Viewing Thread:
"What's wrong with sequels?"

What's wrong with sequels? You all say that Nintendo are bad as they have so many Mario games and have a sequel to nearly every classic Nintendo game but you still buy them and you still like them!

No one moaned when Super Mario Bros 3 came out on the NES. No one moaned when Ocarina of Time came out on N64. No one moaned when Donkey Kong Land came out on the N64 (apart from the fact that you had to pay for an expansion pak as well even though you already had one).

And what about Final Fantasy? AN 11th version has already been planned. Also Tomb Raider 5, Crash Bandicoot on the Gamecube and MArio Kart on the GBA.

I like sequels (as long as they are good games) and you do too so why do you always moan about them?

The thing with sequels, though, is that if they're on a new machine (Zelda - ocarina, Mario 64), the original is too far removed, basically in terms of machine's style, capabilities etc, there's a new market (new machine owners, even if they had the original, why play snes when you can have 64), so there's a place for the game.

If the game re-invents itself, totally moving away from the original, it's a whole different thing to buy, again it offers things to the player.

If none of the above fit, all you're left with is a slightly updated, same kind of thing game which generally isn't worth the money if you have the predecessor, but is good for attracting those who don't and milking more money from a success cow.

Of course, that said, we all lapped up Perfect Dark, didn't we.

I thought Res Survivor was the best one, with exception of the first, WWF games are a silly thing, just new players, I remeber the first one on my Amiga, with hulk Hulgan and the british bulldog, not 'the rock' and his stupid eyebrow! what is that about anyway? Fifa games are just updated transfers so you might as well just buy a recent one now and have done with it, just swap the players yourself I guess. Tombraider games shall be left untouched by me on this letter, I am too ashamed to say I liked the second one, whereas my mate and I took ages over the first, it was excellent we would see how many ways we could die, and see if the lions would eat us, or if the monkeys would......don't think I shoudl go into that, the animal rights groups might be in touch, SR have my address.

Most sequels are definately worth a look at. The Resident Evil series has improved over the years (apart from the poor Res Evil: Survivor), the Tomb Raider games have got better despite using the same basic game engine. Final Fantasy titles always improve over the previous one. Gran Turismo, ISS, Street Fighter, WWF, Quake games all go from strength to strength.
Not all sequels should even be allowed to hit the shelves though. Series like FIFA. We are all taken for mugs each year, we all rush out to buy the latest FIFA Soccer game, but when we actually play it there is no difference from the last. Yet they still feed us the same tripe every season and completley waste a good license.

Sequels are fine as long as there's atleast 1 and a half years gap between the original.
Otherwise, they clearly haven't worked on it hard enough and are just trying to cash in on the franchise!

(Bigger breasts too.)
Who, Chris Tarrant?
(Lara Croft you dolt.)
Dolt?

Sequals can be good, as you said, Mario and Zelda have al lbeen bought by us every time, but thats because it's always a different story, and the graphics and things to look for always change, but with Tombraider all that changed was the thing she looked for, which was guarded by the same boss, and she had some new more revealing clothes on, if you want that, then thats why you bought the game. Normal sequals, e.g. Turok, Ridge Racer, Tomb Raider, etc, are like making an American version of who wants to be a miilionaire, has anyone played it? if not then you won't understand. It's so easy to complete and when you do complete it, you wonder why you spent £30 on it, because you can't do anything else, h you might get some new words out of Chris Tarrant, but then that might not turn you on.

bah.

Nintendo - Ok so they make GOOD sequels, but it still shows lack of imagination - ok so they are a great games company, but I really don't think it's good to have the yearly Fifas and Tomb Raiders etc etc and Ridge Racers - if the game is good in the 1st instance then the sequel should work on these trhings whereas for Namcos Ridge racer (on The PS mostly) all the games are derigitory and dull. Also, the fifa games - all have the same engine, and are WAY too easy - an easy cash in for EA.

I hate EA
I hate Ridge Racer

NO MORE TOMB RAIDERS!

The first one was good. The rest are expandtions.

Sequels huh? Sequels to me rarely change only it's graphics, nothing else is tweaked. Games like ChampMan rarely chage as well, except with more teams and features. What i would like to see in it is 3D action of the game! MGS2 may be a great achievement but it will stay exacly the same, except the graphics will look better. The storylines will stay the same, yes but nothing else is the same.
Deus Ex 2 will be even better graphics wise, but the gameplay will stay in. The story will carry on from the previous game of course.
What Sports games have is rarely changed. More teams, better grapics, more cups and that's all you get.
ISS 2000 managed to put in a addictive Career mode inside, and you can see a future for this kind of thing in future sports games.