The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Over the past 6 years of the existence of Playstation 1 and the 18 months of the Playstation 2 being on the shop shelves gamers have been enjoying some fantastic titles, which have changed many people’s lives. Releases of some of these titles were followed by doors being locked, curtains being shut and numerous empty pizza boxes lying around on the floor. In other cases gamers have spent 10 minutes trying to figure out why on earth that shiny round disk saw the light of day, before strutting over to the nearest EB and thinking of the most polite way of expressing their disgust at how rubbish the given game is. But as it is with most consoles or home computers that appeared for the last 20 years, you are bound to end up with loads of average games with only a handful of the titles that really do deserve our attention. But that is how it will always be – it is impossible to ask the developers to bring out brilliant games all the time. What, in their opinion may be a very attractive title, may seem completely pants to us.
As I mentioned earlier there were quite a few bad games (ok a lot of bad games) for the PS1 and now the PS2 and sometimes it was surprising to see such games being brought out for the major consoles (a person who though up the Army Men idea, should be put in the darkened room and fed broccoli for a duration of 3 months). But the excellent titles such as Final Fantasy 7 were worth every penny carefully removed from our piggybanks, and the effort of dragging yourself out of bed before ordering the game on the net. Should a game be good, people try and overlook all the negative points about the game. It’s impossible to make a game perfect but there is one thing that loads of people neglect when it comes to games – ORIGINALITY.
Yes ok, I know that this has been discussed many times before and still no compromise has been reached. But I will try and express my own opinion and maybe bring us closer to deciding what is really better for the gaming world. But we will come to opinions later. Now lets have a look at what is considered to be original..
There are naturally 2 different types of original games. They may not differ drastically but there is a significant distinction between the two. So, “original” games are considered the ones that either take a different approach to an already well-established genre but are not successors as such to any games already on the market or are games that present a totally new challenge gameplay-wise and therefore may be considered revolutionary. Unfortunately nowadays the “revolutionary” type games are very rarely seen and when an odd game does appear on the shelves, it is either ignored by the public or keeps getting very suspicious looks from them. It is the former category that most original games fall into but they are still a minority compared to another type of games, which we will get to a little bit later. So what does “a new approach to the well-established genre” actually means? Well it means taking a popular genre such as an First-Person Shooter (FPS) and trying to make it severely different from the other games that fall into that genre. This could mean adding more features to the gameplay, tweaking the style of the approach to all the challenges etc. For example Deus Ex, a well-received PC FPS, which is coming to the PS2 this spring, features an RPG element to the gameplay that helps strengthen the story significantly and engulf the player letting him interact with the game further and the element also manages to deepen the gameplay extensively. In my opinion this is a good way to make a distinction between normal linear type of games and new innovative titles that may just attract the public because the developers took a risk of adopting a new approach on something already conventional. Whereas there was lack of skateboarding games before Tony Hawks, the FIFA series are not exactly the most original of titles are they.
Now lets have a look at one game that changed the way people think about games. Metal Gear Solid, which was released on the PSone in February 1999, was not only an original game. No it even also introduced a new genre to games-stealth’em up. The game, created by Hideo Kojima, was simply different from anything else on the market. Thanks to the diverse style of gameplay and the detail given to the surrounding locations and the like made the game an instant classic. So despite 2 Metal Gears already appearing on the SNES over 5 years earlier, the game was still considered original and revolutionary. The game couldn’t really be challenged in terms of gameplay and graphics but it still generated a number of spin-offs, which were, to put it nicely, not very good. It was obvious that MGS set a standard which all other game developers had in mind when making their own games. Syphon Filter turned out to be a good game and even though MGS influences were definitely there, it still managed to be different. This is a good way of becoming a successful company and making a name for yourself. The company experimented and ended up with a good action game. But enough of MGS for now. We will come back to it but for now Mr.Snake would you mind going over there please…. yes a bit further…that’ll do..
So what about the new features that are constantly being introduced to games to distinguish them from other titles in the similar genres. It is a very difficult thing to move away from a conventional image of a game and it is important to remember that you are trying to be different-you are not going to get anywhere if you stick with an explored genre and make another game that will just be remembered as, well “another game”. You do not want people to say “Ah, how many more of them driving/platform etc games do we have to see appear on the shelves”. You need people to think that YOUR game is going to make people turn around and take notice. Therefore developers are constantly trying to make their games dissimilar to others. Even if they are undertaking yet another footie game, they are trying to hide the similarities in the genre and make people want to buy it. And since most sports sims/platforms/adventures etc fall under the “new approach” category it is the company who best handles the gameplay and graphics will probably end up with the best game. Anyway new features to games may include things like new levels, extra vehicles, hidden extras and the like. Developers try to cram in as many of them as possible in their games to make them more playable and interesting. But at times production deadlines or inability of the staff to work any more 72-hour shifts prevents the companies to include all the features they intended to include in their finished product. And this is why companies decide to produce SEQUELS to their games…
Sequels are games, which are usually similar to their predecessors in more ways than one. Apart from a similar name with a 2 or 3 at the end, sequels usually carry the same gameplay as the first game and the graphics engine usually stays the same throughout the series so that the people who played the first game can instantly recognise the title and get into it more quickly. Sequels also tend to be generally better than the originals (with an exception of the Police Academy movies) because of a number of factors: 1) More features could be included in the game that didn’t make the first title 2) The developers are able to listen to the customers feedback about the first game and improve the sequel accordingly. This may involve just minor tweaks to the graphics, or a total re-think of the style of gameplay. 3) Better software may result in the developers being able to improve the game’s visuals. All these are very important to remember when making a sequel but if the original game was a really good title, the developers will have a tough job on their hands. You see the expectations for the sequel will be so high, that enormous pressure will be on developers’ shoulders. They will have to make sure the sequel captures the feel of the first game but is also different enough to warrant a purchase. But unfortunately games are not just made for the sole purpose of us playing them till our eyes bleed and enjoying every single minute of it. NONONONONO it’s just not as simple as that. Games are made because of MONEY.
Yes money that developers will receive if the game sells well, if it gets an award, if it is mentioned somewhere or if the management just feel that the game was a pearl (no bonuses for the Army Men developers then…). Money is always on the minds of the people behind the games. They don’t just have to make a playable title; they have to make sure that it will sell by a bucket-load. And here is where a big problem lies. Sometimes developers decide to scrap the idea of making an enjoyable game and just go for a rush re-make of the original. For a couple of years it has worked for FIFA, probably because of the official FIFPro license that EA received allowing them to include all the real players and clubs. Unfortunately EA have failed to improve each annual title enough for it to be a completely new experience. Ea have also failed to listen to any customer feedback and year in and year out they have simply chucked out virtually the same game on the market. And people fell for it. They went out, they bought it and every Christmas kids were likely to find a brand new FIFA game in their stockings. And at the same time Konami were not just concentrating on Silent Hills and Metal Gears. In the meantime they have made a darn good football game by the name of ISS, which was a superior game to FIFA in any way but the lack of teams available to the player. But at the end of 2001 the trend has stopped, and even the attempts of EA to sort out the gameplay after (finally) listening to the criticisms were too little too late to stop ISS or Pro Evo Soccer which is the new name of the series becoming the best selling footie game on the market. Lets look at another example. Eidos the company behind Tomb Raider games and Core Design (developers of the game) have come up with a brilliant idea. They have decided to make an adventure game with a female lead character…so 1996-Psone just been launched few months before, Tomb Raider 1 appears…WOW this is BRILLIANT-everyone loves the game…1997-Tomb Raider 2-Ah wicked, a sequel to the best game ever….1998-Tomb Raider 3-Uh well I guess its Lara Croft…1999-TR:The Last Revelation….Uh haven’t we seen this before??…2000-TR: Chronicles Err Hold on…You get the picture. They never really were any different to the first game but because of the success of the original, everyone still went out and bought it. Eidos became one of the most praised companies for releasing that game but even they have learned from their mistakes and are promising us a different style of gameplay for the next Tomb Raider game. Problem, which luckily the console makers are not faced with just as yet, are add-on disks that PC gamers are now so used to. These come out almost every other month and they cost a bob too, so gamers who want to get the best out of their games have to purchase add-ons, patches, new mods and character etc. As long as consoles do not go in that direction we will be fine…
Mr Snake…You can come out now…Arghhh I thought I told you not to use my German shepherd as a shooting target….Anyway, as said earlier, MGS was a very important game in the history of gaming. So when the sequel was announced for the PS2 everyone stood up and took notice. Rumours and speculations circulated around the net suggesting possible plot twists and the like. Then PS2 owners were treated to a playable demo of the game in May 2001. Magazines were praising the game for being a masterpiece and that the game will gob smack us by the graphics and the gameplay. But then something weird happened. Magazines and gaming websites have started reviewing the import version of MGS2 and were still praising it. But the game didn’t get a single 10/10 score…. Reviewers thought that it was too similar to the first MGS to deserve a higher score. Which does make you think for a little bit. Should this game been original, it would get perfect scores everywhere since it is far superior to its predecessor. But considering that it is a SEQUEL many were not as enthusiastic about the game.
So opinions still differ when it comes to talking about originality of games. Some claim that there are not enough original games and there are too many sequels on the market, others declare that the balance is just about right and so on. But they just need to think for one minute. What would happen if there would be no sequels and just a load of original games? That would mean gamers not being sure about the quality of the titles whereas with sequels they know they are getting their moneys worth in most cases. Admit it, wouldn’t you rather play Tony Hawks 3 rather than ESPN Skateboarding. People do go for more well known names and in my opinion they should be able to choose what they are spending their money on. Gran Turismo 3 or Lotus Challenge, SSX Tricky or Shaun Palmers Snowboarding etc…If there is a choice, gamers will be able to make a decision based on their own knowledge r maybe decide to go for something new.
As long as there are many good games coming out for the PS2 and other consoles people should stop complaining about sequels and original games. Developers do their best to bring us those games that will put a smile on our faces and thank them in our heads for being so good to us. They do work hard ya know…So unless we are left with train dating sims or Jennifer Love Hewitt makeover designers I will be happy….
Thank you very much and what do you have to say on the matter?
As I mentioned earlier there were quite a few bad games (ok a lot of bad games) for the PS1 and now the PS2 and sometimes it was surprising to see such games being brought out for the major consoles (a person who though up the Army Men idea, should be put in the darkened room and fed broccoli for a duration of 3 months). But the excellent titles such as Final Fantasy 7 were worth every penny carefully removed from our piggybanks, and the effort of dragging yourself out of bed before ordering the game on the net. Should a game be good, people try and overlook all the negative points about the game. It’s impossible to make a game perfect but there is one thing that loads of people neglect when it comes to games – ORIGINALITY.
Yes ok, I know that this has been discussed many times before and still no compromise has been reached. But I will try and express my own opinion and maybe bring us closer to deciding what is really better for the gaming world. But we will come to opinions later. Now lets have a look at what is considered to be original..
There are naturally 2 different types of original games. They may not differ drastically but there is a significant distinction between the two. So, “original” games are considered the ones that either take a different approach to an already well-established genre but are not successors as such to any games already on the market or are games that present a totally new challenge gameplay-wise and therefore may be considered revolutionary. Unfortunately nowadays the “revolutionary” type games are very rarely seen and when an odd game does appear on the shelves, it is either ignored by the public or keeps getting very suspicious looks from them. It is the former category that most original games fall into but they are still a minority compared to another type of games, which we will get to a little bit later. So what does “a new approach to the well-established genre” actually means? Well it means taking a popular genre such as an First-Person Shooter (FPS) and trying to make it severely different from the other games that fall into that genre. This could mean adding more features to the gameplay, tweaking the style of the approach to all the challenges etc. For example Deus Ex, a well-received PC FPS, which is coming to the PS2 this spring, features an RPG element to the gameplay that helps strengthen the story significantly and engulf the player letting him interact with the game further and the element also manages to deepen the gameplay extensively. In my opinion this is a good way to make a distinction between normal linear type of games and new innovative titles that may just attract the public because the developers took a risk of adopting a new approach on something already conventional. Whereas there was lack of skateboarding games before Tony Hawks, the FIFA series are not exactly the most original of titles are they.
Now lets have a look at one game that changed the way people think about games. Metal Gear Solid, which was released on the PSone in February 1999, was not only an original game. No it even also introduced a new genre to games-stealth’em up. The game, created by Hideo Kojima, was simply different from anything else on the market. Thanks to the diverse style of gameplay and the detail given to the surrounding locations and the like made the game an instant classic. So despite 2 Metal Gears already appearing on the SNES over 5 years earlier, the game was still considered original and revolutionary. The game couldn’t really be challenged in terms of gameplay and graphics but it still generated a number of spin-offs, which were, to put it nicely, not very good. It was obvious that MGS set a standard which all other game developers had in mind when making their own games. Syphon Filter turned out to be a good game and even though MGS influences were definitely there, it still managed to be different. This is a good way of becoming a successful company and making a name for yourself. The company experimented and ended up with a good action game. But enough of MGS for now. We will come back to it but for now Mr.Snake would you mind going over there please…. yes a bit further…that’ll do..
So what about the new features that are constantly being introduced to games to distinguish them from other titles in the similar genres. It is a very difficult thing to move away from a conventional image of a game and it is important to remember that you are trying to be different-you are not going to get anywhere if you stick with an explored genre and make another game that will just be remembered as, well “another game”. You do not want people to say “Ah, how many more of them driving/platform etc games do we have to see appear on the shelves”. You need people to think that YOUR game is going to make people turn around and take notice. Therefore developers are constantly trying to make their games dissimilar to others. Even if they are undertaking yet another footie game, they are trying to hide the similarities in the genre and make people want to buy it. And since most sports sims/platforms/adventures etc fall under the “new approach” category it is the company who best handles the gameplay and graphics will probably end up with the best game. Anyway new features to games may include things like new levels, extra vehicles, hidden extras and the like. Developers try to cram in as many of them as possible in their games to make them more playable and interesting. But at times production deadlines or inability of the staff to work any more 72-hour shifts prevents the companies to include all the features they intended to include in their finished product. And this is why companies decide to produce SEQUELS to their games…
Sequels are games, which are usually similar to their predecessors in more ways than one. Apart from a similar name with a 2 or 3 at the end, sequels usually carry the same gameplay as the first game and the graphics engine usually stays the same throughout the series so that the people who played the first game can instantly recognise the title and get into it more quickly. Sequels also tend to be generally better than the originals (with an exception of the Police Academy movies) because of a number of factors: 1) More features could be included in the game that didn’t make the first title 2) The developers are able to listen to the customers feedback about the first game and improve the sequel accordingly. This may involve just minor tweaks to the graphics, or a total re-think of the style of gameplay. 3) Better software may result in the developers being able to improve the game’s visuals. All these are very important to remember when making a sequel but if the original game was a really good title, the developers will have a tough job on their hands. You see the expectations for the sequel will be so high, that enormous pressure will be on developers’ shoulders. They will have to make sure the sequel captures the feel of the first game but is also different enough to warrant a purchase. But unfortunately games are not just made for the sole purpose of us playing them till our eyes bleed and enjoying every single minute of it. NONONONONO it’s just not as simple as that. Games are made because of MONEY.
Yes money that developers will receive if the game sells well, if it gets an award, if it is mentioned somewhere or if the management just feel that the game was a pearl (no bonuses for the Army Men developers then…). Money is always on the minds of the people behind the games. They don’t just have to make a playable title; they have to make sure that it will sell by a bucket-load. And here is where a big problem lies. Sometimes developers decide to scrap the idea of making an enjoyable game and just go for a rush re-make of the original. For a couple of years it has worked for FIFA, probably because of the official FIFPro license that EA received allowing them to include all the real players and clubs. Unfortunately EA have failed to improve each annual title enough for it to be a completely new experience. Ea have also failed to listen to any customer feedback and year in and year out they have simply chucked out virtually the same game on the market. And people fell for it. They went out, they bought it and every Christmas kids were likely to find a brand new FIFA game in their stockings. And at the same time Konami were not just concentrating on Silent Hills and Metal Gears. In the meantime they have made a darn good football game by the name of ISS, which was a superior game to FIFA in any way but the lack of teams available to the player. But at the end of 2001 the trend has stopped, and even the attempts of EA to sort out the gameplay after (finally) listening to the criticisms were too little too late to stop ISS or Pro Evo Soccer which is the new name of the series becoming the best selling footie game on the market. Lets look at another example. Eidos the company behind Tomb Raider games and Core Design (developers of the game) have come up with a brilliant idea. They have decided to make an adventure game with a female lead character…so 1996-Psone just been launched few months before, Tomb Raider 1 appears…WOW this is BRILLIANT-everyone loves the game…1997-Tomb Raider 2-Ah wicked, a sequel to the best game ever….1998-Tomb Raider 3-Uh well I guess its Lara Croft…1999-TR:The Last Revelation….Uh haven’t we seen this before??…2000-TR: Chronicles Err Hold on…You get the picture. They never really were any different to the first game but because of the success of the original, everyone still went out and bought it. Eidos became one of the most praised companies for releasing that game but even they have learned from their mistakes and are promising us a different style of gameplay for the next Tomb Raider game. Problem, which luckily the console makers are not faced with just as yet, are add-on disks that PC gamers are now so used to. These come out almost every other month and they cost a bob too, so gamers who want to get the best out of their games have to purchase add-ons, patches, new mods and character etc. As long as consoles do not go in that direction we will be fine…
Mr Snake…You can come out now…Arghhh I thought I told you not to use my German shepherd as a shooting target….Anyway, as said earlier, MGS was a very important game in the history of gaming. So when the sequel was announced for the PS2 everyone stood up and took notice. Rumours and speculations circulated around the net suggesting possible plot twists and the like. Then PS2 owners were treated to a playable demo of the game in May 2001. Magazines were praising the game for being a masterpiece and that the game will gob smack us by the graphics and the gameplay. But then something weird happened. Magazines and gaming websites have started reviewing the import version of MGS2 and were still praising it. But the game didn’t get a single 10/10 score…. Reviewers thought that it was too similar to the first MGS to deserve a higher score. Which does make you think for a little bit. Should this game been original, it would get perfect scores everywhere since it is far superior to its predecessor. But considering that it is a SEQUEL many were not as enthusiastic about the game.
So opinions still differ when it comes to talking about originality of games. Some claim that there are not enough original games and there are too many sequels on the market, others declare that the balance is just about right and so on. But they just need to think for one minute. What would happen if there would be no sequels and just a load of original games? That would mean gamers not being sure about the quality of the titles whereas with sequels they know they are getting their moneys worth in most cases. Admit it, wouldn’t you rather play Tony Hawks 3 rather than ESPN Skateboarding. People do go for more well known names and in my opinion they should be able to choose what they are spending their money on. Gran Turismo 3 or Lotus Challenge, SSX Tricky or Shaun Palmers Snowboarding etc…If there is a choice, gamers will be able to make a decision based on their own knowledge r maybe decide to go for something new.
As long as there are many good games coming out for the PS2 and other consoles people should stop complaining about sequels and original games. Developers do their best to bring us those games that will put a smile on our faces and thank them in our heads for being so good to us. They do work hard ya know…So unless we are left with train dating sims or Jennifer Love Hewitt makeover designers I will be happy….
Thank you very much and what do you have to say on the matter?
Page:
Well at least there are still people who are bothered to write long and interesting replies on here. Keep it up Spike and guys
Great post there mate!
Sorry it took so long for me to reply but i have bad cold :(
My personal view on the matter is that as long as the game has a mixture of innovation and new feautres then sequels can turn out perfectly well and in many cases far superior to the prequel, in certain cases companies just rush the product out of the window with no innovation or lack of new offerings from previous versions, a great example of this would be the fifa series, come on what has improved?, the ball still sticks to the players feet, the goals are predicible, its just unrealistic, apart from the graphics its offers hardly anything new each year.
An example of a game that has produced a great sequel is MGS2, it has improved on the original in so many ways, much better storyline, improved gameplay, excellent graphics and so on, sequels are good as long as they are better, if not then why bother?
As you have mentioned some games like Tomb raider have dragged on, but that was mainly due to the limitations of the psone, people still bought the game though, they were all great in the own ways but not much difference in many aspects, it will be interesting to see what new feautres tomb raider next gen will offer!
Games do not have to be original tobe good, just take a look at devil may cry, is that original? nope, is it great? yes, as you have rightfully said people should stop complaining and enjoy the games even if they are not original or if they are, as long as they are good who cares?
Unoriginal games like SSX have made massive sales and is liked by many people, the snowboarding formula was taken and the developers thought "lets make it as unoriginal as well can so we can make people enjoy the experience of snowboadring" and to EA's credit they have pulled it off, original or not its mixed crazy stunts with snowboadring and rolled it into an excellent game that people want to actually go back to, people havent seen anything like it before so they enjoy a lot more than your average snowboadring game, so its sometimes good not to have originality, there are just so many examples of this, like you have mentioned Tony hawks 3 is another game, i mean who thought they would pull it off? it wasn't exactly original at the time when the first tony hawk game came out, but just look at it now, one of, if not the best extreme sports games out, its slapped the word originality right in the face!
A lot of these unoriginal games have made a massive impact on the gaming industry, titles like metal gear, has take storylines and graphics to a whole new level, so basically it can go either way as far as originality is concerned.
There is a certain trap that certain sequels tend to fall into, yes EA i am thinking of you, i am sorry for those who like the fifa games, but this is only my opinion, EA just throw each game out of the door, and people thinking because it has Henry or whoever on the front thats its going to be good, when in fact its crap, games like pro evo are much better in all aspects are purchased by the public but never usually as much as the fifa series, advertising was something that helped to shift these crappy sequels, thankfully the companies who are making better sequels like konami are advertising so that people will realise that pro evo is infact better than any fifa game, EA may make more money from fifa, but at least i know i am not playing a crappy sequel and actually playing a decent game, its not right but thats the way it goes sometimes!
Thankfully games are moving on in terms of innovation and sequels, we are now seeing much better sequels because of more advanced hardware and better devlopment teams actually producing better games, the crappy games will still come but we will also get a lot more of the quality titles drifting our way than we did with the PS1, new standards have been set by the PS2 in which developers know they cannot fall short of if they want thier games to succeed, i hope for the sake of the gaming industry that we will still get even better quality sequels as well as plent of innovation, i have faith, but its down to the devlopers in the end!
sPiKe2k
Sorry it took so long for me to reply but i have bad cold :(
My personal view on the matter is that as long as the game has a mixture of innovation and new feautres then sequels can turn out perfectly well and in many cases far superior to the prequel, in certain cases companies just rush the product out of the window with no innovation or lack of new offerings from previous versions, a great example of this would be the fifa series, come on what has improved?, the ball still sticks to the players feet, the goals are predicible, its just unrealistic, apart from the graphics its offers hardly anything new each year.
An example of a game that has produced a great sequel is MGS2, it has improved on the original in so many ways, much better storyline, improved gameplay, excellent graphics and so on, sequels are good as long as they are better, if not then why bother?
As you have mentioned some games like Tomb raider have dragged on, but that was mainly due to the limitations of the psone, people still bought the game though, they were all great in the own ways but not much difference in many aspects, it will be interesting to see what new feautres tomb raider next gen will offer!
Games do not have to be original tobe good, just take a look at devil may cry, is that original? nope, is it great? yes, as you have rightfully said people should stop complaining and enjoy the games even if they are not original or if they are, as long as they are good who cares?
Unoriginal games like SSX have made massive sales and is liked by many people, the snowboarding formula was taken and the developers thought "lets make it as unoriginal as well can so we can make people enjoy the experience of snowboadring" and to EA's credit they have pulled it off, original or not its mixed crazy stunts with snowboadring and rolled it into an excellent game that people want to actually go back to, people havent seen anything like it before so they enjoy a lot more than your average snowboadring game, so its sometimes good not to have originality, there are just so many examples of this, like you have mentioned Tony hawks 3 is another game, i mean who thought they would pull it off? it wasn't exactly original at the time when the first tony hawk game came out, but just look at it now, one of, if not the best extreme sports games out, its slapped the word originality right in the face!
A lot of these unoriginal games have made a massive impact on the gaming industry, titles like metal gear, has take storylines and graphics to a whole new level, so basically it can go either way as far as originality is concerned.
There is a certain trap that certain sequels tend to fall into, yes EA i am thinking of you, i am sorry for those who like the fifa games, but this is only my opinion, EA just throw each game out of the door, and people thinking because it has Henry or whoever on the front thats its going to be good, when in fact its crap, games like pro evo are much better in all aspects are purchased by the public but never usually as much as the fifa series, advertising was something that helped to shift these crappy sequels, thankfully the companies who are making better sequels like konami are advertising so that people will realise that pro evo is infact better than any fifa game, EA may make more money from fifa, but at least i know i am not playing a crappy sequel and actually playing a decent game, its not right but thats the way it goes sometimes!
Thankfully games are moving on in terms of innovation and sequels, we are now seeing much better sequels because of more advanced hardware and better devlopment teams actually producing better games, the crappy games will still come but we will also get a lot more of the quality titles drifting our way than we did with the PS1, new standards have been set by the PS2 in which developers know they cannot fall short of if they want thier games to succeed, i hope for the sake of the gaming industry that we will still get even better quality sequels as well as plent of innovation, i have faith, but its down to the devlopers in the end!
sPiKe2k
abit of both is better
40% sequal and 60% innovation is a good combination.
(sequals only to good games.)
40% sequal and 60% innovation is a good combination.
(sequals only to good games.)
Kid Rock wrote:
yeh i
> agree that sequels are good if they make it better i.e metal gear solid 2 and
> Grand Theft Auto III but games like army men bring out endless sequels which are
> pathetic. why?
Stupid people bought the previous games and they know that they can make the game in 2 weeks and make a profit.
yeh i
> agree that sequels are good if they make it better i.e metal gear solid 2 and
> Grand Theft Auto III but games like army men bring out endless sequels which are
> pathetic. why?
Stupid people bought the previous games and they know that they can make the game in 2 weeks and make a profit.
adrian wrote:
> Innovations are good but so are sequels. As long as a sequel is good and adds
> more to the previous games then I dont mind if games like Resident Evil 899
> appear or Gran Turismo 1345, grace the PS267.
yeh i agree that sequels are good if they make it better i.e metal gear solid 2 and Grand Theft Auto III but games like army men bring out endless sequels which are pathetic. why?
> Innovations are good but so are sequels. As long as a sequel is good and adds
> more to the previous games then I dont mind if games like Resident Evil 899
> appear or Gran Turismo 1345, grace the PS267.
yeh i agree that sequels are good if they make it better i.e metal gear solid 2 and Grand Theft Auto III but games like army men bring out endless sequels which are pathetic. why?
Innovations are good but so are sequels. As long as a sequel is good and adds more to the previous games then I dont mind if games like Resident Evil 899 appear or Gran Turismo 1345, grace the PS267.
Thanks for the replies guys.. Any more viewpoints?
i buy sequels on the basis that it's improved enough over it's prequel to warrant me buying it. Something like Smackdown 2 i'd buy as it had a lot more modes of play in it and more wrestlers plus a better story mode as well. Something like the fifa series i wouldn't buy cause from fifa 99 up to 2001 the series had hardly changed at all. so as long as a sequel adds more things then it's prequel, isn't just the same game and offers value for money it can 25,998,748,498,757,578 in front of it for all i care just as long as it's improved enough over it's prequel and brings something new to the table
Sequels obviously provide something more on the original, and if you really like a game and can afford to part with the money, then why not?
I personally don't buy sequels on the basis of the quality of the orignals, but if I play a sequel and it's particularly impressive, i'll get it.
Innovation is always neccessary to advance in the games-world though.
I personally don't buy sequels on the basis of the quality of the orignals, but if I play a sequel and it's particularly impressive, i'll get it.
Innovation is always neccessary to advance in the games-world though.
Page: