Sequels, are they really that important?

[NapalmRiot]

sharky, is he really this stupid?


Sequels not only provide a further storyline for the game (such as MGS), leaving the fans happy, but at the same time makes the developers and publishers richer. Everyone's happy.

[STARSBarry]

Originally Posted by downphoenix

Examples of these are Halo vs. Halo 2. Halo 1 was great, but with the addition of things like Online Play and a larger, better story mode, as well as more balanced gameplay, thus Halo 2 went on to ultimately sell more copies.

wait what?

halo 2 was ultimately regarded as the worst in the series.... its online play was shallow and poor and often involved just killing someone with an SMG then duel wielding his dropped one to victory, this is shown up by the original PC halo which is far more balanced online

also everyone seemed to complain about halo 2's storyline so i guess none of the reasons you mentioned sold the game.... what did sell it though was hype... least 3 was marginally better

[webshark]

to me, part of the problem with sequels is that some of the creativity of the developers is constrained by the fact that they HAVE to fit inside the preconceived ideas of the previous iteration. you are so much more free with a new game not bound to another. also, i think it helps fight lazy developing as you cant just reuse textures and stuff since its not just a second iteration of the same game.

[boffo]

Originally Posted by webshark

to me, part of the problem with sequels is that some of the creativity of the developers is constrained by the fact that they HAVE to fit inside the preconceived ideas of the previous iteration.

That's true, and it prevents people from being able to play games like Super Mario Galaxy until they finish Super Mario Sunshine because you don't want to miss a part of the overall story line.

[PirateThom]

I think this arguement can be put to rest with:

Super Mario World.

[boffo]

Originally Posted by PirateThom

I think this arguement can be put to rest with:

Super Mario World.

I'm pretty sure that should be enough to end any argument.

[Rainbow]

To me, not every Franchise<#> game qualifies as a sequel in my eyes, and some of those franchises are just that, franchises.

Let me explain better and let's take one of the biggest franchise of all time: Super Mario. I do not consider any of the Super Mario games to be sequels of one another because 1) there is no on-going story (heck it's always the same basic story) and 2) you can skip any of those games and you won't feel lost when playing another, or you can play them in whichever order you feel.

Same goes for Final Fantasy: unless I've missed something, there is absolutely no ongoing story between any of the titles, therefore it's not a sequel.

Other franchises can have sequels and non-sequel games within the same franchise. Take Zelda with Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass being direct sequel, Wind Waker itself making a subtle reference to Ocarina of Time in the intro, and then there's Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn being direct sequel to Path of Radiance but having no other ties to the rest of the Fire Emblem franchise in terms of story.

In other words, to me a sequel means there is an ongoing story between the games. Resident Evil games are sequels, they make reference to one another, Age of Empire... not so much of a sequel than just a new version of the game with added features.


Now, about the original question, are sequels that important? In the case of a good story, I see sequels as being like TV series, or movie trilogies: you need to have them in order to know the whole story and to see the big picture. Those are nice.

As for the other type of games, the Franchise<#> games... well I'd rather have them give each game their own title (like the Super Mario and Tales of..) than having just a simple number. Are they important? Depends on which side of the fence you stand. For some companies, those franchises are very lucrative, they don't want to let them die, they don't want to make the same game but give them another name.. the name sells. For the gamer, having a renowed franchise on the shelves can mean you generally know what you're getting.

For those who didn't feel like reading through all this, let me summarize:
- I'm all for real sequels (ongoing story)
- I'm ok with franchise milking as long as the games are good
- I think we should let some franchise rest in peace once the games either suck or stop brigning anything new, aka when the games sell only based on the name of the franchise and not on the content of the games

[Junkie13]

I see sequels as two things either a direct sequel, or an expansion. Halo 2 & 3 are sequels as they carry on a story where as Age of empires each one is more of a expansion on the last.

Mario.. is just a brand name, each game holding nothing new in terms of story.
I agree certain games should be put to bed... well when I say certain games I mainly aim it at Mario. They should just kill him off. He should go out with a bang.. like a toaster in a bath tub.

For some reason, I really can't see developers killing off certain games, like Final Fantasy.. Final = last one.. it's like on the 13th installment plus all the other spin offs.
I like what Bungie did with Halo, they've stopped the trilogy but kept it open for a different direction in the games. They could of milked Halo and made 4 5 6 etc etc.

Bioshock, Gears, Mass Effect, Uncharted... They are games which deserve sequels.

[downphoenix]

Originally Posted by STARSBarry

wait what?

halo 2 was ultimately regarded as the worst in the series.... its online play was shallow and poor and often involved just killing someone with an SMG then duel wielding his dropped one to victory, this is shown up by the original PC halo which is far more balanced online

also everyone seemed to complain about halo 2's storyline so i guess none of the reasons you mentioned sold the game.... what did sell it though was hype... least 3 was marginally better

1) 1 didnt have online play until the PC version, which came out a little less than a year before 2 did on XBOX.

2) The main complaints about Halo 2's story was the anti climatic ending and playing as the arbiter. The levels themselves had a lot better design, and the cutscenes were better. Also better selection of weapons. And I personally consider Halo 2 more balanced because of a number of factors, like the pistol was more realistic, and the dual wielding allowed for a number of combinations.

3) Yes, there was the hype train too, but the game continued to sell after its initial sales, meaning that most fans loved it, and it introduced new gamers too, as Halo 2 may have been their first. And its unfair to use the hype train excuse because the 1st Halo had its fair share of Hype, and it was snagged by nearly every XBOX early adopter and had amazing review ratings, a hype train that started back in E3 2001, and often had been hailed as the best console FPS ever at least prior to Halo 2's release. Plus the Console FPS market was much healthier when Halo 2 came out, Halo 1 had relatively little competition when it came out. It did for console FPS what Mario did for Platform games, and Halo 2 would be considered like Mario 3, in that vein.

Halo 2 was a sequel of importance, it was a sequel fans wanted.

[rounds1]

I don't like sequels for the sake of a sequel. Like, I don't know what happens at the end of Bioshock, but if the story ended there - there's no reason for another Bioshock. To me, that's milking the cow. It was a great game, leave it at that and make something else now. Some stories endings are purposely "vague" in case the dev thinks there's hope of another, but I don't know if that applies to Bio.

The Halo's obviously deserved sequels. The original was excellent and the story carried over all 3 games, so each was more of a continuation of the last rather than something new - even though they each added new elements.

Some sequels start well and then become horrible and need to be put to rest. The last 3 or 4 MoH's haven't faired too well, so now it's time to get rid of it. We have enough shooters that are much better and we don't need another crappy one crowding shelves. But that's EA so it shouldn't surprise anyone that they've milked the cow dry there.

All-in-all it depends on the original - how good it was, whether the story needs to be continued, or whether it was such a good formula (COD, Splinter Cell) that another would only make sense. I don't agree with a sequel to every game that sells or does something "well," however.