The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Sequels are generally thought to be a bad thing (according to a lot of people in this forum at least) but what is it that is so bad about them?
A sequel as such does not a bad game make! You could have a whole string of sequels and they may all be excellent games in their own right. The problem lies with the software houses who think they can get away with the same game engine, graphics and plot again and again (and invairably do)
Some well known examples show the different sides of sequels. FIFA. There, probably the worst offender and coming from EA, who seem to be the kings of sequel. But how bad is it? Well if you love football and consider new stats and players important then there's justification for bringing out new versions every year/6 months and EA do update the game sometimes.
Tomb Raider on the other hand has the justification that it's a continuing story, but after the first two the programmers didn't seem to bother making something worthwhile, they just saw it as a cheap and easy mealticket.
Final Fantasy, this series seems to get better, although purists will argue that the original 8/16-bit versions were the best, before all the hype. Graphically there is no dispute, the programmers have done wonders and gameplay is really dependant on how you like your RPGs.
Anyway, as I was saying, Sequels don't have to be a bad thing, which is just as well for Sony as their consoles thrive on them!
A sequel as such does not a bad game make! You could have a whole string of sequels and they may all be excellent games in their own right. The problem lies with the software houses who think they can get away with the same game engine, graphics and plot again and again (and invairably do)
Some well known examples show the different sides of sequels. FIFA. There, probably the worst offender and coming from EA, who seem to be the kings of sequel. But how bad is it? Well if you love football and consider new stats and players important then there's justification for bringing out new versions every year/6 months and EA do update the game sometimes.
Tomb Raider on the other hand has the justification that it's a continuing story, but after the first two the programmers didn't seem to bother making something worthwhile, they just saw it as a cheap and easy mealticket.
Final Fantasy, this series seems to get better, although purists will argue that the original 8/16-bit versions were the best, before all the hype. Graphically there is no dispute, the programmers have done wonders and gameplay is really dependant on how you like your RPGs.
Anyway, as I was saying, Sequels don't have to be a bad thing, which is just as well for Sony as their consoles thrive on them!
I, for one, have never used the emoticon ;-P
er....
er....
Actually, I think I've used those words at some point, maybe not in that order, but I swear that every one of those words has been written by me, at some point in my life.
As this post uses words that I too use, it must be a rip off of something I have written or said. ;-p
As this post uses words that I too use, it must be a rip off of something I have written or said. ;-p
pb wrote:
> Sequels are generally thought to be a bad thing (according to a lot
> of people in this forum at least) but what is it that is so bad
> about them?
A sequel as such does not a bad game make! You could
> have a whole string of sequels and they may all be excellent games
> in their own right. The problem lies with the software houses who
> think they can get away with the same game engine, graphics and plot
> again and again (and invairably do)
Anyway, as I was saying, Sequels don't have to be a bad
> thing, which is just as well for Sony as their consoles thrive on
> them!
Very similar to what I said ages ago! I won a game for it too! But that was cos I was the first to post it (and it was an original post) on SR all those months ago!
> Sequels are generally thought to be a bad thing (according to a lot
> of people in this forum at least) but what is it that is so bad
> about them?
A sequel as such does not a bad game make! You could
> have a whole string of sequels and they may all be excellent games
> in their own right. The problem lies with the software houses who
> think they can get away with the same game engine, graphics and plot
> again and again (and invairably do)
Anyway, as I was saying, Sequels don't have to be a bad
> thing, which is just as well for Sony as their consoles thrive on
> them!
Very similar to what I said ages ago! I won a game for it too! But that was cos I was the first to post it (and it was an original post) on SR all those months ago!
TTT is more like Tekken 3+, and that's what it's supposed to be.
A PS2 game to tide the gamers over until they get around to developing a Tekken 4.
How about Street Fighter2?
You had SF2
SF2 Turbo and
Super SF2
Plus I'm sure that there was another one in there between SF2 and SF2 Turbo, and I can't remember if anything followed that.
All they really did was speed it up, change a few colours, and let you play as the bosses!
I agree with pb though. Sequels needn't be bad.
An original title, that uses an old engine is worse than a sequel that develops the original game, and takes it somewhere new.
A PS2 game to tide the gamers over until they get around to developing a Tekken 4.
How about Street Fighter2?
You had SF2
SF2 Turbo and
Super SF2
Plus I'm sure that there was another one in there between SF2 and SF2 Turbo, and I can't remember if anything followed that.
All they really did was speed it up, change a few colours, and let you play as the bosses!
I agree with pb though. Sequels needn't be bad.
An original title, that uses an old engine is worse than a sequel that develops the original game, and takes it somewhere new.
Sequels in theselves are fine.....but when they turn out to be more like patched versions of the same game it gets a little annoying.
Fighting games for example. Mortal Kombat 1 and 2 had very different characters. That was acceptable in my view
Tekken 3 and TTT had almost exactly the same characters, and the same moves, and the same combat style, the same sound. Oh, but it had better graphics. Not really a sequel in my opinion.
Oh, and another thing.
HAVING 500 CHARACTERS DOESNT MAKE THE GAME ANY BETTER!
Fighting games for example. Mortal Kombat 1 and 2 had very different characters. That was acceptable in my view
Tekken 3 and TTT had almost exactly the same characters, and the same moves, and the same combat style, the same sound. Oh, but it had better graphics. Not really a sequel in my opinion.
Oh, and another thing.
HAVING 500 CHARACTERS DOESNT MAKE THE GAME ANY BETTER!
Sequels are generally thought to be a bad thing (according to a lot of people in this forum at least) but what is it that is so bad about them?
A sequel as such does not a bad game make! You could have a whole string of sequels and they may all be excellent games in their own right. The problem lies with the software houses who think they can get away with the same game engine, graphics and plot again and again (and invairably do)
Some well known examples show the different sides of sequels. FIFA. There, probably the worst offender and coming from EA, who seem to be the kings of sequel. But how bad is it? Well if you love football and consider new stats and players important then there's justification for bringing out new versions every year/6 months and EA do update the game sometimes.
Tomb Raider on the other hand has the justification that it's a continuing story, but after the first two the programmers didn't seem to bother making something worthwhile, they just saw it as a cheap and easy mealticket.
Final Fantasy, this series seems to get better, although purists will argue that the original 8/16-bit versions were the best, before all the hype. Graphically there is no dispute, the programmers have done wonders and gameplay is really dependant on how you like your RPGs.
Anyway, as I was saying, Sequels don't have to be a bad thing, which is just as well for Sony as their consoles thrive on them!
A sequel as such does not a bad game make! You could have a whole string of sequels and they may all be excellent games in their own right. The problem lies with the software houses who think they can get away with the same game engine, graphics and plot again and again (and invairably do)
Some well known examples show the different sides of sequels. FIFA. There, probably the worst offender and coming from EA, who seem to be the kings of sequel. But how bad is it? Well if you love football and consider new stats and players important then there's justification for bringing out new versions every year/6 months and EA do update the game sometimes.
Tomb Raider on the other hand has the justification that it's a continuing story, but after the first two the programmers didn't seem to bother making something worthwhile, they just saw it as a cheap and easy mealticket.
Final Fantasy, this series seems to get better, although purists will argue that the original 8/16-bit versions were the best, before all the hype. Graphically there is no dispute, the programmers have done wonders and gameplay is really dependant on how you like your RPGs.
Anyway, as I was saying, Sequels don't have to be a bad thing, which is just as well for Sony as their consoles thrive on them!