Viewing Thread:
"Prequels or Sequels?"

Throughout years and years of gaming, the industry have made sequel, after sequel. In a way trying to ‘milk’ the popularity of a game. Whether it was Banjo-Kazooie, hyping up the Banjo-Tooie just when you’ve completed the first game. Making you buy the second one so you can unlock secrets in the first game. But really, you can’t say that’s ‘milking’ a game. One sequel is not really flooding the market with huge amounts of miscellaneous games with the same name as the last one. But this is where I have to mention Pokémon. Okay, it’s all well and fine bringing out Pokémon Red and Blue, an interactive set of games, which you can only complete if some of your mates have it. Then came Pokémon Yellow, not too bad if you didn’t have either Red or Blue. Then getting an official Mew was what everyone wanted, and again, not too bad, it’s just fully completing your first game. But after this, this is where it all goes wrong. Games like Pokémon Pinball and Pokémon Card games come out. This is the reason I didn’t buy Pokémon Gold or Silver, the simple reason of being sick of Pikachu’s smug face all over the place. Nintendo ‘milked’ it for all it was worth, and it went down hill.

The affect of some sequels being brought out can lead to disaster. But what are better, Sequels or Prequels?

Sequels can sometimes make games get even more popular. Just look at Final Fantasy. Everyone is awaiting the 10th chapter of the adventuring wonder. Every game seems to be addictive and fun to play, you never run out of things to do. But which was better? The first Final Fantasy or, the most recent, 10th addition? I think we can safely say that the 10th version looks like it is going to be the better game. Why? Because the first of the set of games was quite weak, but gradually built up to be one of most famous gaming titles on this planet.

But does this mean sequels are better than their predecessors? In short, no. The thing about sequels is owning the first game, the prequel. If you find the game interacts in some way, this is a solid reason to buy the highly awaited sequel. If you haven’t owned the prequel, it’s a great idea to buy the sequel. But, if you do get the sequel when you the prequel, you just won’t get the same as what you got from the first game. The one reason, originality. If you’ve had the first one you’ll be getting basically the same in most sequels you buy today.

But then to give this a fair trial we have to think. If the sequel came out first it would it be better?

In theory, the sequels would be a better games. Because learning from the mistakes they made in the first game, they can use this to create a better, superior game than the last. For example, if you brought out a game, say Luigi’s Mansion. Everyone criticizes that the game is far too short. If they had a chance to change the game what would they do? Maybe give the game more secrets, like secrets rooms, boss, items and more. If the game was a lot longer when it first came out, everyone would be happy. Improvement comes out sequels.

If we do see Wario’s Shed hit the GameCube, you can expect it to be a longer game than Luigi’s Mansion. But because of sequels originality factor, they are put down. Quotes such as “You’ll get nothing different from the last game.” Just shows this.

So, are sequels better than prequels? The games may be vastly improved, but put down for their originality. But if they did come out first, all the improvements from the last game would surely make more sales.

Thanks for reading

RiCkOsS

POP

Good point Solskjær, i see what you mean.

I thought of another reason as top why prequels can be more appealing than sequels:

With a sequel on the way, you can virtually predict what will happen and be in the game, so it isn't as surprising, or as interesting when you get the game.

And with prequels, you don't quite know what to expect, unless you know many of the characters' backgrounds. So it's more surprising and interesting than something that simpley follows on from the last.

Nice one Rick, although quite similar to a post I read not long ago. Now who wrote that? Hmmmmm...oh yeah, me! :P

Good post.

Most sequels do tend to improve from the original, but in some case they don't.

Prequels on the other hand, often give you a better understanding of the game, and are easier to get used to.

It's a tough decision...I like them both the same!

In terms of films, sequels are rarely better. Prequels are also rarely better.

Same for games I think. Only a few exceptions.Take Broken Sword. Broken Sword 2 is equally as good as the first one. However, Broken Sword 3 will be 3D, so it'll be crap. Damn.

Oh great, the one day i post a GAD attempt, two of the best writers on the forums post one (AliBoy and pb).

Ah well, there's always other chances. I hope :-D

Sequels usually get boring, but sometimes they can be better. Take Tony Hawk's 3 for example.

Prequels are quite good. I can't wait to get my hands on Turok Evolution.

But overall, original games are the best. :-)

Yeah, thats why I was intrigued more than anything about seeing Star Wars : Episode 1 - shame it was crap

I find prequels more interesting too.
I think it's maybe cuz you learn more about the characters, so you know why and who they are in the game that came first (and after it).

Perfect Dark Zero could apparently be a prequel, so I think we may find it a very interesting game and not just an action-packed one like the N64 game!