The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
In todays gaming market there are literally hundreds of games available across a wide range of formats, especially with Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo's glorious machines all going head to head. With our games collections ever-increasing, we all know that some games are good and some games, frankly, aren't.
If a company designs and develops a particularly good game, it will receive good reviews and will no doubt have impressive sales figures. So when the hype over a game dies down, sales slow down and the dust settles, developers are left thinking, "Well what do we do next?" Only they're not thinking this because by this stage you can bet your life that if the original game was a success, work will already have started on a sequel. If this sequel is also a big success, the game will turn into a series.
But the question is; are sequels a crucial aspect of the gaming industry or just a waste of our time and money?
There is definitely a strong arguement in favour of sequels. Firstly, a sequel will, more often than not, only be released if the original game was a success. Therefore in buying a sequel we are taking much less of a risk and can be assured of a good quality game. For example, with games such as GT3, GTA3 and MGS2, we all played and loved the prequels, therefore we knew these sequels would be just as good. I mean, to a certain extent many of us didn't even need to read any reviews before making our purchases. Unfortunately this theory is subject to exceptions, as i found out myself not so long ago! I loved all the past PSone Ridge Racer games so decided i'd buy a copy of Ridge Racer 5 on the PS2. This turned out to be (in my opinion) a very poor game.
Sequels are often very popular for games with a strong storyline element. A sequel gives games designers the oppurtunity to continue and develop the storyline of games. This is often true for first and third person shoot'em ups as well as RPGs. The Resident Evil series and MGS 1&2 are good examples of games with ever-continuing storylines. As we finish these games, we immediately find ourselves looking forward to the next installment.
However, for some games, sequels can be either a good thing or a bad thing. Titles involving sports, skating, snowboarding, etc do not have any aspect of a storyline. Because of this, developers must be especially careful that the game they are producing is a full-sequel and not a mere 'update'. The Tony Hawks series is a brilliant example of how to make a series work. After the original Tony Hawks Pro Skater, it would have been easy to produce a sequel which had just a few improvements and wasn't particularly different. However, with each sequel to the Tony Hawks series, Neversoft manage to produce a whole new game with new characters, tricks, control methods and massively different and improved levels.
Sequels to many games such as the FIFA and NHL series have often in the past failed in this area. Sequels to these games are often simple updates, which offer only some minor graphical tweaks and new players and kits. The result of this is that if you have a previous game in the series, there is simply no point in shelling out up to £45 for what is effectively a very similar game. One excpetion to this was the transition between FIFA 2001 and FIFA 2002, which brought in a whole new control method and resulted in a game which was significantly different to play.
There is no doubt that we all love it when our favourite games are followed up with sequels, provided that those sequels are just as impressive, if not better. This is proven by SR's current top ten for the PS2, which contains a whopping 8 games which are either sequels our part of a series!
Unquestionably my conclusion would have to be that in the majority of cases sequels can only bring benefit to the gaming industry. At the moment, many of the games we can't wait to get our hands on in the future are sequels of some kind, such as FFX/XI, GTA4, Halo 2, Toca Racing Driver, Colin McRae 4, etc....
Thanks for Reading.
To be continued.....(!)
If a company designs and develops a particularly good game, it will receive good reviews and will no doubt have impressive sales figures. So when the hype over a game dies down, sales slow down and the dust settles, developers are left thinking, "Well what do we do next?" Only they're not thinking this because by this stage you can bet your life that if the original game was a success, work will already have started on a sequel. If this sequel is also a big success, the game will turn into a series.
But the question is; are sequels a crucial aspect of the gaming industry or just a waste of our time and money?
There is definitely a strong arguement in favour of sequels. Firstly, a sequel will, more often than not, only be released if the original game was a success. Therefore in buying a sequel we are taking much less of a risk and can be assured of a good quality game. For example, with games such as GT3, GTA3 and MGS2, we all played and loved the prequels, therefore we knew these sequels would be just as good. I mean, to a certain extent many of us didn't even need to read any reviews before making our purchases. Unfortunately this theory is subject to exceptions, as i found out myself not so long ago! I loved all the past PSone Ridge Racer games so decided i'd buy a copy of Ridge Racer 5 on the PS2. This turned out to be (in my opinion) a very poor game.
Sequels are often very popular for games with a strong storyline element. A sequel gives games designers the oppurtunity to continue and develop the storyline of games. This is often true for first and third person shoot'em ups as well as RPGs. The Resident Evil series and MGS 1&2 are good examples of games with ever-continuing storylines. As we finish these games, we immediately find ourselves looking forward to the next installment.
However, for some games, sequels can be either a good thing or a bad thing. Titles involving sports, skating, snowboarding, etc do not have any aspect of a storyline. Because of this, developers must be especially careful that the game they are producing is a full-sequel and not a mere 'update'. The Tony Hawks series is a brilliant example of how to make a series work. After the original Tony Hawks Pro Skater, it would have been easy to produce a sequel which had just a few improvements and wasn't particularly different. However, with each sequel to the Tony Hawks series, Neversoft manage to produce a whole new game with new characters, tricks, control methods and massively different and improved levels.
Sequels to many games such as the FIFA and NHL series have often in the past failed in this area. Sequels to these games are often simple updates, which offer only some minor graphical tweaks and new players and kits. The result of this is that if you have a previous game in the series, there is simply no point in shelling out up to £45 for what is effectively a very similar game. One excpetion to this was the transition between FIFA 2001 and FIFA 2002, which brought in a whole new control method and resulted in a game which was significantly different to play.
There is no doubt that we all love it when our favourite games are followed up with sequels, provided that those sequels are just as impressive, if not better. This is proven by SR's current top ten for the PS2, which contains a whopping 8 games which are either sequels our part of a series!
Unquestionably my conclusion would have to be that in the majority of cases sequels can only bring benefit to the gaming industry. At the moment, many of the games we can't wait to get our hands on in the future are sequels of some kind, such as FFX/XI, GTA4, Halo 2, Toca Racing Driver, Colin McRae 4, etc....
Thanks for Reading.
To be continued.....(!)
VenomByte wrote:
> Personally, I don't like to own two of the same game, but maybe I'm
> out of date...
I agree with you. As i said, theres no point spending up to £45 for what is effectively a game that you already own.
One option is to sell your existing game and put the money towrads the new version. The only problem with this is that by the time the sequel is released, the old game is worth next to nothing...
I won FIFA 2002, which despite what some people say, i think is a brilliant game. However, unless FIFA 2003 is radically different, the next football game i'll probably buy will be Pro Evo 2.
> Personally, I don't like to own two of the same game, but maybe I'm
> out of date...
I agree with you. As i said, theres no point spending up to £45 for what is effectively a game that you already own.
One option is to sell your existing game and put the money towrads the new version. The only problem with this is that by the time the sequel is released, the old game is worth next to nothing...
I won FIFA 2002, which despite what some people say, i think is a brilliant game. However, unless FIFA 2003 is radically different, the next football game i'll probably buy will be Pro Evo 2.
The thing is, most of the well established games companies have now released a successful title or two in every genre they write for. With anything short of a completely new approach to the game, there's very little point in not re-using a well known title.
Replay value is an interesting point though - how many people are willing to buy a sequel if they already have the original?
Back in the old days, the games mags would say "If you have the original, it probably isn't worth buying this."
Yet nowadays, they'll say "If you liked the original, you'll love this. It's more of the same, but bigger and better."
Personally, I don't like to own two of the same game, but maybe I'm out of date...
Replay value is an interesting point though - how many people are willing to buy a sequel if they already have the original?
Back in the old days, the games mags would say "If you have the original, it probably isn't worth buying this."
Yet nowadays, they'll say "If you liked the original, you'll love this. It's more of the same, but bigger and better."
Personally, I don't like to own two of the same game, but maybe I'm out of date...
Meka Dragon wrote:
> :o) Not a bad idea for a spoof game there!
If its released we'll split the profits!
> :o) Not a bad idea for a spoof game there!
If its released we'll split the profits!
doublezero wrote:
> Im intrigued! What is this "Bum Quest" game you speak of and
> when is it released. I hear it'll be a FPS based on and around
> Uranus...!?
:o) Not a bad idea for a spoof game there!
> Thanks for the reply Meka.
No problem.
> Im intrigued! What is this "Bum Quest" game you speak of and
> when is it released. I hear it'll be a FPS based on and around
> Uranus...!?
:o) Not a bad idea for a spoof game there!
> Thanks for the reply Meka.
No problem.
Meka Dragon wrote:
> I mean, Final Fantasy 10 is highly anticipated, because it's a Final
> Fantasy title, but what if it had a slight graphic face-lift, and
> Square called it "Bum Quest"? It would play exactly the
> same, but people wouldn't be quite so excited about it.
Im intrigued! What is this "Bum Quest" game you speak of and when is it released. I hear it'll be a FPS based on and around Uranus...!?
Thanks for the reply Meka.
> I mean, Final Fantasy 10 is highly anticipated, because it's a Final
> Fantasy title, but what if it had a slight graphic face-lift, and
> Square called it "Bum Quest"? It would play exactly the
> same, but people wouldn't be quite so excited about it.
Im intrigued! What is this "Bum Quest" game you speak of and when is it released. I hear it'll be a FPS based on and around Uranus...!?
Thanks for the reply Meka.
Sequels are always the most anticipated games, because we kind of know what to expect.
I mean, Final Fantasy 10 is highly anticipated, because it's a Final Fantasy title, but what if it had a slight graphic face-lift, and Square called it "Bum Quest"? It would play exactly the same, but people wouldn't be quite so excited about it.
Sequels live on a knife-edge, too similar to the original, and it's a cash-in, too different, and you either alienate the original audience, or get accused of using a popular game to sell a different type of game.
Personally, I think the best way to tackle the issue is to take each game as a separate entity. Is it a good game in it's own right? Yes or no, it doesn't really matter if it's part of a series.
I mean, Final Fantasy 10 is highly anticipated, because it's a Final Fantasy title, but what if it had a slight graphic face-lift, and Square called it "Bum Quest"? It would play exactly the same, but people wouldn't be quite so excited about it.
Sequels live on a knife-edge, too similar to the original, and it's a cash-in, too different, and you either alienate the original audience, or get accused of using a popular game to sell a different type of game.
Personally, I think the best way to tackle the issue is to take each game as a separate entity. Is it a good game in it's own right? Yes or no, it doesn't really matter if it's part of a series.
In todays gaming market there are literally hundreds of games available across a wide range of formats, especially with Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo's glorious machines all going head to head. With our games collections ever-increasing, we all know that some games are good and some games, frankly, aren't.
If a company designs and develops a particularly good game, it will receive good reviews and will no doubt have impressive sales figures. So when the hype over a game dies down, sales slow down and the dust settles, developers are left thinking, "Well what do we do next?" Only they're not thinking this because by this stage you can bet your life that if the original game was a success, work will already have started on a sequel. If this sequel is also a big success, the game will turn into a series.
But the question is; are sequels a crucial aspect of the gaming industry or just a waste of our time and money?
There is definitely a strong arguement in favour of sequels. Firstly, a sequel will, more often than not, only be released if the original game was a success. Therefore in buying a sequel we are taking much less of a risk and can be assured of a good quality game. For example, with games such as GT3, GTA3 and MGS2, we all played and loved the prequels, therefore we knew these sequels would be just as good. I mean, to a certain extent many of us didn't even need to read any reviews before making our purchases. Unfortunately this theory is subject to exceptions, as i found out myself not so long ago! I loved all the past PSone Ridge Racer games so decided i'd buy a copy of Ridge Racer 5 on the PS2. This turned out to be (in my opinion) a very poor game.
Sequels are often very popular for games with a strong storyline element. A sequel gives games designers the oppurtunity to continue and develop the storyline of games. This is often true for first and third person shoot'em ups as well as RPGs. The Resident Evil series and MGS 1&2 are good examples of games with ever-continuing storylines. As we finish these games, we immediately find ourselves looking forward to the next installment.
However, for some games, sequels can be either a good thing or a bad thing. Titles involving sports, skating, snowboarding, etc do not have any aspect of a storyline. Because of this, developers must be especially careful that the game they are producing is a full-sequel and not a mere 'update'. The Tony Hawks series is a brilliant example of how to make a series work. After the original Tony Hawks Pro Skater, it would have been easy to produce a sequel which had just a few improvements and wasn't particularly different. However, with each sequel to the Tony Hawks series, Neversoft manage to produce a whole new game with new characters, tricks, control methods and massively different and improved levels.
Sequels to many games such as the FIFA and NHL series have often in the past failed in this area. Sequels to these games are often simple updates, which offer only some minor graphical tweaks and new players and kits. The result of this is that if you have a previous game in the series, there is simply no point in shelling out up to £45 for what is effectively a very similar game. One excpetion to this was the transition between FIFA 2001 and FIFA 2002, which brought in a whole new control method and resulted in a game which was significantly different to play.
There is no doubt that we all love it when our favourite games are followed up with sequels, provided that those sequels are just as impressive, if not better. This is proven by SR's current top ten for the PS2, which contains a whopping 8 games which are either sequels our part of a series!
Unquestionably my conclusion would have to be that in the majority of cases sequels can only bring benefit to the gaming industry. At the moment, many of the games we can't wait to get our hands on in the future are sequels of some kind, such as FFX/XI, GTA4, Halo 2, Toca Racing Driver, Colin McRae 4, etc....
Thanks for Reading.
To be continued.....(!)
If a company designs and develops a particularly good game, it will receive good reviews and will no doubt have impressive sales figures. So when the hype over a game dies down, sales slow down and the dust settles, developers are left thinking, "Well what do we do next?" Only they're not thinking this because by this stage you can bet your life that if the original game was a success, work will already have started on a sequel. If this sequel is also a big success, the game will turn into a series.
But the question is; are sequels a crucial aspect of the gaming industry or just a waste of our time and money?
There is definitely a strong arguement in favour of sequels. Firstly, a sequel will, more often than not, only be released if the original game was a success. Therefore in buying a sequel we are taking much less of a risk and can be assured of a good quality game. For example, with games such as GT3, GTA3 and MGS2, we all played and loved the prequels, therefore we knew these sequels would be just as good. I mean, to a certain extent many of us didn't even need to read any reviews before making our purchases. Unfortunately this theory is subject to exceptions, as i found out myself not so long ago! I loved all the past PSone Ridge Racer games so decided i'd buy a copy of Ridge Racer 5 on the PS2. This turned out to be (in my opinion) a very poor game.
Sequels are often very popular for games with a strong storyline element. A sequel gives games designers the oppurtunity to continue and develop the storyline of games. This is often true for first and third person shoot'em ups as well as RPGs. The Resident Evil series and MGS 1&2 are good examples of games with ever-continuing storylines. As we finish these games, we immediately find ourselves looking forward to the next installment.
However, for some games, sequels can be either a good thing or a bad thing. Titles involving sports, skating, snowboarding, etc do not have any aspect of a storyline. Because of this, developers must be especially careful that the game they are producing is a full-sequel and not a mere 'update'. The Tony Hawks series is a brilliant example of how to make a series work. After the original Tony Hawks Pro Skater, it would have been easy to produce a sequel which had just a few improvements and wasn't particularly different. However, with each sequel to the Tony Hawks series, Neversoft manage to produce a whole new game with new characters, tricks, control methods and massively different and improved levels.
Sequels to many games such as the FIFA and NHL series have often in the past failed in this area. Sequels to these games are often simple updates, which offer only some minor graphical tweaks and new players and kits. The result of this is that if you have a previous game in the series, there is simply no point in shelling out up to £45 for what is effectively a very similar game. One excpetion to this was the transition between FIFA 2001 and FIFA 2002, which brought in a whole new control method and resulted in a game which was significantly different to play.
There is no doubt that we all love it when our favourite games are followed up with sequels, provided that those sequels are just as impressive, if not better. This is proven by SR's current top ten for the PS2, which contains a whopping 8 games which are either sequels our part of a series!
Unquestionably my conclusion would have to be that in the majority of cases sequels can only bring benefit to the gaming industry. At the moment, many of the games we can't wait to get our hands on in the future are sequels of some kind, such as FFX/XI, GTA4, Halo 2, Toca Racing Driver, Colin McRae 4, etc....
Thanks for Reading.
To be continued.....(!)