Are too many sequels killing video gaming?

This seems like as good a place as any to post this:

Something occurred to me recently. I've sort of fallen out of love with videogames. There's a bunch of reasons for this; fewer friends interested in them to share the experience with, being banned from discussing them on one of my favorite social boards, a decline in Japan's industry that was what I originally loved, a lack of exciting original mechanics, and a shift from the exotic fantastic towards modern realistic simulations are among the many factors.

One game recently, who's subtitle is an anagram for Mother made me realize part of what's really killing games for me: aiming. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good shooter and aiming properly is a fun game mechanic, but part of me realized every game is essentially a variation on lining up cross-hairs with the right stick and pulling the trigger. The Mother game has some notable flaws, but there's a moment early in the game where I'm running down a hallway firing shots that automatically go where they need to where I realize that a game can be fun and challenging without manual aim from a behind the back/first person perspective.

I really think that's what's drained my love of gaming. It's not the sequels; its that every game, not just those within the same franchise or even genre have exploited a single mechanic to the point where nearly every game has started to feel like a rehash to some degree.

I think a lot of it depends on "why" there is a sequel in the first place. Is it just a continuation of the original story that the developers were time-crunched over and had to trim out (Halo 2 and 3, for example)? Did the sequel come out fairly soon after the previous game, or was there a reasonable amount of time between them? Is it because the technology exists to "do the game the way it was meant to be", like making the game for a new console generation?

Honestly, I think there's room for sequels. Generally, they keep development costs down by using a lot of the same resources. Many stories in original games lend themselves to sequels because there's a lot of loose threads, or minor characters that could have their own story told. I don't think any developer thinks that their game's life is done, even if they hadn't planned for a sequel or two. There's always something more to add, or more features that either couldn't be done at the time or there wasn't time for. They also provide revenue for more original stuff, so that's always good too.

Mediocrity and appealing to the lowest common denominator is what's killing video gaming.

I think this is question #2.

Question #1 is: Are video games dying?

And the answer is "No".

Hell, video games are flourishing. They're getting better and better and better. There are stinkers here and there, but compare them to movies, where it seems like there are way more stinkers than keepers. Of course, I could be just biased.

Yeah, some people are old fogeys, saying "[NES/SNES/Sega/Atari game] was better than any of this crap, and cheaper to make too!" To which I have to say "And guess what, those that weren't alive then, who grew up poor, or who just plain didn't have access to them, can play them now too." Re-releases, plus the modern stuff too? Win and win for everyone!

It's a great time to be a gamer.

Some sequels are good, then sometimes you get a sequel like KOTOR II or Bioshock 2 that seem to exist for the sole reason of getting a quick cash grab.

Halloween 3 (Yes I'm aware that the series was originally intended as a bunch of different stories, but the WTFness of the third movie still stands)

Saw III.

I'll go to fisticuffs with anyone that tries to write off the Saw series. I love it and analyze it a lot more than most people. That being said, I refuse to ever watch the 3rd one again. I hated it. Just made notes on what plot points would carry through, memorized those, then went to hypnotherapy to forget the rest.

I tend think sequels have every bit as much purpose as new IPs do. Some games don't quite hit their sweet spot till second or third game. Sure there's game that take steps backward because the developers are trying hard to keep the series from being stagnate. Make it too much the same and people will be up in arms about it. Change too much you get back lash as the game doesn't feel like the same series anymore. It's a tough line to walk.


I think one of the biggest gripes I have is games trying mix too many genres together AKA sandbox games. Don't get me wrong as some games placing them into big expansive 3D worlds was the next step and worked great such as Zelda: ocarina of time. Other series have been perfected in 2D such as megaman, mario, castlevania and shine the most there.

Games of yesterday had tech limitations and had to pick a strength. Some times they would turn limits into a unique gameplay mechanic. Such as Bionic commando focused on swinging around rather than jumping since you couldn't fit any more buttons on a NES controller. Silent Hill put fog in it's backguards to hide some of the graphical weakness which made the game spookier. Games would pick a strength and do it well as they could.

Current games have a bad habit of watering down genres such as survival horror and stealth games. In both you would be inept in combat because it would force you to avoid trouble , conserve resources and use stealth. Now both have more or less mutated into 3D action games.(such as metal gear and Resident Evil.) I mean who doesn't want a character who can duke it out with everything on screen with no qualms. Sorry for giving people a different type of challenge besides mauling everything insight.

I don't see sequels being the problem. I have more of a problem that people started putting graphics before game play.(thanks final fantasy 7.) Flash before substance. They've turned gaming into T ball where everyone wins. Heaven forbid people actually get stuck in a game and...GASP have to learn new tactics and tricks besides button mashing through everything. And developers just making massive games that try do everything but excell at nothing. (see brutal legend.) Those are much bigger beefs in my mind than sequels.

I always thought it was obvious why Madden is so popular.

It not only has the pure gamer culture playing it, it has the sports fans who buy the systems, just to play the the Madden games.

Maybe it's just me living ina smaller area now, but there's still a lot out there who look at some of the fantasy setting games and go "to cool for that" but make it a sports game and it's okay!

Maybe they'll make exceptions for a few games, like Halo. But it'll always come back to those sports games.

I've worked with quite a few, and to them, the new Madden game is the only game they really look forward to picking up at the local Gamestop.