Why Do We Prefer Sequels? 121
jayintune writes "2old2play has up an editorial about our love affair, as gamers, with sequels." From the article: "Sequels make us feel comfortable. Control schemes and gameplay doesn't need to be totally relearned. If you train to be a sniper in Halo 2, hopefully you will still be a good sniper in Halo 3. I still remember the disappointment I felt when they totally changed the light saber controls when Jedi Outcast came out. For an 'old school' player like me with many hours of practice, a new control scheme was just too much to relearn. A good sequel will retain mechanics to retain the existing user base and hopefully add new players as well."
Could it be the story?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How about a storm trooper? (Score:2)
Fairly fun game.
Re: (Score:2)
Same reason we prefer McDonald's (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Same reason we prefer McDonald's (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You prefer McDonald's? (Score:2, Insightful)
If I'm considering a no-name place down the road that isn't supported by millions of dollars of advertising and support infrastructure and yet is able to stay open, I'd be optimistic enough to think that it might be better than something I know is uniformly awful. If the no-name place is new, at least they'll be wanting to make a good first impression. If variety is the spice of life,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't supported by billions in advertising. It also didn't have a huge professional infrastructure on top of it to properly train its cooks or oversee them and make sure they were following proper cooking and health procedures.
-Eric
Re: (Score:2)
I would think that McDonalds has just as many cases per year of food poisoning of that of any small mom and pop, the difference is they have a million dollar legal team to deal with any of these issues plus the marketing that makes people think they can trust the food they buy at MCDs.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
He drank the supersize soda because hte normal McD eating individual would do the same thing. I'm sure there are plenty of people in the US who drink as much soda in a day as he did.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I bet if you had some OJ with that it'd be more nutritous, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Consistancy? (Score:2)
Wow... I need to find out where this McDonald's you go to is. It sounds like Redlobster compared to the McDonald's I'm stuck with!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, it's not the best fast food available, but its the most widespread foreign franchise, and you get a reasonable meal for a reasonable total price (3 - 4 dollars).
It's not all that great, but compared to the fast food restaurants (MD and others) I saw in Miami, Fort Lauderlale(?), and Orlando when on vacation, I can see it's much cleaner here, the food tastes much better, and the people are nicer.
Of
In the US... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
False, whether the food is bad does not cause me worry when I walk into a Mac Donalds.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Haven't seen and/or played Final Fantasy X-2 then, I take it?
Uhhh... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's easier to describe Mario games as a franchise instead of sequels. I have no problem calling Mario Sunshine a sequel, but Mario 64? Different animal.
Re: (Score:2)
You make a common mistake -- an "original" game is no more novel nor innovative than a "sequel". In fact, since time has to be spent on developing a new premise, we actually wind up with less original content than if a sequal had been made.
Re: (Score:2)
Ask me again... (Score:1, Offtopic)
fear of death? (Score:2, Funny)
On the other hand, there are those sequels where we wish death would visit us before the end of the movie. So in conclusion, who knows really.
It's all about the skin... (Score:2)
Okay, so maybe this logic only applies to one specific case.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you poor wretch... You went to see the 2nd and/or 3rd Matrix movies, didn't you. There, there... it'll be okay...
The story must go on. (Score:3, Insightful)
It is more about the story, believe it or not. I mean, hello? Most FPS games share almost identical control schemes. And if the defaults aren't the same between Quake 4 and F.E.A.R then you have free reign to change the controls.
No, I think it's the story. A story creates a world in our imaginations. A world which if we find we enjoy we will want to continue to visit.
Why do I want a sequal to a movie like The Matrix? Because (actual sequels aside) I want to be able to go back to the world the Wachowski's created, be a part of it even if I'm just the observer.
TLF
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm as much for innovation as the next guy, but there's nothing wrong with building on a successful formula or continuing a successful franchise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Here's a Theory (Score:1, Interesting)
Next story: Tortoises run slowly.
Re: (Score:2)
People in that demographic would have grown up in the 1970's and 1980's. Those were two of the best decades to grow up in the U.S.
The people would have been young enough not to have dealt with the Vietnam war. The US was moving into an economic boom, things were IMPROVING. People are always happiest when things are getting better.
Not starting form scratch (Score:3, Insightful)
they already have the characters and story developed, and usually they have an engine to build with too. In other words, they're not starting from scratch, so they have more time to make a better game.
Take Mario Power Tennis, as a random example. They already had the actual Tennis part down (and down well), so they had time to tweak the controls, and add lots of fun gimmick courts and mini-games that fit well with the existing engine. (Also you get the power shots, but I'm lukewarm on those).
It's especially good if you were new to the series, because it's like you're getting everything the N64 game and those cool additions.
Re: (Score:1)
Slow down, Cowboy... blah blah blah.
All right, there is something to see here afterall (Score:1)
Well
I don't! (Score:2)
Sure maybe the control schemes are the same but the fact is that nothing grabs you like an origin
Re:I don't! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
PGR & GTA (Score:4, Insightful)
That's funny -- I thought PGR1 was "eh" after the actual original, Metropolis Street Racer on the Dreamcast. [wikipedia.org]
> And who thought San Andreas was so much better than Vice City, or even the "original" GTA3.
I certainly did, and I've been playing the GTA games since the demo of GTA1 first came out.
I think your PGR flub betrays what's actually going on here -- people are usually fondest of whichever game in a series they're exposed to first, unless a sequel really hits the ball out of the park. It's an emotional response, not a rational one. And you have to realize that each sequel is going to be someone's first exposure to a series, so the whole argument is kind of a non-starter.
FF7 fanaticism still irks me (Score:2)
I think a great example of this is with the ever popular Final Fantasy VII game. It was the first "FF" game for many folks, thanks to a huge advertising campaign by Square at the time. So, for all future FF games, FF7 has always been "the one" for these fanatics.
As
Re: (Score:2)
FF8 gets so much flack because all those tons of people that loved FF7 didn't want to see it change... And 8 was different yet. And 9 was more old-school, but with modern twists, so it was 'hated'. (I loved it.) FF10 continued the evolution from
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I thought San Andreas improved on GTA3 by leaps and bounds. The improvement from GTA3 to Vice City was not as evident but still noticable. Furthermore, the jump from GTA2 to GTA3 was monumental. I noticed that you didn't even mention that, which is quite telling about your argument.
In making a case that sequels rarely improve on the originals, you ignore the case of GTA2 -> GTA3 because it was too dramatic a ch
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, 2k3 sucked, but UT2k4 was better than either of the previous ones. More levels, return of the sniper rifle, a pile of new game modes, less gritty looking characters returning the original feel, clones of all your favourite UT99 levels, return of the much lamented Assult (this time with more balanced levels) and vehicles if you feel like playing them. I hated 2k3 but wouldn't dream of returning to UT after 2k4, I just hope that 2k7 is as good.
As for San Andreas, you havn't played it much have you? On
Re: (Score:2)
But w
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes a leopard can change it's spots, but it's still worth two in the bush
Re: (Score:2)
I thought San Andreas was much better than Vice City and GTA3. But I think that's the exception that proves the rule...
Most 'sequels' are 'spiffier-looking' rehashes (Tony Hawk anyone?), if you dig the gameplay on the original, you'll likely pay for the spiffiness of the sequel.
There are a lot of games that do this that aren't sequels. All those tactics games (Disgaea, La Pucelle, Phantom Brave, etc) are e
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Because we want more of the same (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same with video games. If a particular game brings you enjoyment, then you'll want more when you're done with the current one. A sequel provides a seemingly "safe" method of obtaining that enjoyment. Simply picking up a different title removes you from your comfort zone and exposes you to risk. Ergo, we try to minimize the number of new franchises we "get into".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Too much of a good thing... (Score:2)
Take for example Star Trek, which I think is probably a very good example.
I loved the shows - all of them, to varying degrees, but loved them. I watched TNG because I watched the originals, DS9 because I watched TNG, and voyager because I watched TNG as well (Darn them for running two series at about the same time).
I also watched Enterprise, but quite frankly that was a 'prequel' that just ruined a bunch of it.
Now shock & horror... there are fanfi
Thank god for fan fiction then! (Score:2)
What would have happened if Harry Potter had known he was a wizard earlier?
What was the final fate of Belgarion?
And, of course, you get to see unplausible "crossovers" that are terribly popular when they are sanctioned.
Eveyone loved seeing some of the Star Wars characters/actors on the muppets all those years ago.
Of course we like sequels (Score:1, Insightful)
I have a better question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait...
Because it had a chance to be refined (Score:2)
See: Oddworld's save system.
Re: (Score:2)
Then came the bloody third game with the psychic cripple toad, and they totally ditched the slick-platform style for some half-arsed semi-fps-puzzler. I couldn't bring myself to play more than a couple of hours before I wept bitterly into my shreddies.
I believe there'
Re: (Score:2)
Then came the bloody third [...] and they totally ditched the slick-platform style
I think this kinda proves my point. The second game was the same gameplay, but without the bad elements of the first.
The third only kept the brand, the name and general look, and dropped all the gameplay!
By that time, it's not a sequel, it's a franchise.
Re: (Score:1)
Sequels can propel all kinds of the game's aspects to new heights - the obvious example being GTA3. It wouldn't have been what it was if it had
Because people like known quantities (Score:3, Insightful)
You dont need to make original games, just good ones, and unlike movies, games tend to improve from one sequel to the next.
People will go for a sequel because if the original game was good, the sequel is usually at least as good, or close enough to it. Unlike movie sequels, games have more assets with which to appeal to their audience. Solid and engaging gameplay is more important than story content. The storyline for a sequel may not be as strong as the original, but most of the time the gameplay is intact. And if the gameplay is intact, it can deliver the same things that the first game did, but do so in new levels. Gameplay in sequels generally gets improved from one iteration to the next as well, since they have all the user input from the first game to fall back on. They can reduce or remove elements of the originals that did not appeal, and improve and build upon elements that did work.
Now, not all videogame sequels are as good as their predecessors, but if the orignal was a 9 out of 10 game, the sequel is probably no worse than 7 out of 10 at the worst.
END COMMUNICATION
Games that suck don't get sequels (Score:2)
Sometimes a game that does ok has enough depth and playability to make a sequel out of it,
and the authors can take the bits that worked and improve them, fix the stuff that didn't,
and add enough new material to make it worth playing (even if that's only new dungeons
to wander around in and different monsters to shoot.) Doesn't always work, but if there wasn't enough playability to make a sequel and the game tanked in the market, usually the authors will
go out of business
Stories and Dates (Score:2)
It's always better to leave while their wanting more then give them more and make them wish you would leave.
their-they're (NT) (Score:2)
Safe for publishers as well (Score:2)
I can't believe I haven't seen a single reply here talking about publishers.
Publishers love sequels far more than your average gamer, because they're a safe investment. This is particularly telling nowadays, with the cost of game development going through the roof. I read a few years ago that one of the Final Fantasy games would need to sell nearly two million copies just to turn a profit; very few games have that kind of brand recognition.
In fact, not many developers have that kind of brand recognition
Re: (Score:2)
But it's not just that. We "seem" to prefer sequels becauses these sequels are continually pushed in our faces by their marketing/advertising firms and all the spin and hype that the publishers (and developers to some extent) build up leading to their next relea
Market influence (Score:2)
Yes the consumer may feel more inclined to by sequels but that is really only true for sequels of good games. A Bad game will cause the sequels to sell worse regardless of the quality of the sequel. This works in the reverse as well. When you see a sequel to a good game there is the general idea that the sequel will be around the same quality of its predecessor. How many people bought Tomorrow Never Dies
Re: (Score:1)
You buy Perfect Dark because you loved Goldeneye.
Dupe? Not this time! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
A method that works, unlike with Movies (Score:1)
When we play games, we are the persona or the avatar, we develop skills based around our experience. Unlike a movie, if we don't like the game, we aren't likely to finish playing it. When we love a game, we play it over and over and over, and experience it in different roles. That is something that mov
Easy (Score:1)
Sometimes, just sometimes... (Score:2)
Two off the top of my head:
Descent 1 and 2, IMO, the improvements were fantastic despite some wierd bugs that
were patched quickly. The weapons, the AI, the game play were all improved.
D3 rolled around and the Grfx were fantastic, and the play was excellent still.
Max Payne 1 and 2: Good story, good action and neat gimmics and 2 made it even more
thrilling. Improved bullet-time, fantastic play and effects of two made me wish to
play the first under the MP2 engine.
Not
D3... (Score:2)
were patched quickly. The weapons, the AI, the game play were all improved.
D3 rolled around and the Grfx were fantastic, and the play was excellent still."
And this is where we'll have to part ways! Descent 3 bombed financially, whereas D1 and D2 did not. So to say D3 was better then Descent 2 is obviously at least partly incorrect. In fact I loved descent 2 to death, I played the think religiously over Kali even when frien
Re: (Score:2)
It's the Content, Stupid! (Score:2)
Sometimes its because we really enjoy the story and characters, and want to see it continue (see the Halo, Metal Gear Solid games, among many others). Often it's because we really like that particular brand of gameplay, whether it be sports (see Madden) or a brawler (see Smash Bros), or kart racing (see Mario Kart). And often its because we really like the way a particular developer makes a game (see Final Fantasy or Grand Theft Auto, b
Do we like sequel games more? (Score:1)
We're still at a point where there are very few developers in the business where plenty of people will run out and get the latest game from them due to the name. Even the really big ones like Miyamoto didn't see first week sales for a new 'original' title like Pikmin when you look at what the Nth Mario or Zelda achieves.
So unless a game looks REALLY pretty, or someone has an absolutely killer license (which is hardly a sign of originality either), to get the marketi
Re: (Score:1)
We don't like sequels... (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason that sequels sell is simple, people already know them, so its easy to market them. Saying to the customer "more of the same" gives him a idea of what the sequel will offer. With a new game on the other side the marketing department has to start from zero, explain the world, the gameplay, the genre and what not to the consumer, a heck a lot more work then just saying "more of the same". This can also be seen by non-sequels, for examples Assassin's Creed, while its an original game, every interview basically starts with "From the creators of Prince of Persia: Sands of Time...", which is really not so different from saying "more of the same", they simply build up on the fame of the past, with true sequels that is of course even easier.
In the end I don't think that consumers want sequels, it simply happens that marketing makes it easier to buy sequels then original games. There are of course a few exceptions, when the story isn't done and there is still something to be told or when the original game simply was to short to take advantange of the full potential of the game mechanics or when the technology has advanced so much that a reinterpretation of the original game is worth the try (PrinceOfPersia, Mario, etc.). For most part I would however say that non-sequels are prefered, however what I want and what I buy don't have to be the same things in the end, thanks to marketing and a bunch of other influences.
It's no different from software upgrades (Score:4, Interesting)
- correct bugs
- improve the user interface
- adds more options
Actually, the line between console games and software has already started to blur. if you look at some of the games already out for the Xbox 360, you can perform minor upgrades of your own choosing with them, adding new characters, models, weapons and textures from a growing list of options available via Xbox Live. Future titles will eventually allow you to gradually add entirely new levels/worlds to explore, instead of making you wait a year for a simple repackaging of the same game engine with different data included on the disc.
Of course, this could eventually backfire on the end user, where if you "buy" a game from a store, it's only the game engine with a couple token levels packaged in with it, requiring you to download the rest of the game from the internet in small chunks at a collectively higher price. There's talk that the next Gran Turismo title for the PS3 will actually do just that... requiring you to purchase each car or track separately.
Sequels (Score:2)
I hate and detest sequals for all they are worth. Why can't people just leave a good game alone rather than trying to constantly cash in on the name? Rarely does a sequel come out better than the original unless the original was obviously lacking (i.e. pushed out before it was finished). Video game sequels may be slightly better than movie sequels (which, again, are on the whole quite terrible with only a few minor
Re: (Score:1)
The developpers have said that they wanted Quake 2 to be a different name than "Quake" but had trouble finding one at the last minute before a public game show (E3? can't remember which one). All the titles they wanted to use were already taken or could cause problems in court after they reserched them. At the last minute they stapled "Quake 2" on it just so it could have a title.
The stories are completely different.
Quake 3 is also an off-serie
More like the industry cheating. (Score:2)
Sequels are cheaper to make, as they require less story development and can reuse textures and code from the old games, assuming it's on the same console. Even if it's not the same console, it's still less work in the end, and thus is cheaper.
So we wind up with GTA4, or a GTA clone, instead of some new type of game. Is GTA4 necessarily bad? Is the GTA clo
Prefer? No, force-fed. (Score:1)
Minor nitpick (Score:1)
Holy Over-Intellectualization (Score:1)
Now continue spooging up the internet.
A common thread (Score:1)
It's not just gaming (Score:2)
It's movies, too; both the people who make the movies and the people who see the movies like sequels because they know what to expect. Some of it is also complacency; We elect the incumbent back to the house or senate something like 95% of the time even though all of us complain about what our government is doing.
Tonto says: (Score:2)