Sequels, are they really that important?

[downphoenix]

True.

Also sequels dont have to be released right away.

Rare is making a new Banjo Kazooie game, how long has it been since we had one of those, 8 years? I think 8 years is a pretty long wait for a sequel, so yea. For Ninja Gaiden, people had to wait 13 years between NG3 and NG on XBOX. That wait's a bit obsessive since it skipped 2 console generations.

I think the rule of thumb should be: If you are gonna take a lot of time between sequals, dont skip more than 1 console generation.

Though NG on XBOX was pretty awesome, to be fair.

[Darth Alec]

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.

Here you have an issue though. AoE series isn't a self contained world. It's a historical series. But yes, I do agree that the 2 and 3 games are more massive expansions then actal new games.

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.

Mario isn't a series as such. But it is a number of games within it's own universe. And most of the games are enjoyable experiences, although some are funner then others. It's a series that deserves to live. As long as it's enjoyable, it should live.

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.

Halo 4 will arrive. The current story arc is finished, but the franchise is so big that sequals and spin-offs are garentuede. A spin-off is already in the makings, and with MS owning the Halo franchise, Halo 4 might just be the launch title for the Xbox 720.

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

I agree.

[rounds1]

NG is one I'd put in the category of "awesome formula," yet the story doesn't necessarily lend itself to sequels. Certain games come along sometimes that are just very well done and you'd hate to lose that formula from generation to generation. Do we need another NG this gen? I'd say not because it probably won't be much different.

Some games should get at least 1 sequel per generation, especially if there's nothing "quite like it" out there. Like, I'd love to see another Crimson Skies - simply because it was an awesome game and I think they could add a few things to make it even better.

[Spindel]

I want a proper Unreal 2. DAMIT!!!! >.<

Not that crap that was Unreal 2 that only had some vague link to original Unreal by (maybe) being in the same universe (or a similar universe).

(Yes I want more of the same but thats just because the original was so awesome it deserves a sequel, maybe not a prison ship crashing on a planet this time but something similar to how the feeling and narration was in original Unreal (and not a dumbed down easy sequel (that also was a problem with the game with the name Unreal 2 it was waaaaaaaaaaaay easier than Unreal ever was) but a sequel that lives up to the type of story the original had) )

[Gnu]

In the world of movies:

Sequels typically make more money than the original movie that the sequel is based upon.

Typically, the sequel is not as well received by critics.

I can say from my own experience, I agree with the critics on a great number of occasions.

For games? Yes, it seems to follow the same trend. Most people i know like Halo better than Halo II. Riding on the coattails of a previous game's success makes sense, since every (public) corporation's primary goal has to be the accumulation of profit.

[codenamelenny]

Sequels are good as long they don't come out every year.(Madden, Megaman,etc.) But I also think some games don't need sequels like bioshock. But people like familiarity so we are also going to have sequels.

[PirateThom]

The Metal Gear series hasn't changed gameplay in 20 years, bar the switch to 3D, but it's a series that people want and has just enough extras and story to keep people interested.

It's a series I buy consoles for (I bought a GameCube for Twin Snakes) and genuinely want.

[Fyrus]

Originally Posted by PirateThom

The Metal Gear series hasn't changed gameplay in 20 years, bar the switch to 3D, but it's a series that people want and has just enough extras and story to keep people interested.

It's a series I buy consoles for (I bought a GameCube for Twin Snakes) and genuinely want.

don't be stupid .

[Azt3k]

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

Fanboy :facepalm:

[PirateThom]

Originally Posted by Fyrus

don't be stupid .

I'm being serious. The MSX games play exactly like 2D versions of the PS+ games. The core gameplay is exactly the same.