The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
The modern day gaming world seems to be full of Sequels at the moment, and not very many originals.
True there are some fantastic sequels out there such as Final Fantasy11 and the upcoming Halo but on the whole there just ain't enough originals on the go.
Developers for some reason can't be bothered to take the time and make an original game.
Rare is one of the few developers who have stuck by original games.
They have made one or two sequels but one or two sequels won't hurt anybody, especially if Rare make them.
Rare are always full of new ideas and they usually turn them into something, like they did Perfect Dark.
It seems to me though that once developers run themselves dry of new game ideas tend to turn to sequels and that's where all these sequels come from.
Or is it because the developers just can't be bothered to come up with new ideas?
It may well be.
Or some developers may not have the money or the resources to create original games.
Or perhaps they are fairly new developers, if so then it's very sad because given the right resources and plenty of money I'm sure most new developers would most definitely be trying their best to show us what they are made of.
That's something I feel that not enough developers are getting the chance to do nowadays.
Mainly because people are more interested in the big cheeses of the games developers world such as Rare.
There are plenty of decent sequels out there, like Final Fantasy11 Or the super cool Tony Hawks three even Tony Hawks II is a mint game.
It's one of the best sequels on the N64.
Ok so the N64 is a bit dated now but I still like it.
Why?
Because you Numpty I'm Ninty.
Like all Ninty's I worship Nintendo.
Simply because they rule.
I must admit that not all sequels are bad.
There are though some fairly dreadful sequels out there.
I am going to let you figure what they are for yourselves.
Whether we like it or not though sequels good or bad will always be around us.
The next one is bound to be somewhere around the next corner.
They are like Copularity Pontest, far too frequent
Are Sequels Evil or are they good?
You decide!
Thanks For Reading!
True there are some fantastic sequels out there such as Final Fantasy11 and the upcoming Halo but on the whole there just ain't enough originals on the go.
Developers for some reason can't be bothered to take the time and make an original game.
Rare is one of the few developers who have stuck by original games.
They have made one or two sequels but one or two sequels won't hurt anybody, especially if Rare make them.
Rare are always full of new ideas and they usually turn them into something, like they did Perfect Dark.
It seems to me though that once developers run themselves dry of new game ideas tend to turn to sequels and that's where all these sequels come from.
Or is it because the developers just can't be bothered to come up with new ideas?
It may well be.
Or some developers may not have the money or the resources to create original games.
Or perhaps they are fairly new developers, if so then it's very sad because given the right resources and plenty of money I'm sure most new developers would most definitely be trying their best to show us what they are made of.
That's something I feel that not enough developers are getting the chance to do nowadays.
Mainly because people are more interested in the big cheeses of the games developers world such as Rare.
There are plenty of decent sequels out there, like Final Fantasy11 Or the super cool Tony Hawks three even Tony Hawks II is a mint game.
It's one of the best sequels on the N64.
Ok so the N64 is a bit dated now but I still like it.
Why?
Because you Numpty I'm Ninty.
Like all Ninty's I worship Nintendo.
Simply because they rule.
I must admit that not all sequels are bad.
There are though some fairly dreadful sequels out there.
I am going to let you figure what they are for yourselves.
Whether we like it or not though sequels good or bad will always be around us.
The next one is bound to be somewhere around the next corner.
They are like Copularity Pontest, far too frequent
Are Sequels Evil or are they good?
You decide!
Thanks For Reading!
I could go on about sequels all day, so I'll try to keep this brief, and no doubt fail miserably!
In my opinion, true sequels can be put in two catergories, those that build upon the original, and those that cash in on the original.
Before you can have a sequel, I guess you have to start with something original (I bet my powers of logic amaze you, don't they?). Wholly original games are few and far between, and they're not always successful either. It tends to be that if they're really successful, a sequel will offer more of the same, and hopefully a little more.
If it's not so popular, the developer may not be quite ready to give up on the idea, so they'll adapt it for the sequel, maybe try to give it more mainstream appeal to sell more copies. As such it might lose the magic of the original, or maybe it would have found the winning formula. Unfortunately this formula's more secret than what goes into the coating on Frosties, so you can't read this up in a book or anything!
If a game is particularly story driven, sometimes we welcome a very similar sequel, just to see the continuation of the story throughout the game. Tomb Raider kept going down the same route time and again, and people liked it for a while, even though it was nothing new.
I guess sometimes we just want a fun game. We don't need every game in our collection to be a new experience, a little of what we like best does no harm at all does it?
If you enjoy a game because of it's originality, I wouldn't buy it's sequel expecting it to also be original. If you liked a game because it was fun or challenging, then expect the sequel to also be so.
For a series to evolve it really needs to take a little of what got it where it is, and keep on challenging us gamers with something different and fresh. I don't want to follow the foundations layed in the first game the whole way through the second, I want to dig new ones!
It seems that all of our consoles at the moment are getting attacked with the sequel stick, so I'll take a few moments to look at them.
Apparently the Xbox is a 'Sega sequel machine'. This comes from the fact that Project gotham Racing and Jet Set Radio Future are follow ups to games that appeared on the Dreamcast.
Just so happens that both Dreamcast titles were heralded for their originality and freshness, with MSR bringing in a 'Kudos' system, which has moved on to the Xbox version. people like this, so what if it's been done before, it's not like a great deal of gamers enjoyed it on the Dreamcast is it? Same with Jet Set Radio. Why shouldn't Sega give the game a chance on what will hopefully be a more successful platform?
Moving swiftly on to the Playstation 2, or the 'sequel station' as I've heard it refered to. Included amongst the launch titles was Tekken Tag Tournament, which seems to have come into criticism for being similar to Tekken 3, but with a tag mode. Well 'Der!' It never claimed to be Tekken 4, just a fun beat em up, based on an already popular game.
Other sequels that some have seen fit to throw stones at have included Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy. Considering these games were highly popular, and enjoyed by millions on the Playstation, is there really anything wrong with these ideas being improved for next generation machines? A good game is a good game, so what if it has a number trailing it. You asked for it, after all!
Finally, we'll discuss the Gamecube, or 'samecube' as the wittier than I have been known to say. Same as ever, more Mario, more Metroid, more zelda, even more Starfox! Indeed. Again, these are popular franchises, and the games in the past have been very good. It would also be true to say that the series have also managed to reinvent themselves over the years too.
When Mario Sunshine is released it will be the 6th 'Super Mario' adventure/ platformer released on a home console, starting from Super Mario Bros. (I'll not count Donkey Kong or Mario Bros because they were very different types of games, and would only confuse the arguement!). Now I ask you, is Mario still just getting mushrooms to grow, jumping on heads, and hoping down pipes? The answer is yes he is still doing these things, given they're the bread and butter of the series, but the key word in the question was 'just'.
No he's not 'just' doing that again. Over the years he's learnt to fly, pick objects up, ride dinosaurs and more. In the next game he'll be like a naughty elephant. He'll be squiting water. (That's how I used to remember my compass points, Naughty Elephants Squirt Water). Meanwhile brother Luigi is using a torch and a vacuum to catch ghosts. hardly "same old, same old", is it?
Metroid's evolving to 1st person, Starfox is now taking on an adventure, and Zelda, well, we'll see. The game may well follow a similar pattern, but it sure don't look the same! (Plus that series has always brought something fresh into it, but I won't go into detail now).
Then there are all the other titles that carry the Mario name. I can hardly call those sequels, the sports titles, the Mario KArts the Party games, just a case of using a franchise to bring something different to the publics attention. Or that't the way I see it. I wouldn't have been overly sure of a 'party' game, but having Nintendo's 'Mario' seal of approval gives me more confidence.
So each machine has sequels, but so what if they're good games?
I'll even stick up for EA, and others that reissue the same game a couple of times a year. They have the license, they want a version of the game on the shelves that represents the current league and players, or why would people want to buy it? Part of the appeal is the right player names, so if it only came out every 3 years, in the 2nd year it would be out of date, and have no appeal. If people are stupid enough to buy EVERY version, congratualtions to EA for taking their money!
So, summing up, sequels can certainly be a good thing. We get to play the continuing adventure of our favourite characters. Developers can make money on something they're quite sure will be popular, which they can stick into other possibly original projects. If you liked a game, and the sequels the same, why not give it a try?
In my opinion, true sequels can be put in two catergories, those that build upon the original, and those that cash in on the original.
Before you can have a sequel, I guess you have to start with something original (I bet my powers of logic amaze you, don't they?). Wholly original games are few and far between, and they're not always successful either. It tends to be that if they're really successful, a sequel will offer more of the same, and hopefully a little more.
If it's not so popular, the developer may not be quite ready to give up on the idea, so they'll adapt it for the sequel, maybe try to give it more mainstream appeal to sell more copies. As such it might lose the magic of the original, or maybe it would have found the winning formula. Unfortunately this formula's more secret than what goes into the coating on Frosties, so you can't read this up in a book or anything!
If a game is particularly story driven, sometimes we welcome a very similar sequel, just to see the continuation of the story throughout the game. Tomb Raider kept going down the same route time and again, and people liked it for a while, even though it was nothing new.
I guess sometimes we just want a fun game. We don't need every game in our collection to be a new experience, a little of what we like best does no harm at all does it?
If you enjoy a game because of it's originality, I wouldn't buy it's sequel expecting it to also be original. If you liked a game because it was fun or challenging, then expect the sequel to also be so.
For a series to evolve it really needs to take a little of what got it where it is, and keep on challenging us gamers with something different and fresh. I don't want to follow the foundations layed in the first game the whole way through the second, I want to dig new ones!
It seems that all of our consoles at the moment are getting attacked with the sequel stick, so I'll take a few moments to look at them.
Apparently the Xbox is a 'Sega sequel machine'. This comes from the fact that Project gotham Racing and Jet Set Radio Future are follow ups to games that appeared on the Dreamcast.
Just so happens that both Dreamcast titles were heralded for their originality and freshness, with MSR bringing in a 'Kudos' system, which has moved on to the Xbox version. people like this, so what if it's been done before, it's not like a great deal of gamers enjoyed it on the Dreamcast is it? Same with Jet Set Radio. Why shouldn't Sega give the game a chance on what will hopefully be a more successful platform?
Moving swiftly on to the Playstation 2, or the 'sequel station' as I've heard it refered to. Included amongst the launch titles was Tekken Tag Tournament, which seems to have come into criticism for being similar to Tekken 3, but with a tag mode. Well 'Der!' It never claimed to be Tekken 4, just a fun beat em up, based on an already popular game.
Other sequels that some have seen fit to throw stones at have included Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy. Considering these games were highly popular, and enjoyed by millions on the Playstation, is there really anything wrong with these ideas being improved for next generation machines? A good game is a good game, so what if it has a number trailing it. You asked for it, after all!
Finally, we'll discuss the Gamecube, or 'samecube' as the wittier than I have been known to say. Same as ever, more Mario, more Metroid, more zelda, even more Starfox! Indeed. Again, these are popular franchises, and the games in the past have been very good. It would also be true to say that the series have also managed to reinvent themselves over the years too.
When Mario Sunshine is released it will be the 6th 'Super Mario' adventure/ platformer released on a home console, starting from Super Mario Bros. (I'll not count Donkey Kong or Mario Bros because they were very different types of games, and would only confuse the arguement!). Now I ask you, is Mario still just getting mushrooms to grow, jumping on heads, and hoping down pipes? The answer is yes he is still doing these things, given they're the bread and butter of the series, but the key word in the question was 'just'.
No he's not 'just' doing that again. Over the years he's learnt to fly, pick objects up, ride dinosaurs and more. In the next game he'll be like a naughty elephant. He'll be squiting water. (That's how I used to remember my compass points, Naughty Elephants Squirt Water). Meanwhile brother Luigi is using a torch and a vacuum to catch ghosts. hardly "same old, same old", is it?
Metroid's evolving to 1st person, Starfox is now taking on an adventure, and Zelda, well, we'll see. The game may well follow a similar pattern, but it sure don't look the same! (Plus that series has always brought something fresh into it, but I won't go into detail now).
Then there are all the other titles that carry the Mario name. I can hardly call those sequels, the sports titles, the Mario KArts the Party games, just a case of using a franchise to bring something different to the publics attention. Or that't the way I see it. I wouldn't have been overly sure of a 'party' game, but having Nintendo's 'Mario' seal of approval gives me more confidence.
So each machine has sequels, but so what if they're good games?
I'll even stick up for EA, and others that reissue the same game a couple of times a year. They have the license, they want a version of the game on the shelves that represents the current league and players, or why would people want to buy it? Part of the appeal is the right player names, so if it only came out every 3 years, in the 2nd year it would be out of date, and have no appeal. If people are stupid enough to buy EVERY version, congratualtions to EA for taking their money!
So, summing up, sequels can certainly be a good thing. We get to play the continuing adventure of our favourite characters. Developers can make money on something they're quite sure will be popular, which they can stick into other possibly original projects. If you liked a game, and the sequels the same, why not give it a try?
Thanks fpr that Your Honour.
PS. sorry I haven't been around much recently but I have had a week of from college and have been unable to pop on.
I won't be on much in the easter hols either, although I may pop on from time to time.
PS. sorry I haven't been around much recently but I have had a week of from college and have been unable to pop on.
I won't be on much in the easter hols either, although I may pop on from time to time.
"Sequels!!! Good Or Bad?"
Good if they take the ideas of the original and push them onto better things. NOT just better graphics and sound. I have no problems with games that take characters and ideas from the first games, but and new stuff to it, improve the ideas, add new ideas etc.
Using the first game as a basis, but then restructuring and adding new ideas around that is fine with me.
Also, sequels which have MAJOR graphical enhancements, like going from 2D to 3D (a la GTA 3), are fine with me as well. This graphical shift changes the gameplay completely and can enhance the playing experience.
However, sequels which are just a shameless chash in are bad. FIFA, Tomb Raider etc, what a waste of time. No new ideas, no major enhancements in GAMEPLAY, only in graphics, mean that these titles are released every year.
Think about it, it takes 2+ years to make a truely great gamr now, MGS2, GTA3 spring to mind straight away. So how can people like EA etc knock up a new game every 12 months? Exactly.
The main point I'm making is that if a sequel enhances the gameplay, then it is justified in being developed.
If it is developed simply because the orignal sold well and they are just releasing a similar version with better graphics, well, not for me thanks.
Good if they take the ideas of the original and push them onto better things. NOT just better graphics and sound. I have no problems with games that take characters and ideas from the first games, but and new stuff to it, improve the ideas, add new ideas etc.
Using the first game as a basis, but then restructuring and adding new ideas around that is fine with me.
Also, sequels which have MAJOR graphical enhancements, like going from 2D to 3D (a la GTA 3), are fine with me as well. This graphical shift changes the gameplay completely and can enhance the playing experience.
However, sequels which are just a shameless chash in are bad. FIFA, Tomb Raider etc, what a waste of time. No new ideas, no major enhancements in GAMEPLAY, only in graphics, mean that these titles are released every year.
Think about it, it takes 2+ years to make a truely great gamr now, MGS2, GTA3 spring to mind straight away. So how can people like EA etc knock up a new game every 12 months? Exactly.
The main point I'm making is that if a sequel enhances the gameplay, then it is justified in being developed.
If it is developed simply because the orignal sold well and they are just releasing a similar version with better graphics, well, not for me thanks.
The modern day gaming world seems to be full of Sequels at the moment, and not very many originals.
True there are some fantastic sequels out there such as Final Fantasy11 and the upcoming Halo but on the whole there just ain't enough originals on the go.
Developers for some reason can't be bothered to take the time and make an original game.
Rare is one of the few developers who have stuck by original games.
They have made one or two sequels but one or two sequels won't hurt anybody, especially if Rare make them.
Rare are always full of new ideas and they usually turn them into something, like they did Perfect Dark.
It seems to me though that once developers run themselves dry of new game ideas tend to turn to sequels and that's where all these sequels come from.
Or is it because the developers just can't be bothered to come up with new ideas?
It may well be.
Or some developers may not have the money or the resources to create original games.
Or perhaps they are fairly new developers, if so then it's very sad because given the right resources and plenty of money I'm sure most new developers would most definitely be trying their best to show us what they are made of.
That's something I feel that not enough developers are getting the chance to do nowadays.
Mainly because people are more interested in the big cheeses of the games developers world such as Rare.
There are plenty of decent sequels out there, like Final Fantasy11 Or the super cool Tony Hawks three even Tony Hawks II is a mint game.
It's one of the best sequels on the N64.
Ok so the N64 is a bit dated now but I still like it.
Why?
Because you Numpty I'm Ninty.
Like all Ninty's I worship Nintendo.
Simply because they rule.
I must admit that not all sequels are bad.
There are though some fairly dreadful sequels out there.
I am going to let you figure what they are for yourselves.
Whether we like it or not though sequels good or bad will always be around us.
The next one is bound to be somewhere around the next corner.
They are like Copularity Pontest, far too frequent
Are Sequels Evil or are they good?
You decide!
Thanks For Reading!
True there are some fantastic sequels out there such as Final Fantasy11 and the upcoming Halo but on the whole there just ain't enough originals on the go.
Developers for some reason can't be bothered to take the time and make an original game.
Rare is one of the few developers who have stuck by original games.
They have made one or two sequels but one or two sequels won't hurt anybody, especially if Rare make them.
Rare are always full of new ideas and they usually turn them into something, like they did Perfect Dark.
It seems to me though that once developers run themselves dry of new game ideas tend to turn to sequels and that's where all these sequels come from.
Or is it because the developers just can't be bothered to come up with new ideas?
It may well be.
Or some developers may not have the money or the resources to create original games.
Or perhaps they are fairly new developers, if so then it's very sad because given the right resources and plenty of money I'm sure most new developers would most definitely be trying their best to show us what they are made of.
That's something I feel that not enough developers are getting the chance to do nowadays.
Mainly because people are more interested in the big cheeses of the games developers world such as Rare.
There are plenty of decent sequels out there, like Final Fantasy11 Or the super cool Tony Hawks three even Tony Hawks II is a mint game.
It's one of the best sequels on the N64.
Ok so the N64 is a bit dated now but I still like it.
Why?
Because you Numpty I'm Ninty.
Like all Ninty's I worship Nintendo.
Simply because they rule.
I must admit that not all sequels are bad.
There are though some fairly dreadful sequels out there.
I am going to let you figure what they are for yourselves.
Whether we like it or not though sequels good or bad will always be around us.
The next one is bound to be somewhere around the next corner.
They are like Copularity Pontest, far too frequent
Are Sequels Evil or are they good?
You decide!
Thanks For Reading!