what's Your opnions on video game sequels?

[1234turtles]

It seems over the past 2 or 3 year the amount of video games that get sequels have increased.
To me it feels like they're just milking frachises now.



Your opinion?

 

[Just Another Gamer]

Depends on the franchise and how the devs approach the sequel and if it improves on what was good in the previous game and makes it better than that must be a good thing.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

They're usually better and don't always entail a rehash. But it's not always the case.

Some franchises get stale and tired after continual sequels, some revitalize with sequels. Like CoD admittedly grows a bit stale after annual sequels but Assassin's Creed realized the formula was getting a bit stale with Revelations and changed it up with the Assassin's Creed III.

But I don't always want to see a franchise change every sequel, sometimes I just like having more of a good thing or being able to expand upon an old idea.

Generally though, there's nothing wrong with sequels.

 

[Blaze163]

Franchises will always get milked. Sometimes it works, sometimes they need to let it die with some dignity. Example;

- Final Fantasy was the ultimate non-Nintendo franchise at one point. It got all the way to ten numbered games before it started to suck. Now it's a joke.
- Sonic the Hedgheog was untouchable in the early days, then he fell from grace, but recently he's not doing all that bad. Generations was pretty decent IMHO.
- The Pokemon franchise seems utterly immune to the regular rules of franchise milking, as it stands with Tetris as a series that is released more or less unchanged pretty much every year and yet people still praise it.

Some franchises can keep things fresh, like Mario. Others get stale after a while. It all depends on how well the series adapts to keep the player from playing the same thing over and over again. It also depends on the fanbase. Some games like Pokemon get away with murder because they have a wide audience, so they'll still sell even if they are getting samey.

 

[The Catboy]

To me, it differs on the game franchise and how many sequels they make. So I have mixed opinions on them.

 

[Gahars]

I feel like we kind of already have this thread...

Basically, I agree with Guild that there's nothing inherently wrong with sequels. I think the best sequels find ways to build from and expand upon the foundation of the previous game, rather than rehash what's come before. (Great Examples: Arkham City, Portal 2, Saints Row 2 AND Saints Row The Third).

 

[Sterling]

If you think franchises are being milked, then don't buy them. Give the developers a reason not to continue pumping them out. 7 time out of 10 when people make this complaint, the people who complain about that are usually buying them under the table.

 

[BORTZ]

When a game takes what they did in the first one, fixes the bugs, and polishes the graphics, and maybe adds new mechanics the make the game tick smoother, then im ok with sequels.

 

[DiscostewSM]

- Final Fantasy was the ultimate non-Nintendo franchise at one point. It got all the way to ten numbered games before it started to suck. Now it's a joke.

The only games considered to be sequels in the Final Fantasy line prior to X was "IV The After Years" (thought released after X) and games related to VII. The numbering system they used did not have any relevance to the lineup, as each game did not have any ties to their predecessors in the games themselves.

If anything, the original Megaman was the ultimate non-Nintendo franchise when dealing with sequels. 6 games on one platform alone proves that.

 

[Prime_Zero]

I would have to agree with those how said " It Depends " Some times its a great thing like with Lunar Eternal blue, its was as perfect as one could be and wrapped every thing up and answered all questions. Then there are ones like Final Fantasy X-2 that should have never been made....

So its just something that can be good or bad it all just Depends

 

[Taleweaver]

My stance is that the direct sequel of the original is usually better than the first. The concept is more fleshed out, increased on the fronts that make the game interesting, some GUI tweaks...that sort of thing. The "it can get away with the same but tweaked" kinda thing.

Sequels (IMO) generally tend to fall when too much gameplay gets altered. Platformers going 3D, a sudden focus on the RPG element...that sort of thing. Game developers REALLY need to take a good look at what makes a game great (it's not as easy as it may sound).




Everything else...is somewhat inbetween. But then, I've got to admit I don't play much long-running franchises. And that by itself is kind of bizarre, considering the amount of sequels being made lately.

(okay, I admit: starting a franchise with "somegame 3" on the box is kind of a turn-off if I haven't played the previous ones)

 

[DoubleeDee]

If done right, they can be good.
The fable sequels were horrible.
Lionhead studios need to fix up.