What is Digg?111 Comments
- devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -6/+76What's that "Why" doing in the title? The question you should ask is "DO we prefer sequels?" Or maybe, "WHY is the entertainment industry shoving sequels down our throats?"
- vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+50at least game sequels tend not to be as disappointing as movie sequels.
- Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Simple answer: ( i didn't RTA btw) We generally want more of something we enjoyed. there you have it....
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22"sequels are more predictable for studios"
Sequels are more predictable for gamers, too. If someone has played Action Game 3 and enjoyed it, they have a fairly good hunch that Action Game 4 will be just as good (and likely even better). They use this familiarity as the deciding factor for spending $50 of their hard-earned money.
As someone smarter than me has already pointed out below:
"We generally want more of something we enjoyed."
You blame companies for capitalizing on our own choices? You're ridiculous. - darthtrevino, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16The same reason we like fast food. It's a consistent, memorable experience. Quality be damned.
- NICU, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18That's a weird topic but they sum everything up - sequels are more predictable for studios so they take the safe road and produce one new game after every 25 sequels. Then again if they did make a new first-person shooter how many people would leave the ones they've been playing for years and start a new one? A ton of MMO's have come out but not many people leave the ones they're used to. I'd say studios should slow down and make fewer games but make them all higher quality.
- neuroplasma, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I love SQL.
- loof, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11The real question is why do they keep making sequels long after they've lost all thier original charm ala Tomb Raider.
- Rayonic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11You stole my response.
The movie industry does tend to be really flakey with sequels. Game companies are more reliable. - 72doubledown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8anyone here excited about rocky 6?
me neither. - NoHandle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Terminator 2 was better than Terminator 1 IMO
- carbonetc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I think it might have actually been Superman 2.5. Or Superman 3 in a parallel universe.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Game Sequels = Usually Better than the original if they adhere to the gameplay and add in the right areas. (NOT Deus Ex 2 - That would be like saying the sequel to Gone with the Wind was Manos, The Hand of Fate)
Movie Sequels = Worse than the original... Except in rare cases... (Empire Strikes Back, LOTR trillogy, etc) - jmdajr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4so does mean no more zelda and mario games?
come on, fans want to see their favorite games come back.
I know I do. - Lonecow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Sequels are fine as long as they are done right. Nintendo knows how to keep their series fresh because honestly it's their bread and butter. They make a crappy mario game and its over for them (I'm talking about the main Mario line here not the spin offs (and Sunshine was a much better game then most other games on the market, it just wasn't the best Mario game but it wasn't crappy by any means.)
Typically I think video game sequels get better with each new version, whereas Hollywood films get worse (yes I know there are RARE exceptions ;) ) - NICU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think sequels are cool. I liked the original Mario Kart but after a while the graphics were out dated and gameplay wasn't as good. Then Mario Kart comes out for N64 then Gamecube and its better in each new revision but it keeps the same old-school stuff that I liked.
- Chode2235, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Select *
From
Games
Where
(New.Title -1) = Old.Title - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If we like a game then a new game based on the same concept and controls but with a new story an maybe some expanded features is something we can also enjoy. I think we like game sequals because we know from previous versions that its fun and its something we know we will enjoy.
Unfortunately if you look at movie sequals, the only ones I think anyone really cares about are ones where the first movie didn't tell the whole story. i.e. Lord of the Rings. But when they make a sequal just to make a sequal and it usually ends up as crap. I mean look at The Crow. That movie was an awesome movie. Now look at its sequals, crap. So, from this we can learn that movie sequals are only good if its an epic story spanning multiple parts and game sequals are best if they follow the core formula of the original and mostly add a new branch to a storyline.
Unless its sports games, then the reason why sequals are so popular with those I think is because they have better graphics and udpated rosters. Other than that they really haven't changed much in the last few years. - adougherty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Part of what makes a game sequel so great, where movie sequel fails, is the improvement in technology. With faster CPUs, and GPUs, more Hard Drive Space, larger removable media, more memory, etc (that applies to both desktop and console), as well as constantly improving programming techniques, less of a need to rush to market, and taking in user experience, each game become better than the previous.
As much as I loved the latest Prince of Persia game, when I tried to play the original, I just about pulled my hair out. much of the principles are the same, but with better graphics, more interaction, and improved story, I was able to enjoy the new one a lot more.
The movie industry is not based on a constantly improving medium, so is forced to rely on making the next story as good or better than the original, which is no easy task. - sleze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3We don't PREFER sequels(even though we may enjoy them). The game companies (just like movie companies) lack creativity.
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9The answer is that *we* do not prefer sequels, but publishers do.. because a sequel is seen as a safer bet financially.
- doodirock2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Seriously, Nintendo is the king of the sequel. I have been playing the same characters for 20 years with Nintendo. If anyone knows sequels, its them. In fact most of their high sales can be attributed to Zelda, Mario, Wario, Metroid, and so on.
- Xarou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The guy's comment on the FF series is a little off. To clerify for people who aren't familiar with it, FF I - XIII, MC, CC, Adventures 1-3 (correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there were 3 of them for the GB), and Tactics are all separate from each other. There is no shared character, setting, whatever between them all. The uniqueness of FF is that each game, with exceptions of X-2, VII: DoC, and XII: RW for the DS, ended the fantasy and they started a new one. That was why they could have gotten away with the title as it was.
- daimposter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3we DO prefer sequels because we find it safe. all you other people who knock sequels are in the minority, why else do sequels become top grossers (video games or movies). we like what we feel comfortable because we are investing $10/2hrs at a movie or $40-$60 on a game. If we liked the original, there is a better than average change we will like the sequel (maybe not AS much but still like it).
Besides, do you know how many 'original' ideas fail relative to sequels? Let's just say 1 in 3 sequels is a hit........then an 'original' idea might have one hit in 12 chances.
so quit your whining people. - benitojuarez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3darkcyde...why are you hating on a game thats 10 years old?
http://www.gamespot.com/snes/action/princeofpersia2thesatf/index.html?q=prince%20of%20persia - staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Sequels in the world of video games are different because most of the time it is not about beating a dead horse. From the final fantasy series to ace combat, The original megaman's and the mario series, there are very few defining threads that link the games. Story, characters and gameplay in sequels can be completley independant from the first. In most cases video game sequels are better than thier predecessors because of gameplay, character design or means of story-telling. Another reason why game sequels are well liked is because of the countinuing arc of storytelling that , for the most part, seem to fit together well.
- jmdajr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3A lot of ideas still need to be perfected. Sequels are fine with me, just look at games like Resident Evil 4! As long a it's mixed with something new, I'm good.
- vashmyvindows, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3George Lucas must have known this. If he started at episode I, there wouldn't be 6 movies today.
- Jeebugorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"So, Hollywood might string out 2 or 3 Spider-mans and get hundreds of millions of dollars, but eventually they will hit a wall when the 4th spider-man sequel that uses different writers, directors, or even actors fails to be inspired or interesting. Same goes for video games"
not 100% true as there are rare exceptions. for example: the bond series. i think they are currently on...#22, i think. bond has already saved the world from everything possible....twice.....and people still go watch those movies. on top of that....they re-making/re-made the orignal james bond and the cycle is starting over. point is that there are some serieses (or however you make series plural) that defy logic..........but i'll be there opening night for Casino Royale!! - oxyrubber, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5We didn't necessarily enjoy the first in the series.
It is CHEAPER. Half the marketing for the sequel was already done on the first game/movie. If the first movie warranted a sequel, then the sequel capitalizes on everything that was good about the first (but lacks the originality of a ground-up game/movie). Word-of-mouth, prior marketing, and brand-name-association all play a part in making sequels more predictably profitable. - Jeebugorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i generally prefer a sequel to a prequel (unless its a complete rework...ala Batman Begins). thats not to say i like sequels...but they are usually better than prequels (i'm looking at you George Lucas!!)
- NICU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sorry to stay on the original topic but I completely agree with adougherty above. A sequel to a game is usually an enhanced version of the original that I liked a lot. Like any of the Madden games - the first was cool then with each new version if was just like a graphics and game play upgrade on one of my favorite games. Or a better example is Warcraft 1 and Warcraft 2 (I didn't like 3).
- enanogrande1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Dude, While I totally agree with what you're saying (to an extent) I'd just like to point out that you're wrong in regards to some of the series.
'Megaman' is most definetly and intertwining story, both within each of the different series and amongst the series as a whole (ie. 'X' is a continuation of the story of the original, and 'Zero' and 'Legends' as well; only 'Battle Network' is it's own continuity, but even that is getting a sequel series within the next year.)
Also Mario, while not sharing an overarching story (at least not an evident one) still has recurring characters, and the plot is gennerally unchanged from game to game.
The Ace Combat series, however, you're right on; granted, I've only played the series sparingly (2, 4, and 5) but the games are only alike in base gameplay and name, as the characters don't repeat (altough I guess it could be argued that the story is the same, seeing as they all they place on different times and places on Earth)
Again, I'm in total agreeance with you, just pointing that out. - Genthree, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10This is a misleading example because EA produces sports games, which require an update every year to keep the current players available. While they are technically sequels, I don't think they should be used as evidence for the case that sequels are taking over the gaming industry.
- Neurofiend, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It costs a lot of money to produce games/movies, and for video games half a million units (not an actual figure, but I KNOW it's really high) have to be sold before the company even breaks even. Companies like ideas that have been done over and over again because they know there's a market for them, not necessarily because the consumer prefers them. In the Indigo Prophecy Postmortem (June/July GameDeveloper Mag.) David Cage (CEO Quantic Dream) stated "[A] truly original project will never be signed by a publisher unless a misunderstanding occurs. If the publisher really understood what was being signed, it would never sign it".
- GhostToon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If it was good enough for a sequel to be made then our mind thinks the sequel will be good. Instead most of the time we are just reminded about how good the original was and wish they had put more stuff from the original in the sequel.
- xtr3m, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21) No need to come up with entirely new story.
2) Trusted name.
But, really, sequels exists mainly because it's a good way for companies to juice consumers for more money. - Jeebugorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2or rambo 4
- TrainwreckX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Gonna have to go with ilyag on this one. Companies would probably stop making sequels if we stopped buying them. However right now, some of the top most anticipated titles are Final Fantasy 12, Metal Gear Solid 4, Halo 3, Zelda: Twilight Princess, Gran Turismo 5, etc.
Don't blame the company. If it isn't what the gamers want, they won't buy it. However, as sad as it is, this is usually only the case with new IPs. Poor Beyond Good and Evil, Stranger, and Psychonaughts :( - riplikethat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sequels are good, but for only games that deserve it (DeusEx did.. too bad they ***** the sequel up..). 99.9% of the times you can be sure that developers (movies/games/porno) are in it just to milk the fans one last time (or in the case of HALO/Warcraft/Final Fantasy.. multiple times).
Look at NFS series.. the only 'major' update was done with "Most Wanted", after that, Carbon (the upcoming sequel) is again looking like their Underground 2 + MW (all the crap from this one) put together to again make some moolah on a crappy sequel (hell, they know fans will buy it, bitch about it.. say they won't buy anything from EA again, then go back and buy it again next year). - ChristianD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Easy answer, Sequels give you a chance to fix everything you did wrong in the first. Star Wars would be the only exception to that.
Lucaus did us no justice. - oldtimegamer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I love how many people are saying they don't love sequels in these comments. That just goes to show how many people are in total denial. Sequels not only are purchased by gamers, but often in record numbers over original content. They wouldnt keep making them if you stopped buying them.
- DrSkrud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I went to an IGDA meeting once where this was the main topic of discussion. It turns out that sequels and movie franchises typically sell enough copies to *break even*.
With *new* titles, however, the game is either a hit or miss. If it's a miss, the company loses a ton of money, and if it's a hit (the canonical example being GTA) it makes millions.
But there's a lot of *risk* involved in creating *new* intellectual property, and businesses in general try to minimize risk. While the potential for greater profit exists in creating new intellectural property, the *safety* of creating sequels to existing franchises and movie licenses is more attractive. - DreadPirateWes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Jee -- Yes I think we all disregarded those anyway:)
- authors, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When games are as good as Red Alert, CCG, etc. then we sure the heck want sequels. :)
- millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Answer: Geeks like their soap operas just as much as anyone else. Spider-man is a good example of this.
- KanosWRX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Usually because if we liked it so much the first time we want to play it again just with new stuff like better graphics, new units, new maps. Those kind of things. I am all for sequals, just make them true to the original that we all loved but don't stop inovating.
- oldtimegamer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Like when you play mario cart or metriod on your DS?
- coheedcollapse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sequel - 1. a literary work, movie, etc., that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work.
Have you ever played Final Fantasy? - imikedaman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2We prefer sequels because we don't have much of a choice. Game companies prefer sequels because they have a fully-working game engine already developed, meaning game sequels are a lot cheaper to produce than original IPs.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is