Sequels, are they really that important?

[webshark]

ok, so i was debating some stuff over in irc a bit ago about sequels, and i want to know what the forum as a whole thinks of this (perhaps we could even get a debate going??? eh? eh?)

so looking at the current lineups of big guns coming out.....MSG4, RE5, DMC4, FF13, tekken6, COD4, Halo3, mario 35 (tho at least they are smart enough not to number their damned games)

and then listening to some of the thoughts i have heard circulating occasionally like "bioshock/Mass Effect was great!!! i cant wait till they make a bioshock/mass effect sequel"

i have even seen people say things along the lines of "[X game] was great, but it was new IP, its not going to sell well" (tho i dont think i have actually heard this excuse on this forum, i have seen it nonetheless). i think we should be supremely disappointed that new IP's dont sell well, not making excuses simply based on iteration number.

i cant help but wonder if we as gamers in general have a fundamentally wrong viewpoint towards new games. why is it that when we play something new and exciting, our first response is to wish for more of the same?

shouldnt we say "thank you sir may i have another [new game]?"

and we sit here and watch games like UnCharted flop in sales, and Bioshock struggle to to reach the 1mil mark even tho it received almost half of this years GOTY awards as a NEW IP.

i really think we as gamers are sending the wrong message to developers simply because no one buys new games, so they are further motivated to just do the same sort of thing over and over. now i know that you can get some pretty good variety out of the same general series, but there comes point of diminishing returns where it is better to just cut your losses and go somewhere new.



so what say you peeps?

is this the right mentality for gamers? is this YOUR mentality? do you pass up games simply because they dont have a number after their name?

me, while i am rabidly awaiting the next RE title, im also looking very much forward to the likes of Lost Odyssey, Infinite Undiscovery, Eternal Sonata, and Too Human.

[xxmynameisjohnxx]

I love both new, and sequels.
I think most gamers do, if the game strikes me as interesting, and it gets good reviews or I get good word of mouth, I'll get it. Doesn't matter what number it is.

Half life 2:EP3 though, perfection. or it should be.

[Darth Alec]

I'd say they are. Sequals are really taking what you liked about the last game and improving. You know what you are getting, mostly.

[downphoenix]

Originally Posted by Darth Alec

I'd say they are. Sequels are really taking what you liked about the last game and improving. You know what you are getting, mostly.

Plus while the 1st in a series may have some great formula about it, it may have flaws that bring it down, while a sequel that addresses these flaws and adds new content is automatically going to be a bigger hit. And with games that do well the 1st time and the sequel kinda goes the "me-too" route, they tend to not sell as well.

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. Example of the reverse would be Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure 2. Yes, 2 did improve on the game, but the flaws that 1 had were still in 2, so it took both a Dreamcast AND a revised Gamecube release before they could actually outsell the 1st game, and it never would have if it was on Dreamcast only.

[gdreaper]

Sequels are nothing but brand names, easier product identification and company recognition.

[Darth Alec]

Originally Posted by gdreaper

Sequels are nothing but brand names, easier product identification and company recognition.

Oh?

Sequals are a mark of quality in my eyes. Sure they can scew up (AoE3), but most sequals improve on the original.

[E6600]

Sequels are a way to cash in on previous success, but as we all know most sequels suck.

[Icemage]

I think every game should be judged upon its own merits.

New IPs are often bad; for every Bioshock, there's many more like Lair or Kane and Lynch. We tend to remember the newer IPs because the ones that stick tend to get sequels, and tend to get the marketing muscle behind them.

Is that sending a bad message to developers? I don't think so. It just means that new IPs are risky, because you're not just creating a new IP, but new gameplay to go with it, and it's harder to do well at both simultaneously.

I'll disagree with E6600 and say that sequels of good games tend to be at least playably decent as long as they're developed by the same folks. Sly Cooper, Halo, God of War, Ratchet and Clank, etc. are good examples of franchises that have been, overall, fairly well received despite having sequels.

[Dr Pepper 6pk]

if the game is good and is the sequel, they're good
besides, if a game or movie makes money, there WILL be sequels

[Fyrus]

If a sequel is done right, it can be amazing. Taking all of the things of the first iteration, fixing problems, and adding new things. Mass Effect 2 will be amazing if they stick to that formula.