but separate games involving the same characters. A poor example would be the Resident Evil games which are all basically the same with slightly different stories. The Mortal Kombat series didn't really improve that much either, but look at nintendo's Zelda games. Sega are trying to take sonic in new directions after the 3 (or more) Megadrive games that were all the same. Sega proved that they could do it on the Master System with Wonderboy & Alex Kidd.
So if a sequel is going to attract fans of the first game, and it is a significant improvement on and not too like the original, it can be a good thing.
P.S. What are your favourite series of games and how would you like to see them develop on the next generation consoles?
So if a sequel is going to attract fans of the first game, and it is a significant improvement on and not too like the original, it can be a good thing.
P.S. What are your favourite series of games and how would you like to see them develop on the next generation consoles?
Though the Final Fantasy games aren't so much sequels as completely different games with a brand name! They aren't based in the same settings or involve the same characters- this is not a criticism, but maybe the name sells the game (as good as they are). Square could release a game that is in no way related to the previous one in the series, and it would still be a Final Fantasy game, and benefit from the extra sales the name generates.
In terms of sequels being a good thing, take a look at the Final Fantasy series, each one being a completely new plot, different characters, completely revamped game engines, and new ideas abound in each one of the series.
This surely has to be the epitome of sequels being a good thing.
This surely has to be the epitome of sequels being a good thing.
I have heard compaints that the PS2 will only have sequels on it, but is that really always such a bad thing? I can see it being bad if the new game is just like the previous, with better graphics etc. But when it is a series that is always evolving in terms of gameplay surely this is acceptable. A good example of this are the Super Mario games. Even the 3 Nes games build on the previous to such an extent that they are not so much parts 2 and 3 but separate games involving the same characters. A poor example would be the Resident Evil games which are all basically the same with slightly different stories. The Mortal Kombat series didn't really improve that much either, but look at nintendo's Zelda games. Sega are trying to take sonic in new directions after the 3 (or more) Megadrive games that were all the same. Sega proved that they could do it on the Master System with Wonderboy & Alex Kidd.
So if a sequel is going to attract fans of the first game, and it is a significant improvement on and not too like the original, it can be a good thing.
P.S. What are your favourite series of games and how would you like to see them develop on the next generation consoles?
So if a sequel is going to attract fans of the first game, and it is a significant improvement on and not too like the original, it can be a good thing.
P.S. What are your favourite series of games and how would you like to see them develop on the next generation consoles?