The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Now many people are complaining about the lack of originality in games due to the endless supply of sequels. It is seen by some that the financial state of the market and the risks an original game carries (ie flops in sales) has caused this endless supply of "the same formula, new shine" sequels.
But where would we be without sequels? One time only games fail to gain a loyal following like the Fifa series and Final Fantasy to name but two. We would possibly save money by not endlessly buying the next years update and then the next years update.
We would lose the opportunity to express our frustrations at the unoriginal state of the gaming market, therefore losing the chance to let off steam after a hard and forgettable day.
Our mathematic abilities would suffer. Us gamers would lose the ability to read roman numerals and we would lose the some who learnt to count through sequels to a barepit of uneducated hell, also known as McDonalds.
Original games are great now and then but we as humans need our stability, at least you know what you will/should be getting in a sequel, giving you the confidence to hand over your money to the spotty punk behind the counter and get a game you know you have enjoyed in the past and therefore should enjoy in its new makeup.
Saying that though I do draw the line on sequels. The Army Men Series has been a disgrace to those little green men you put into battle in your junior years and ended up losing in battle to the fate of a clumsy parent's foot. Sequels should be about providing the quality of the original with a little extra on top. Games should not be allowed sequels if the original was a pathetic excuse for entertainment.
So now I mus leave to watch Star Wars III, play Fifa 2002 with the lads and eat Harry Ramsdens improved Fish 'n' Chips.
But where would we be without sequels? One time only games fail to gain a loyal following like the Fifa series and Final Fantasy to name but two. We would possibly save money by not endlessly buying the next years update and then the next years update.
We would lose the opportunity to express our frustrations at the unoriginal state of the gaming market, therefore losing the chance to let off steam after a hard and forgettable day.
Our mathematic abilities would suffer. Us gamers would lose the ability to read roman numerals and we would lose the some who learnt to count through sequels to a barepit of uneducated hell, also known as McDonalds.
Original games are great now and then but we as humans need our stability, at least you know what you will/should be getting in a sequel, giving you the confidence to hand over your money to the spotty punk behind the counter and get a game you know you have enjoyed in the past and therefore should enjoy in its new makeup.
Saying that though I do draw the line on sequels. The Army Men Series has been a disgrace to those little green men you put into battle in your junior years and ended up losing in battle to the fate of a clumsy parent's foot. Sequels should be about providing the quality of the original with a little extra on top. Games should not be allowed sequels if the original was a pathetic excuse for entertainment.
So now I mus leave to watch Star Wars III, play Fifa 2002 with the lads and eat Harry Ramsdens improved Fish 'n' Chips.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
Now many people are complaining about the lack of originality in games due to the endless supply of sequels. It is seen by some that the financial state of the market and the risks an original game carries (ie flops in sales) has caused this endless supply of "the same formula, new shine" sequels.
But where would we be without sequels? One time only games fail to gain a loyal following like the Fifa series and Final Fantasy to name but two. We would possibly save money by not endlessly buying the next years update and then the next years update.
We would lose the opportunity to express our frustrations at the unoriginal state of the gaming market, therefore losing the chance to let off steam after a hard and forgettable day.
Our mathematic abilities would suffer. Us gamers would lose the ability to read roman numerals and we would lose the some who learnt to count through sequels to a barepit of uneducated hell, also known as McDonalds.
Original games are great now and then but we as humans need our stability, at least you know what you will/should be getting in a sequel, giving you the confidence to hand over your money to the spotty punk behind the counter and get a game you know you have enjoyed in the past and therefore should enjoy in its new makeup.
Saying that though I do draw the line on sequels. The Army Men Series has been a disgrace to those little green men you put into battle in your junior years and ended up losing in battle to the fate of a clumsy parent's foot. Sequels should be about providing the quality of the original with a little extra on top. Games should not be allowed sequels if the original was a pathetic excuse for entertainment.
So now I mus leave to watch Star Wars III, play Fifa 2002 with the lads and eat Harry Ramsdens improved Fish 'n' Chips.
But where would we be without sequels? One time only games fail to gain a loyal following like the Fifa series and Final Fantasy to name but two. We would possibly save money by not endlessly buying the next years update and then the next years update.
We would lose the opportunity to express our frustrations at the unoriginal state of the gaming market, therefore losing the chance to let off steam after a hard and forgettable day.
Our mathematic abilities would suffer. Us gamers would lose the ability to read roman numerals and we would lose the some who learnt to count through sequels to a barepit of uneducated hell, also known as McDonalds.
Original games are great now and then but we as humans need our stability, at least you know what you will/should be getting in a sequel, giving you the confidence to hand over your money to the spotty punk behind the counter and get a game you know you have enjoyed in the past and therefore should enjoy in its new makeup.
Saying that though I do draw the line on sequels. The Army Men Series has been a disgrace to those little green men you put into battle in your junior years and ended up losing in battle to the fate of a clumsy parent's foot. Sequels should be about providing the quality of the original with a little extra on top. Games should not be allowed sequels if the original was a pathetic excuse for entertainment.
So now I mus leave to watch Star Wars III, play Fifa 2002 with the lads and eat Harry Ramsdens improved Fish 'n' Chips.