surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Aurain argues in favor of the proposition: 
ZombiePlatypus argues against the proposition: 
Anyone else think Aurain's argument was basically moaning about the Sonic series mixed in with a few jokes? You know it's bad when the point of the text doesn't come in until the 3rd to last sentence.
I don't think that gamers truly hate the concept of sequels. Bad sequels created solely to make money are of course derided, but there are plenty of franchises that we still want more games for- Darkstalkers, Deus Ex, Grand Theft Auto, etc.
Oh God, I haven't seen the "why did uncharted have to be made?" meme if years. I would have voted for ZP on that alone, but I also agreed with his argument more.
I don't mind sequels like the Final Fantasy series since every game is pretty independent from the others. CoD series, where it's the same game over and over again can DIAF.
Sequels are just a mixed bag, so painting it it with a broad brush it's silly and deconstructionist(intellectually lazy). Done with care and time, sequels can be great if the material feels fresh enough again, suc as perhaps having one or two games per console cycle. Sequels usually get into these days is not enough time and resources, or enough time for a full idea for a new game to gestate. Assassin's Creed Revelations is running into this territory, and Bioware did with Dragon Age 2. Those games did not get enough time in the oven, and really bespeak the publisher's desire to quickly cash in on a recent success, for the bare minimum of investment of time.
I think that sequels can be good, if done properly. Take Mario for example, without thinking about the educational games, can anyone name a Mario sequel that was less than enjoyable?
Have to admit feeling a bit sequelitis'd out this year. Lots of great sequels to great games, but missing the buzz of something totally new.
Interesting topic when you turn it over in your head.
The increased disposition towards sequels is what worries me, as ZombiePlatypus says, many new ips that were introduced in just this generation are now trilogies or will be before the generation is over.
I often look at my games collection and marvel about how many are either the first or only entry in a series. Out of 75 games over 5 systems, 20 are first or only entries, and of those 20, only 2 have not spawned sequels (and its dc universe- an mmo; the other is Madworld for the Wii).
I think the amount of sequels can be seen as detrimental and derivative but I think in most cases it point to the fact that people enjoy certain universes, characters and playstyles and the nature of games allows you to revisit those things in many iterations through sequels moreso than other media.
Making a new entry in a movie or book series requires a conscious continuation of the story and development on the part of the creators. With the inherently transmediated nature of games, however, much of the creativity and engagement in a world or story is left up to the consumer and thus leaves room for sequels (and lots of them) in ways that other media perhaps don't.
In addition, subscription models, dlc, and increased focus on online play and continued profit mean that developers can extend developments in story arcs and gameplay mechanics beyond the release of a game and into sequels or expansions.
The danger I think is, as ZombiePlatypus points out, stagnation between releases. If we are getting the same game 3 or more times, what's the point? At the same time, if the game changes such as.to become unrecognizable from the first game(s), what's the point in making it part of the series? The answer of course is that we don't become attached to jumping or shooting or turn based combat as much as we become attached to the universe which the game allows us to participate in, and the individualized, unique experience of participationg in it.
The increased disposition towards sequels is what worries me, as ZombiePlatypus says, many new ips that were introduced in just this generation are now trilogies or will be before the generation is over.
I often look at my games collection and marvel about how many are either the first or only entry in a series. Out of 75 games over 5 systems, 20 are first or only entries, and of those 20, only 2 have not spawned sequels (and its dc universe- an mmo; the other is Madworld for the Wii).
I think the amount of sequels can be seen as detrimental and derivative but I think in most cases it point to the fact that people enjoy certain universes, characters and playstyles and the nature of games allows you to revisit those things in many iterations through sequels moreso than other media.
Making a new entry in a movie or book series requires a conscious continuation of the story and development on the part of the creators. With the inherently transmediated nature of games, however, much of the creativity and engagement in a world or story is left up to the consumer and thus leaves room for sequels (and lots of them) in ways that other media perhaps don't.
In addition, subscription models, dlc, and increased focus on online play and continued profit mean that developers can extend developments in story arcs and gameplay mechanics beyond the release of a game and into sequels or expansions.
The danger I think is, as ZombiePlatypus points out, stagnation between releases. If we are getting the same game 3 or more times, what's the point? At the same time, if the game changes such as.to become unrecognizable from the first game(s), what's the point in making it part of the series? The answer of course is that we don't become attached to jumping or shooting or turn based combat as much as we become attached to the universe which the game allows us to participate in, and the individualized, unique experience of participationg in it.
I like how I am always set to give an opinion based off the header alone, but end up seeing two arguments that do a very good job of explaining themselves almost to the point of indecision.
Well done gentlemen.
Well done gentlemen.
I think in terms of sequals the last few years (this year especially) were really damn good. If it werent for sequals we wouldnt get great games like donkey kong country returns, donkey kong country returns, and who couldn't forget donkey kong country returns.
I agree that Aurain argument was basically railing against the Sonic series. Which is weird cause I expected someone to take on Final Fantasy. Although FF is a good.example of.why the "sequelitis" example is so weird: they are in the "final fantasy" "series" and yet few games are actually direct sequels of one another and most have very little if anything to do with each other in terms of story and, increasingly, even gameplay mechanics.
For this we might point to repitition of tropes: magic/nature vs. technology, racism, boy saves girl, hero saves world, etc.
It's also interesting to me that no one brings up the effect of nostalgia on our "want" of sequels. What we really want is a replication of the experiencing of a game for the first (or hundredth) time which is falsely promised by a game beating the sane name, characters, or resemblance.
I think the "rise" of retro and/or indie games like Terraria, Minecraft, and VVVVVV is due in part to their ability to accurately recreate the experiences we seat h for in nostalgia: exploration, creation, adversity, and community.
For this we might point to repitition of tropes: magic/nature vs. technology, racism, boy saves girl, hero saves world, etc.
It's also interesting to me that no one brings up the effect of nostalgia on our "want" of sequels. What we really want is a replication of the experiencing of a game for the first (or hundredth) time which is falsely promised by a game beating the sane name, characters, or resemblance.
I think the "rise" of retro and/or indie games like Terraria, Minecraft, and VVVVVV is due in part to their ability to accurately recreate the experiences we seat h for in nostalgia: exploration, creation, adversity, and community.
If we say Valkyria Chronicles III enough times, maybe they will bring it over! VALKYRIA CHRONICLES III VALKYRIA CHRONICLES III VALKYRIA CHRONICLES III VALKYRIA CHRONICLES III VALKYRIA CHRONICLES III
No dice? Then I guess I'm stuck buying 50 copies of Kingdom Hearts 3D so that they make a sequel to The World Ends With You.
No dice? Then I guess I'm stuck buying 50 copies of Kingdom Hearts 3D so that they make a sequel to The World Ends With You.
I don't know what you're thinking. Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure 2 were both great games. Honestly, I think the 3D Sonic games really aren't that bad. The day levels of Sonic Unleashed were quite fun, and while the night ones could have been a lot better, they weren't all that bad. Everyone just jumps on the 3D Sonic hating bandwagon. It's just an over reaction and over generalization, and if you actually played the games with an open mind maybe you would realize they're not really bad games.
Terrible argument from Aurain. The proposition wasn't whether Sonic sequels are excessive. You didn't even try to relate it to the industry at large. All I saw was lame ass attempts at being funny in place of what could have been an actual argument.
ZP at least understood the point, and made some good arguments.Although a whole paragraph dedicated to ripping on Uncharted was pathetic. Makes me wonder if you're an idiot or just stuck up. Or was it a joke? I can't tell.
ZP at least understood the point, and made some good arguments.Although a whole paragraph dedicated to ripping on Uncharted was pathetic. Makes me wonder if you're an idiot or just stuck up. Or was it a joke? I can't tell.
"Sonic Adventure 2 came out in 2001 and it was so bad that it literally drowned the Dreamcast in shame."
I immediately stopped caring about Aurain's argument once I read this.
I immediately stopped caring about Aurain's argument once I read this.
"Faster than a rainbow being censored at a late night bar."
Brilliant.
As for the argument, I honestly can't decide. Deciding on a series-by-series basis sits better with me.
Also, saying 'Mass Debate' out loud on a packed train yields interesting results.
Brilliant.
As for the argument, I honestly can't decide. Deciding on a series-by-series basis sits better with me.
Also, saying 'Mass Debate' out loud on a packed train yields interesting results.
"Although a whole paragraph dedicated to ripping on Uncharted was pathetic. Makes me wonder if you're an idiot or just stuck up. Or was it a joke? I can't tell."
"Meme... Even worse :P"
"Meme... Even worse :P"
AND ONE MORE THING...
I think looking back at sonic's games, the only ones I call atrocious are Shadow (spinoff), 06 (what else) and Black Knight (cashcow).
I think looking back at sonic's games, the only ones I call atrocious are Shadow (spinoff), 06 (what else) and Black Knight (cashcow).
If I had to choose, I would definitively go in favour because I prefer new original experiences over more of the same and or more better games. Why? because no matter how much it improves the experience, it may be technically better but it still wont have the same impact as the first time you experienced that game franchise with a defining entry.
Skyward sword may be the best zelda game yet, but it still wont match my feelings for a link to the past, the first truly perfect zelda experience. With that said I still buy plenty of sequels just because if you like a game, why not get its next entry?
All in all I think there has to be a balance in the force...or in this case between sequels and original titles but nobody can deny that balance is getting to the sequel territory as each year we see fewer original experiences but as long as they exist we should support them if we want our gaming industry to thrive instead of growing stale.
Skyward sword may be the best zelda game yet, but it still wont match my feelings for a link to the past, the first truly perfect zelda experience. With that said I still buy plenty of sequels just because if you like a game, why not get its next entry?
All in all I think there has to be a balance in the force...or in this case between sequels and original titles but nobody can deny that balance is getting to the sequel territory as each year we see fewer original experiences but as long as they exist we should support them if we want our gaming industry to thrive instead of growing stale.
What's wrong with developers giving us more of what we want? Why shouldn't you happily buy any sequel to a game if you like it. There will always be developers making original IP with original gameplay. They do the sequels because it is what they want to do. You wouldn't like people telling you how to run your life right?
I don't even know how something so trivial in a hobby I love so much is the cause for a MassDebate. The real offenders here are all the crybabys here that are just pissing on everyone else's coffee.
I don't even know how something so trivial in a hobby I love so much is the cause for a MassDebate. The real offenders here are all the crybabys here that are just pissing on everyone else's coffee.
Gonna go with ZombiePlatypus on this one.
I don't need an original game for originality's sake. It would be nice if every developer just stopped for one year and made new IPs, but if that happened, how many would really be that different from other games they do.
Particularly in the case of first person shooters, but others as well.
At the end of the day, I still see plenty of originals happen each year. This year it was Radiant Historia, Catherine, Sword and Sworcery and Shadows of the Damned for me. I bought them all brand new - did the people that squawk on and on about originals buy Shadows of the Damned?
Apparently not, since I'm only one of the 24,000 between PS3 and 360 that bought it. Will they turn out for Lollipop Chainsaw. I somehow doubt it. At least Catherine broke 500k, which is highly unusual for an Atlus game.
I'll buy originals and I'll buy sequels. Complain about sequels if you want, but I won't.
I don't need an original game for originality's sake. It would be nice if every developer just stopped for one year and made new IPs, but if that happened, how many would really be that different from other games they do.
Particularly in the case of first person shooters, but others as well.
At the end of the day, I still see plenty of originals happen each year. This year it was Radiant Historia, Catherine, Sword and Sworcery and Shadows of the Damned for me. I bought them all brand new - did the people that squawk on and on about originals buy Shadows of the Damned?
Apparently not, since I'm only one of the 24,000 between PS3 and 360 that bought it. Will they turn out for Lollipop Chainsaw. I somehow doubt it. At least Catherine broke 500k, which is highly unusual for an Atlus game.
I'll buy originals and I'll buy sequels. Complain about sequels if you want, but I won't.
i'm sorry, I can't really choose to vote because i disagree/agree with both.
Aurain bitches about Sonic and this is his whole point, I disagree because i think Sonic Adventure is really good, and people look too much over the fact of the additional useless characters in them, yeah it's a bad thing but if you look over it you can go and enjoy a sonic game.
And Sonic Generations is freaking awesome and he's too butthurt with DeviantArt( but that i agree with him :p).
I think that Platypus gets the vote for me because he made the best point, but in the same time his rant about Uncharted is nonsensical and I think that the game doesn't need to be innovative every time, as long that tells a good story, has playable mechanics, and the characters are well written/played we don't need to put new stuff that can ruin the end of the trilogy.
Of course that innovation is a good thing, but only if it's used in the right time and the right way. So I can't really give my vote to Aurain (because of the Sonic bitching) and I can't give the vote to Platypus because of the idiotic remark about Uncharted.
Also, I don't give a shit about Uncharted, I don't even have a PS3 but I know that the game is well written and don't need new things, otherwise this game wouldn't have a perfect score on Destructoid.
Basically, innovation is a good thing but only if it's used in the right time and in the right way.
(If the Uncharted part was a joke, so it wasn't the best one)
Aurain bitches about Sonic and this is his whole point, I disagree because i think Sonic Adventure is really good, and people look too much over the fact of the additional useless characters in them, yeah it's a bad thing but if you look over it you can go and enjoy a sonic game.
And Sonic Generations is freaking awesome and he's too butthurt with DeviantArt( but that i agree with him :p).
I think that Platypus gets the vote for me because he made the best point, but in the same time his rant about Uncharted is nonsensical and I think that the game doesn't need to be innovative every time, as long that tells a good story, has playable mechanics, and the characters are well written/played we don't need to put new stuff that can ruin the end of the trilogy.
Of course that innovation is a good thing, but only if it's used in the right time and the right way. So I can't really give my vote to Aurain (because of the Sonic bitching) and I can't give the vote to Platypus because of the idiotic remark about Uncharted.
Also, I don't give a shit about Uncharted, I don't even have a PS3 but I know that the game is well written and don't need new things, otherwise this game wouldn't have a perfect score on Destructoid.
Basically, innovation is a good thing but only if it's used in the right time and in the right way.
(If the Uncharted part was a joke, so it wasn't the best one)
My favorite part was when Aurain lamented the loss of Shenmue 3 and Valkyria Chronicles III.
YES THANK YOU </3
YES THANK YOU </3
@ZP I knew I read that Uncharted stuff somewhere before. I had forgotten about that.
@Aurain Man, you successfully done trolled the Sonic fans. +1 butthurt for you, hahaha.
@Aurain Man, you successfully done trolled the Sonic fans. +1 butthurt for you, hahaha.
ZombiePlatypus clearly wins this one. Sorry Aurain. Before he even made the point that you want Valkyria Chronicles III, I noticed it as well. Yet you're arguing that sequelitis is excessive?
I can't support an argument that is based on the belittling of some of my favorite games of all time.
And the image at the top is a poor example of sequelitis since at the Final Fantasy series has differentiated each sequel since the beginning of the series rather significantly. That and there are two pictures of FFXII when there should be an FFX-2 or FFXI.
Yearly sequelitis is worse than sporadic sequelitis.
And the image at the top is a poor example of sequelitis since at the Final Fantasy series has differentiated each sequel since the beginning of the series rather significantly. That and there are two pictures of FFXII when there should be an FFX-2 or FFXI.
Yearly sequelitis is worse than sporadic sequelitis.
I side with the undead aquatic mammal.
Sequels are not inherently evil. Some sequels deserve to be made, because they're good games in their own right. Destructoid's GOTY, Portal 2, is a prime example. Valve took the setting and basic concept from the original Portal, expanded it, and in many ways, improved on it.
The problem is the perceived need for some games to release a sequel every single year. Does Madden really need a full-priced sequel for each football season? There's only so many ways you can engineer a football videogame. They'll add or tweak one mechanic or another and re-release it with all the new players. I'm certain the core Madden game from a few years ago is perfectly playable; all it needs is a roster update.
Similarly, the current incarnations of Modern Warfare and Battlefield are incremental changes, not full re-imaginings and re-workings of their concepts. New maps, maybe a few new guns, and a few more graphic oohs and ahhs. The core games remain virtually unchanged.
I can't blame the publishers for wanting sequels - it's a business, after all. However, a game like Skyrim demonstrates that sequels don't need to be annual to be successful. To date, they've sold 10 million copies of the game and raked in about $650 million.
The previous game in the Elder Scrolls series, Oblivion, was released in early 2006 (2007 for PS3). That's more than five years - a lifetime when measured in Call Of Duty years. Bethesda took the time to create a full-scale, full-quality sequel, technical issues aside.
If Bethesda's parent company (ZeniMax Media) insisted on annual releases for Elder Scrolls games, the quality of the games would almost certainly lapse. A large part of Skyrim's popularity is the sheer scale of the game. Could an annual release come anywhere close to that amount of content? Absolutely not.
Sequels can be good. Mandatory annual sequels are not.
Sequels are not inherently evil. Some sequels deserve to be made, because they're good games in their own right. Destructoid's GOTY, Portal 2, is a prime example. Valve took the setting and basic concept from the original Portal, expanded it, and in many ways, improved on it.
The problem is the perceived need for some games to release a sequel every single year. Does Madden really need a full-priced sequel for each football season? There's only so many ways you can engineer a football videogame. They'll add or tweak one mechanic or another and re-release it with all the new players. I'm certain the core Madden game from a few years ago is perfectly playable; all it needs is a roster update.
Similarly, the current incarnations of Modern Warfare and Battlefield are incremental changes, not full re-imaginings and re-workings of their concepts. New maps, maybe a few new guns, and a few more graphic oohs and ahhs. The core games remain virtually unchanged.
I can't blame the publishers for wanting sequels - it's a business, after all. However, a game like Skyrim demonstrates that sequels don't need to be annual to be successful. To date, they've sold 10 million copies of the game and raked in about $650 million.
The previous game in the Elder Scrolls series, Oblivion, was released in early 2006 (2007 for PS3). That's more than five years - a lifetime when measured in Call Of Duty years. Bethesda took the time to create a full-scale, full-quality sequel, technical issues aside.
If Bethesda's parent company (ZeniMax Media) insisted on annual releases for Elder Scrolls games, the quality of the games would almost certainly lapse. A large part of Skyrim's popularity is the sheer scale of the game. Could an annual release come anywhere close to that amount of content? Absolutely not.
Sequels can be good. Mandatory annual sequels are not.
follow
