The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
We like a game but want some areas of it to be improved upon, but we hate rehashes and constant sequels. It's one of the more prominent contradictions in the gaming world at the moment, especially with the likes of Tony Hawk's 4, WWE Smackdown 4, Silent Hill 3, Tomb Raider:AOD and Resident Evil Zero either here or on their way. It looks like the games developers can't win. Either side can be argued for - without sequels, we wouldn't have GTA3 but if we keep doing the same old games we'll never get a new Mario or Zelda, a new classic franchise to bleed dry. But there is a way. And people need to take advantage of it.
Resident Evil is into what, a fourth game (excluding alternate versions)? It's all following the same one storyline (albeit focusing on small chunks of it each time round). Tomb Raider's on five or six, not taking into account the handheld titles, and they're pretty much all just new exciting adventures that happened 'some time' during Lara's life, presumeably when she was still young, nubile and incredibly chesty. Both can be accused of not adding much, just new scenery and a few extra additions. Some don't mind that, all they want is a new adventure - but others are dead against it.
Then there's Final Fantasy. The most successful RPG series ever (with the possible exception of Zelda) is up to 10 over here, and work has begun on FF12 in Japan. But the games aren't stale on launch day, the reason being that it's not one long daisy chain of events. No Final Fantasy game has the same story of another (apart from the first ever direct sequel, the currently in production FF10-2), and instead they take the twisting tales, deep characters, gorgeous FMV and turn-based combat and sharpen them up. New visuals, new quest, new places, new mini-games. New art-style. Constant re-invention keeps an old idea new.
Just like Madonna. Just like 'Celda'. Just like Silent Hill which just like Midsommer Murders shares only the town with the other episodes of the series. Of course, if a game is based around a mascot getting rid of him or her would be ridiculous; Mario wouldn't be Mario without Mario, so to speak. But when you could just as easily take your ideas and move them into a new game, like Insomniac did with Ratchet and Clank rather than make a fourth Spyro adventure, perhaps it would make sense. Rich heritages are not to be tampered with - in Metal Gear Solid 2, the decision to throw in a new character and a pretty big swerve ending in a game that refers back to itself so many times was very unpopular, and understandably so...but instead of another Tomb Raider, or a new strand of the Umbrella saga, why not lay the tired old ideas to rest? Why not create a new gaming icon?
Some characters are crucial to successful franchises elsewhere - Obi-Wan and Darth Vader to Star Wars, for instance. Why not take the Lucas route...no, not take a great idea and shamelessly destroy it's good name for easy money, the other route...and have a new game, with the other characters in a new environment. Ignore what they will become, funny in-jokes and what not - if the character is that popular, their presence alone should satisfy fans.
We'll always be contradicting ourselves when describing what we want from new games. Just like in The Simpsons, where TV market researchers found out the kids want 'a down to earth show with space robots', we'll never be satisfied. The grass is always greener on the other side. Too many cooks spoil the broth. All of those tired old phrases. The fact of the matter is some games ARE the same but different. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes it's two completely different developers who just happen to make similar products. It really doesn't matter. There's so much variety nowadays that I'd be pretty suprised if there wasn't a single game out there that catered for your needs...that is, unless it's to do with a foot fetish. I'm pretty sure there's no foot fetish games.
Thanks for reading.
-El
Resident Evil is into what, a fourth game (excluding alternate versions)? It's all following the same one storyline (albeit focusing on small chunks of it each time round). Tomb Raider's on five or six, not taking into account the handheld titles, and they're pretty much all just new exciting adventures that happened 'some time' during Lara's life, presumeably when she was still young, nubile and incredibly chesty. Both can be accused of not adding much, just new scenery and a few extra additions. Some don't mind that, all they want is a new adventure - but others are dead against it.
Then there's Final Fantasy. The most successful RPG series ever (with the possible exception of Zelda) is up to 10 over here, and work has begun on FF12 in Japan. But the games aren't stale on launch day, the reason being that it's not one long daisy chain of events. No Final Fantasy game has the same story of another (apart from the first ever direct sequel, the currently in production FF10-2), and instead they take the twisting tales, deep characters, gorgeous FMV and turn-based combat and sharpen them up. New visuals, new quest, new places, new mini-games. New art-style. Constant re-invention keeps an old idea new.
Just like Madonna. Just like 'Celda'. Just like Silent Hill which just like Midsommer Murders shares only the town with the other episodes of the series. Of course, if a game is based around a mascot getting rid of him or her would be ridiculous; Mario wouldn't be Mario without Mario, so to speak. But when you could just as easily take your ideas and move them into a new game, like Insomniac did with Ratchet and Clank rather than make a fourth Spyro adventure, perhaps it would make sense. Rich heritages are not to be tampered with - in Metal Gear Solid 2, the decision to throw in a new character and a pretty big swerve ending in a game that refers back to itself so many times was very unpopular, and understandably so...but instead of another Tomb Raider, or a new strand of the Umbrella saga, why not lay the tired old ideas to rest? Why not create a new gaming icon?
Some characters are crucial to successful franchises elsewhere - Obi-Wan and Darth Vader to Star Wars, for instance. Why not take the Lucas route...no, not take a great idea and shamelessly destroy it's good name for easy money, the other route...and have a new game, with the other characters in a new environment. Ignore what they will become, funny in-jokes and what not - if the character is that popular, their presence alone should satisfy fans.
We'll always be contradicting ourselves when describing what we want from new games. Just like in The Simpsons, where TV market researchers found out the kids want 'a down to earth show with space robots', we'll never be satisfied. The grass is always greener on the other side. Too many cooks spoil the broth. All of those tired old phrases. The fact of the matter is some games ARE the same but different. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes it's two completely different developers who just happen to make similar products. It really doesn't matter. There's so much variety nowadays that I'd be pretty suprised if there wasn't a single game out there that catered for your needs...that is, unless it's to do with a foot fetish. I'm pretty sure there's no foot fetish games.
Thanks for reading.
-El
although I dod sometimes skip paragraphs by accident, eg, paragraph 2.
My reply was aimed more at your reply to Kyz, and yes, I did read the post, and I think that we should stop building houses where we don't need them. See, I DID read it.
That was aimed towards Kyz and maddmun, btw. Not you Alistair *blows kiss*
Agh, terrible point. Did you guys even read the post? It's a doubled edged sword, dammit. There are good sequels AND bad sequels.
El Blokey wrote:
> Kyz22 wrote:
> Sequels, the tool of the devil, but create a bigger income than the
> predecessors.
>
> El Blokey wrote:
> without sequels, we wouldn't have GTA3
>
> Without sequels, we wouldn't have Ocarina of Time, or Mario 64, or
> Tony Hawk's 2, or Time Crisis 2, etc.
or Tomb Raider sequel, Fifa sequel, The Sims add-on(not a sequel though, kinda) etc etc, bringing clones which are the scourge of the markwet, and we could do without.
> Kyz22 wrote:
> Sequels, the tool of the devil, but create a bigger income than the
> predecessors.
>
> El Blokey wrote:
> without sequels, we wouldn't have GTA3
>
> Without sequels, we wouldn't have Ocarina of Time, or Mario 64, or
> Tony Hawk's 2, or Time Crisis 2, etc.
or Tomb Raider sequel, Fifa sequel, The Sims add-on(not a sequel though, kinda) etc etc, bringing clones which are the scourge of the markwet, and we could do without.
Technically speaking I would say that every game is a sequel, only some games use different games from there predecessor! Some FPS games are so much alike that you wonder if it is a sequel or the game under a different name. However like EB said without sequels we wouldn't be playing a new Resident Evil game, Shenmue or Mario game and for that I have to be greatful for game sequels. Some are evil and some are great, however if you liked the first game in the series then the chances are you will like the second and without sequels I wouldn't be playing Shenmue 2 which is my all time favourite game.
Nice post!
Nice post!
Kyz22 wrote:
> Sequels, the tool of the devil, but create a bigger income than the
> predecessors.
El Blokey wrote:
> without sequels, we wouldn't have GTA3
Without sequels, we wouldn't have Ocarina of Time, or Mario 64, or Tony Hawk's 2, or Time Crisis 2, etc.
> Sequels, the tool of the devil, but create a bigger income than the
> predecessors.
El Blokey wrote:
> without sequels, we wouldn't have GTA3
Without sequels, we wouldn't have Ocarina of Time, or Mario 64, or Tony Hawk's 2, or Time Crisis 2, etc.
Sequels, the tool of the devil, but create a bigger income than the predecessors.
We like a game but want some areas of it to be improved upon, but we hate rehashes and constant sequels. It's one of the more prominent contradictions in the gaming world at the moment, especially with the likes of Tony Hawk's 4, WWE Smackdown 4, Silent Hill 3, Tomb Raider:AOD and Resident Evil Zero either here or on their way. It looks like the games developers can't win. Either side can be argued for - without sequels, we wouldn't have GTA3 but if we keep doing the same old games we'll never get a new Mario or Zelda, a new classic franchise to bleed dry. But there is a way. And people need to take advantage of it.
Resident Evil is into what, a fourth game (excluding alternate versions)? It's all following the same one storyline (albeit focusing on small chunks of it each time round). Tomb Raider's on five or six, not taking into account the handheld titles, and they're pretty much all just new exciting adventures that happened 'some time' during Lara's life, presumeably when she was still young, nubile and incredibly chesty. Both can be accused of not adding much, just new scenery and a few extra additions. Some don't mind that, all they want is a new adventure - but others are dead against it.
Then there's Final Fantasy. The most successful RPG series ever (with the possible exception of Zelda) is up to 10 over here, and work has begun on FF12 in Japan. But the games aren't stale on launch day, the reason being that it's not one long daisy chain of events. No Final Fantasy game has the same story of another (apart from the first ever direct sequel, the currently in production FF10-2), and instead they take the twisting tales, deep characters, gorgeous FMV and turn-based combat and sharpen them up. New visuals, new quest, new places, new mini-games. New art-style. Constant re-invention keeps an old idea new.
Just like Madonna. Just like 'Celda'. Just like Silent Hill which just like Midsommer Murders shares only the town with the other episodes of the series. Of course, if a game is based around a mascot getting rid of him or her would be ridiculous; Mario wouldn't be Mario without Mario, so to speak. But when you could just as easily take your ideas and move them into a new game, like Insomniac did with Ratchet and Clank rather than make a fourth Spyro adventure, perhaps it would make sense. Rich heritages are not to be tampered with - in Metal Gear Solid 2, the decision to throw in a new character and a pretty big swerve ending in a game that refers back to itself so many times was very unpopular, and understandably so...but instead of another Tomb Raider, or a new strand of the Umbrella saga, why not lay the tired old ideas to rest? Why not create a new gaming icon?
Some characters are crucial to successful franchises elsewhere - Obi-Wan and Darth Vader to Star Wars, for instance. Why not take the Lucas route...no, not take a great idea and shamelessly destroy it's good name for easy money, the other route...and have a new game, with the other characters in a new environment. Ignore what they will become, funny in-jokes and what not - if the character is that popular, their presence alone should satisfy fans.
We'll always be contradicting ourselves when describing what we want from new games. Just like in The Simpsons, where TV market researchers found out the kids want 'a down to earth show with space robots', we'll never be satisfied. The grass is always greener on the other side. Too many cooks spoil the broth. All of those tired old phrases. The fact of the matter is some games ARE the same but different. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes it's two completely different developers who just happen to make similar products. It really doesn't matter. There's so much variety nowadays that I'd be pretty suprised if there wasn't a single game out there that catered for your needs...that is, unless it's to do with a foot fetish. I'm pretty sure there's no foot fetish games.
Thanks for reading.
-El
Resident Evil is into what, a fourth game (excluding alternate versions)? It's all following the same one storyline (albeit focusing on small chunks of it each time round). Tomb Raider's on five or six, not taking into account the handheld titles, and they're pretty much all just new exciting adventures that happened 'some time' during Lara's life, presumeably when she was still young, nubile and incredibly chesty. Both can be accused of not adding much, just new scenery and a few extra additions. Some don't mind that, all they want is a new adventure - but others are dead against it.
Then there's Final Fantasy. The most successful RPG series ever (with the possible exception of Zelda) is up to 10 over here, and work has begun on FF12 in Japan. But the games aren't stale on launch day, the reason being that it's not one long daisy chain of events. No Final Fantasy game has the same story of another (apart from the first ever direct sequel, the currently in production FF10-2), and instead they take the twisting tales, deep characters, gorgeous FMV and turn-based combat and sharpen them up. New visuals, new quest, new places, new mini-games. New art-style. Constant re-invention keeps an old idea new.
Just like Madonna. Just like 'Celda'. Just like Silent Hill which just like Midsommer Murders shares only the town with the other episodes of the series. Of course, if a game is based around a mascot getting rid of him or her would be ridiculous; Mario wouldn't be Mario without Mario, so to speak. But when you could just as easily take your ideas and move them into a new game, like Insomniac did with Ratchet and Clank rather than make a fourth Spyro adventure, perhaps it would make sense. Rich heritages are not to be tampered with - in Metal Gear Solid 2, the decision to throw in a new character and a pretty big swerve ending in a game that refers back to itself so many times was very unpopular, and understandably so...but instead of another Tomb Raider, or a new strand of the Umbrella saga, why not lay the tired old ideas to rest? Why not create a new gaming icon?
Some characters are crucial to successful franchises elsewhere - Obi-Wan and Darth Vader to Star Wars, for instance. Why not take the Lucas route...no, not take a great idea and shamelessly destroy it's good name for easy money, the other route...and have a new game, with the other characters in a new environment. Ignore what they will become, funny in-jokes and what not - if the character is that popular, their presence alone should satisfy fans.
We'll always be contradicting ourselves when describing what we want from new games. Just like in The Simpsons, where TV market researchers found out the kids want 'a down to earth show with space robots', we'll never be satisfied. The grass is always greener on the other side. Too many cooks spoil the broth. All of those tired old phrases. The fact of the matter is some games ARE the same but different. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes it's two completely different developers who just happen to make similar products. It really doesn't matter. There's so much variety nowadays that I'd be pretty suprised if there wasn't a single game out there that catered for your needs...that is, unless it's to do with a foot fetish. I'm pretty sure there's no foot fetish games.
Thanks for reading.
-El