The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
As a gamer I am sure you will have your fair share of sequel games in your collection. Most sequels are good games, improved versions of the original with better gameplay, graphics amongst other improvements. But are sequels really a good thing?
9 times out of 10 when a game is successful, the developer gets the sequel in the pipeline immediately. This is good for the average gamer and for the developer’s pocket, because quite often the sequels outsell the original game. But does the gaming market really want more of the same? Are sequels clogging up the gaming world and filling up space where new and original games should be?
Lets take a look at the worst offenders:
Duke Nukem.
One of the first 3D shooters, the original was moderate but not exceptional, but still it sold. So the developers created ream after ream of the games. Perhaps they only sold well because hormonal teens wanted to see the stripper girls in their 32 bit glory and didn’t have access to the internet. The guns were moderate and the corny dialogue was atrocious. Too many sequels killed anything the game had to offer and hopefully it will be left well alone from now on.
Unreal.
A late but successful first person shooter that was mainly successful for its online gaming capabilities. It spawned a series of “tournament” games designed to be played over the internet or LAN connection, each with a few more guns and levels than the last. Nothing special really, purely made for hardcore online gamers, but they should perhaps have made the extra little things downloadable in patch format instead of having to create another title.
FIFA
Now as for the console games of Fifa I don’t particularly mind a new one been released each season, but the PC ones really annoy me. The graphics can be improved on the consoles but on the PC they are always the same, the only difference is that there is new players names and managers and a different commentator voice. And for those little bonuses you pay £30. Most people prefer to play with a custom team anyway, so what does it matter?
Ejay
Those of you who have used any of the Ejay titles know that it is basically a music generator with pre-recorded samples. They actually have the audacity to release an add-on with a few more sounds to create more songs and tell all your mates your a superstar DJ, when in actually fact many people will have the exact same “banging tune” as you. The samples are royalty free though, so you can use them on a website or something else.
Bond
After the release of “007-Nightfire” I decided that there are way too many Bond games. They ride on the success of the movies and, don’t get me wrong, some of them are good. Goldeneye was a brilliant game, but they are over hyped and the gameplay is much of the same, making them repetitive and boring. They are a waste of a good license and released too close together. A great shame because the films are fantastic.
All in all sequels can be good, but generally are not a lot better than their predecessors and clog the market up with similar titles, not leaving a gap for new and original titles to get the recognition they deserve.
Thanks for reading
-kyz²²-
9 times out of 10 when a game is successful, the developer gets the sequel in the pipeline immediately. This is good for the average gamer and for the developer’s pocket, because quite often the sequels outsell the original game. But does the gaming market really want more of the same? Are sequels clogging up the gaming world and filling up space where new and original games should be?
Lets take a look at the worst offenders:
Duke Nukem.
One of the first 3D shooters, the original was moderate but not exceptional, but still it sold. So the developers created ream after ream of the games. Perhaps they only sold well because hormonal teens wanted to see the stripper girls in their 32 bit glory and didn’t have access to the internet. The guns were moderate and the corny dialogue was atrocious. Too many sequels killed anything the game had to offer and hopefully it will be left well alone from now on.
Unreal.
A late but successful first person shooter that was mainly successful for its online gaming capabilities. It spawned a series of “tournament” games designed to be played over the internet or LAN connection, each with a few more guns and levels than the last. Nothing special really, purely made for hardcore online gamers, but they should perhaps have made the extra little things downloadable in patch format instead of having to create another title.
FIFA
Now as for the console games of Fifa I don’t particularly mind a new one been released each season, but the PC ones really annoy me. The graphics can be improved on the consoles but on the PC they are always the same, the only difference is that there is new players names and managers and a different commentator voice. And for those little bonuses you pay £30. Most people prefer to play with a custom team anyway, so what does it matter?
Ejay
Those of you who have used any of the Ejay titles know that it is basically a music generator with pre-recorded samples. They actually have the audacity to release an add-on with a few more sounds to create more songs and tell all your mates your a superstar DJ, when in actually fact many people will have the exact same “banging tune” as you. The samples are royalty free though, so you can use them on a website or something else.
Bond
After the release of “007-Nightfire” I decided that there are way too many Bond games. They ride on the success of the movies and, don’t get me wrong, some of them are good. Goldeneye was a brilliant game, but they are over hyped and the gameplay is much of the same, making them repetitive and boring. They are a waste of a good license and released too close together. A great shame because the films are fantastic.
All in all sequels can be good, but generally are not a lot better than their predecessors and clog the market up with similar titles, not leaving a gap for new and original titles to get the recognition they deserve.
Thanks for reading
-kyz²²-
Page:
Halo 2
sequels can be good or bad. The can be bad for a number of reasons too. I think you have to take each sequel and rate it on it's own.
Example.
GT3 over GT2 - would any PS2 owners like to be stuck running the PS1 based GT2 on their PS2 - no.
GT Concept over GT3 - if you already have GT3, is there much reason to buy GT Concept. Same game engine, same graphics, just some extra cars. But at least it's only £20
Tiger woods 2002 over 2001 - both are PS2, but the newer one has nicer graphics and a modified control system. Is it worth buying the newer one, if you already have 2001? Depends on how much you like the game.
The Sims (series) for the PC. Great idea, the orginal - but do we really need all the "add ons"?
Example.
GT3 over GT2 - would any PS2 owners like to be stuck running the PS1 based GT2 on their PS2 - no.
GT Concept over GT3 - if you already have GT3, is there much reason to buy GT Concept. Same game engine, same graphics, just some extra cars. But at least it's only £20
Tiger woods 2002 over 2001 - both are PS2, but the newer one has nicer graphics and a modified control system. Is it worth buying the newer one, if you already have 2001? Depends on how much you like the game.
The Sims (series) for the PC. Great idea, the orginal - but do we really need all the "add ons"?
Yeah I think the FF series was good though, because it was (and still is) a series as opposed to sequels. The story is continued rather than following a linear plot and its an RPG as opposed to mindless limb flailing action.
only one seires of games has acually been sucsessfull which is the final fantasy series. after a while sequlas get boring. i also think thet once you have one first person shooter you have them all as they are all nerly the same.
cipro wrote:
> Duke Nukem Forever. I think the developers have hinted at just how
> long they are going to develop the game, at least that's the
> impression I'm under when I look at the name.
Lets keep our fingers crossed huh!
> Duke Nukem Forever. I think the developers have hinted at just how
> long they are going to develop the game, at least that's the
> impression I'm under when I look at the name.
Lets keep our fingers crossed huh!
Duke Nukem Forever. I think the developers have hinted at just how long they are going to develop the game, at least that's the impression I'm under when I look at the name.
nice one.. good post, fair points.. all in all a GAD winning post (methinks). :-D
*this post has come from a member that has been on SR for 350 odd days and never won a GAD :-P*
*this post has come from a member that has been on SR for 350 odd days and never won a GAD :-P*
Gangsta Hamsta wrote:
>
> Duke Nuken Forever has been in development for nearly 5 years.
>
> Expect that to be just as corny!
Oh no, save us, save us!
>
> Duke Nuken Forever has been in development for nearly 5 years.
>
> Expect that to be just as corny!
Oh no, save us, save us!
Kyz22 wrote:
> Gerbil Man wrote:
> Another fine piece of literature from this fine up-coming author. I
> should know, for I am he.
>
> Did you just claim to be me?
no...........yes.
*runs*
> Gerbil Man wrote:
> Another fine piece of literature from this fine up-coming author. I
> should know, for I am he.
>
> Did you just claim to be me?
no...........yes.
*runs*
I agree with practically everything in this post, apart from the fact that I though Unreal tournement was a fantastic game, and i dont even play that on the net! In my day, mars bars cost a penny! and they were the size of your leg! and also...*babbles on for 14 more minutes*
~~14 minutes later~~
*stops*
~~14 minutes later~~
*stops*
Page: