Are too many sequels killing video gaming?
By
Acemace,
Posted on: 2010-09-23 14:08 in Comic and Hero-Villain Culture
Whoa Whoa Whoa...first of all...I don't think you can attack Madden like that.
It is way more than a roster update.
Madden is one of EA sports biggest sellers...so to even put madden in the category of "sequels" ruining gaming is wrong from the start...which invalidates your point to begin with.
My point is this: I can see gamers being upset that their favorite gaming company is putting time and resources into a sequel that FLOPS...because that time and resources could have been spent on a brand new game.
However, in Maddens case...I think there is no problem with EA putting their time and resources into making a new madden every year...because so many people buy and enjoy that product...every single year it comes out.
Milking games for lackluster sequels is certainly frustrating, but if it means that every now and then I get a sequel like Mass Effect 2; then it's all worth it.
Intead of releasing yet another Madden game that you have to pay 50 bucks for each and every year, they should switch to an online subscription based model. Don't you think?
Kind of like a football MMO. Hmm...
Quote:
I'm telling you...if you're a fan of football and a fan of playing madden...you will know that the game is much more than just a roster update.
|
Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
Intead of releasing yet another Madden game that you have to pay 50 bucks for each and every year, they should switch to an online subscription based model. Don't you think?
Kind of like a football MMO. Hmm... |
Quote:
Seriously I cant tell if this is sarcasm or not.
|
Originally Posted by Vitality
Whoa Whoa Whoa...first of all...I don't think you can attack Madden like that.
It is way more than a roster update. Madden is one of EA sports biggest sellers...so to even put madden in the category of "sequels" ruining gaming is wrong from the start...which invalidates your point to begin with. My point is this: I can see gamers being upset that their favorite gaming company is putting time and resources into a sequel that FLOPS...because that time and resources could have been spent on a brand new game. However, in Maddens case...I think there is no problem with EA putting their time and resources into making a new madden every year...because so many people buy and enjoy that product...every single year it comes out. |
Shadowy Presence - Absolutely, positively worse than playing a Kheldian... --Myrmydon
Quote:
No sarcasm...Madden is my favorite game.
|
Originally Posted by Teldon
Seriously I cant tell if this is sarcasm or not.
|
The article fails to establish that sequels are anything more detrimental than personally annoying to them. Some sequels are good, some are bad. Some original titles are good, some are bad. The OP fails to make a case that a bad product can be linked to sequels. The shovelware on the Wii is all "original".
I don't see a real case here.
OK, so maybe Madden was a less than optimal example. I don't play the game myself, but I've seen complaints in the past that often the game's sequels are just changing the rosters, with no new mechanics, etc., and that roster updates should be a download rather than a full-priced new release.
Quote:
Actually, I think it makes the point. A sequel is one of their biggest sellers. So they put their time and money into a sequel, rather than a new offering which might not sell as well.| Madden is one of EA sports biggest sellers...so to even put madden in the category of "sequels" ruining gaming is wrong from the start...which invalidates your point to begin with. |
Again, whose fault is that, gamers for not supporting new titles as much, or game developers for pumping out sequels? Maybe "fault" is too strong a word, but I hope you get my meaning. It's kind of a chicken-and-egg question. As the article stated, we see the same thing in movies and music...sequels do well while new oferings tend not to sell as much. Is this just a further sign of the maturing of the video game industry and its clientele, i.e. gamers? Is this really anything new, or is it as old as human nature and being comfortable with the familiar?
Quote:
I agree, there are good and bad sequels and there are good and bad original titles.|
Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
The article fails to establish that sequels are anything more detrimental than personally annoying to them. Some sequels are good, some are bad. Some original titles are good, some are bad. The OP fails to make a case that a bad product can be linked to sequels. The shovelware on the Wii is all "original".
I don't see a real case here. |
I'm not really trying to "make a case" or convince anyone of anything. I just saw an interesting article that I thought could spark a further interesting discussion here. I'm honestly just interested in seeing some other gamers' take on this.
Oh, you're fine and I appreciate your forwarding the article. It just doesn't seem like there's much to discuss. From me at least.
Which means I shouldn't have posted.
So I'm going to smoke bomb now.
*poof*
Oh, hey look! It actually worked that time!
Quote:
*facepalm*|
Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
Oh, hey look! It actually worked that time!
|
You don't talk after the smoke bomb, newb!
*gurmble* I swear, the new recruits we get these days. Couldn't ninja their way out of a wet paper sack.
Quote:
Wait, maybe it'll help if I put on this bright orange jacket!
|
Originally Posted by sleestack
*gurmble* I swear, the new recruits we get these days. Couldn't ninja their way out of a wet paper sack.
|
Quote:
That's the spirit!
|
Originally Posted by Cowman
Wait, maybe it'll help if I put on this bright orange jacket!
|
Just like sequels killed the movie business and TV (oh look another CSI, NCIS, Law and Order, medical drama ...).
Father Xmas - Level 50 Ice/Ice Tanker - Victory
$725 and $1350 parts lists --- My guide to computer components
Tempus unum hominem manet
Quote:
Well it certainly isn't about "Quality not Quantity" anymore......|
Originally Posted by Father Xmas
Just like sequels killed the movie business and TV (oh look another CSI, NCIS, Law and Order, medical drama ...).
|
Sequels in movies usually "kill" them when the 3rd movie hits in most cases, especially when it comes to superhero movies.
X3: The Last Stand
Spider-Man 3
Blade Trilogy
Batman Forever (I expect an argument about this one)
Superman III
Am I forgetting any?
http://www.seventhsanctum.com/index-anim.php
Can't come up with a name? Click the link!
Can't come up with a name? Click the link!
I can't wait for Mortal Kombat 9
Quote:
Yes, pure gold when your lame idiot of an ex roommate plays the game 16+ hours straight and yells at the TV at the same time accusing the singleplayer game of cheating!
|
Originally Posted by Vitality
I'm telling you...if you're a fan of football and a fan of playing madden...you will know that the game is much more than just a roster update.
|
------->"Sic Semper Tyrannis"<-------
Sequels to video games don't bother me at all. On the contrary, a lot of times games sequels just get better and better, unlike movie sequels. Games tend to improve on previous titles, whereas movies tend to milk or rehash, the old The Same But More trope done poorly. It's just a trend I've noticed.
There are of course exceptions. Crappy games are crappy no matter whether they're in a series or not, same as movies.
And I too look forward to MK9...unless he's being sarcastic again, it's so hard to tell. If he is, I'm looking forward to it anyway. The videos I've seen appeal to my secret love of sickening violence and brutal beatings. Plus, Mileena, Jade, Sindel...what can I say.
Quote:
A big part of the reason for game sequels is the relentless advance of computer technology. Our favorite games get outdated. We want new versions of them with enchanced graphics and expanded capabilities. And it doesn't hurt to tell new stories with the same settings.|
Originally Posted by sleestack
So what do you folks think? Are there too many video game sequels today? Is it partly our (gamers' in general) fault for being risk-averse in trying new titles, which makes game developers risk-averse in developing new games?
|
Often the disappointment comes when the update changes the gameplay mechanics we enjoyed rather than simply enhancing them.
Quote:
True.|
Originally Posted by Mirai
A big part of the reason for game sequels is the relentless advance of computer technology. Our favorite games get outdated. We want new versions of them with enchanced graphics and expanded capabilities.
|
For example, I'd totally buy a redone version of the entire Mass Effect trilogy combining all the best parts of the three games.
bad sequels kills video gaming
example: while Halo has been a enjoyable series imo, their ODST prequel was rather lackluster and left a bitter taste because it was so short and really didn't offer anything new for it's price tag...luckily for Bungie, Halo:Reach has been a huge success.
Quote:
I'm not a fanboy of the game by any means, but I would love an updated graphics/gameplay version of Final Fantasy VII.|
Originally Posted by Cowman
True.
For example, I'd totally buy a redone version of the entire Mass Effect trilogy combining all the best parts of the three games. |
But Square Enix can't and won't do it, even if it would make them many millions. Why?
This isn't a direct quote, but it went something like: "The technology of the time was perfect for a game like Final Fantasy VII."
Some people overanalyzed what he said, and came to this conclusion, which actually makes sense: Final Fantasy VII COULD be remade, but to have the amount of content with new graphics and possible DLC in dungeons and the like would take far, far too long.
We all remember the amount of towns that were in Final Fantasy VII. Yet, there weren't really any to be seen in XIII, and Square admitted that a lot of content (like an entire games worth of bonus dungeons) was cut from XIII to get it to be able to fit on the 360. Hence, no towns.
If they didn't create one town for XIII, I doubt they'd create 10+ towns in a VII remake.
There are other reasons, but the sheer amount of time and manpower needed is the main reason why we may never see a remake.
http://www.seventhsanctum.com/index-anim.php
Can't come up with a name? Click the link!
Can't come up with a name? Click the link!
well, in the face of a really nasty recession, i dont really see anything killing gaming, it seems relatively healthy. as for sequels killing gaming..i have been hearing that since the nes days, and the answer remains the same. some games have a deep mythos that supports making them a franchise, mario, zelda, the elder scrolls, fallout et cetera. but there really is no indication from what i have seen that a game is harmed simply by being a sequel, well done ones can make it a strength, there is continuity, familiarity, character progression over multiple games, these can work, and when they dont, its usually due to issues that would have harmed an original ip just as badly.
One thing that the mentions that is a factor is the budget issue. for the high def systems, making a game is no a much steeper commitment of cash than it was in the past, but there is a secondary market these days, the arcade/wiiware/psn/steam world where games that are often retro styled and lower budget take risks and often deliver games that deliver a simple but focused fun experience. right now i'm playing a game by the devs that formerly made the ty the tazmanian tiger games, but this uses a webcomic based ip and a well done but retro sidescroller style, and it is amazingly fun.
Quote:
Vitality is absolutely right -- they always have new waterboys! Every. Single. Year.
|
Originally Posted by Vitality
I'm telling you...if you're a fan of football and a fan of playing madden...you will know that the game is much more than just a roster update.
|
The Alt Alphabet ~ OPC: Other People's Characters ~ Terrific Screenshots of Cool ~ Superhero Fiction
Found this article on CNN, I apologize if it's already been posted. I looked but didn't see it here.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/gaming.....html?hpt=Sbin
The article makes some interesting points. We've all, or most all, been burned by a video game sequel in the past. We await the update of a beloved game, then it comes out and we find we've paid $50+ for a lame rehash with some marginally better graphics and gameplay, or often worse graphics and gameplay. We've been suckered by the title.
On the other hand, game developers have been burned in the past too. They've spent huge sums developing a truly new game only to have it flop while Madden NFL MCMXXXLVIII sells out, when it offers nothing new other than a player roster update.
So what do you folks think? Are there too many video game sequels today? Is it partly our (gamers' in general) fault for being risk-averse in trying new titles, which makes game developers risk-averse in developing new games?