So... sequels.

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

The Unworthy Gentleman:

xPrometheusx:
I'll call people sheeple as long as they act like it. It's not necessarily because they like a game series, its because they mindlessly buy every entry.

Actually they buy them because they enjoy them, they like playing the most up to date shooter and can't get that by playing one that was released in 2005. They aren't 'sheeple' they just enjoy something else, you sound like an absolute moron when you say sheeple.

OT: I enjoy a lot of sequels, most of them actually improve and add to the content already in the previous games. A lot of them will contain references and plot points relevant to their predecessor and some of them start off an entirely new story in the same universe.

What I don't understand is why you throw Skyrim into the sequel hatred cake mix. Skyrim is nothing like Oblivion in terms of story, setting or gameplay and it's even more removed from Morrowind. They all share a fantasy setting and melee/magic/archery based combat but they're not just the same game released over and over. The same goes for Fallout. They've released two of the rebooted ones and they're both as removed from each other as TES3, 4 and 5.

I know I said I would leave but this post is so wonderfully eloquent and sums up my feelings that I just had to add my support.

Also, @TheDutchin. Your post wasn't baaaaaaad either.

Blunderboy:

xPrometheusx:
The majority of people playing MW3 were NOT playing the original Modern Warfare, those people have long since left. It's just that new players are vastly outnumbering tired vets as gaming gets ever more popular.

It's good to see that unsubstantiated claims are still rampant on the internet.
I play games that I like. If they are part of a series then that should not make me feel bad for liking them.
I'm not a sheep, I'm a person. It could be argued that I'm a better person than some because I'm not giving people shit for liking what they like.

You seem like a smart gentleman, if we were having this discussion in a pub, I'd buy you a pint for that.

OT: OP, how old are you, if you don't mind me asking? Because all of your posts reek of that 'I have seen something happen once so now I know how the world works' attitude reserved almost exclusively to obnoxious teenagers.

Sequels aren't inherently a bad thing. Almost all the best films I've seen in any given series are the second installment, and when they are handled properly by a company, game sequels can be used to improve upon and refine a good concept (see: Assassin's Creed 1-2).

The problems arise when companies stop trying to challenge established structures inherent to a franchise and instead resign themselves to releasing what amounts to little more than an expansion pack every few years (See:Assassin's Creed Revelations; almost everything Nintendo has released since the late 90's) because they know there is both a dedicated fanbase who will lap up everything the release and a market who will recognise the brand (say, Mario) and associate it with quality gaming.

And honestly, I don't feel CoD falls into the latter category. I only play the single player in any game, and the stories in CoD, while hilariously unrealistic and usually batshit insane, are the video game equivalent of a Die Hard film: if you can switch off your brain for a few hours they are fantastically entertaining. Do I think they're worth 40 a pop? Not really, but the same is true of almost every game I have bought in the last ten or fifteen years; sequel or otherwise.

As the fella what I quoted said, I play games that I enjoy, and prefer to judge each game by its own merits and, most important of all, not before I've had a chance to actually play them myself.

...did you just complain that Fallout has too many unoriginal sequels?

OK. I'm going to... I'm just going to leave now.

SirBryghtside:
...did you just complain that Fallout has too many unoriginal sequels?

OK. I'm going to... I'm just going to leave now.

Yeah, I really liked that part too. I think he was trying to play off of that old "Fallout 3 is just Oblivion with guns!" mentality.

OT: I'm going to agree with what everyone else has said in this thread. I buy a game if I think it'll be good. I don't buy it if I don't think it'll be good. If it's a sequel to a game I already played and enjoyed, the chances are rather high that I'm probably going to expect a quality title. The fact that it's a sequel doesn't really have any impact on whether or not I buy it, it just gives me a predetermined buffer for quality that I can usually reasonably expect.

xPrometheusx:
[..]CoD. Approaching critical mass at... what, 8 games? And they haven't had any truly innovating gameplay since Modern Warfare 1.

I don't actually like call of duty but,
a) Nazi Zombies in 2008 (World at War)
b) Back to Vietnam (where we haven't been for ages) in 2010 (Black Ops)
c) into the future and playing as the underdog rather than a superpower fighting rebels/freedom fighters/terrorists who're under equipped in 2012 (Black Ops 2)

Admitedly this is all Treyarch, the off brand CoD, but it's still CoD.

I'm sure the multiplayer has been in some way innovative, are kill streaks and innovation? I honestly don't know, I don't play VS multiplayer in 'realistic' FPS games.

I can put Battlefield on that list too, after playing the over-hyped stupidly expensive entry into the series that is Battlefield 3.

I don't know much about Battlefield but I hear that BF3 is pretty amazing, and apparently the spin offs (Bad company) of the series are pretty "badass" and took a few steps in a new direction before Activision decided to try be "CoD but better". Again, I don't know about BF personally, it's all what I've heard.

Assassin's Creed can go up there,

Iteration does not preclude innovation. The movement system and environments in Assassin's creed are pretty unique to the series. Also, go play the first one, and then any of the others. Tell me there's no difference, I dare you.

as can Elder Scrolls,

I'm pretty sure Skyrim is a rather large change from Oblivion. I for one hated oblivion and loved Skyrim. From what I hear the "Radiant AI" in Skyrim is revolutionary. It could be marketing, I don't care honestly, but I like any system which allows me that much content with such a high quality of polish.

Fallout,

You trolling me? A game which goes from Isometric tactical combat to real time FPS? That sounds like a stagnant series full of iteration to me.

Dead Space,

They're moving to a homogenous, co-op, cover based shooter. At least it's a shift from the original game. I didn't really like the series that much but the games aren't really all the same.

Gears of War,

I'll just straight up give you that one. Each was a newer, better, bigger, shinier, version of the last. I don't think that's inherently bad, but you're right, the games since the first haven't really innovated. (Even though the first one is generally credited with the popularity of cover based shooting. A dubious honour some might say, but it did blaze a trail)

Grand Theft Auto...

From top down, to 3D. From silly with a series of semi related stories in missions, to a compelling (according to personal taste) story and interesting (again, taste) characters. Nope, nothing new here. Completely the same game that GTA2 and that GTA4.

the list goes on. Some REALLY good examples are the EA sports games. All of 'em. Just lump them all into one big ball of subpar sequel mediocrity and throw it at the gamers after gluing on different colors of glitter.

Well Dragon Age 2 wasn't anything like Dragon Age: Origins, that's something.

I've grown tired of the endless parade of sequels. What happened to original content? Gone are the days where you could look to a bigger publisher for -god forbid- actual innovation. If there's any to be found, it's passed to smaller "indie" developers, because they're the only companies out there actually willing to take risks.

Well, while I don't totally agree with you, the sentiment is true, indies will take more risk. But that's the point. This isn't really all that new of an idea. People have been saying this for over a year.

Why should Activision publish the next groundbreaking equivalent of AC1, Bioshock 1 or Mirror's Edge when they know that their huge sheeple fanbase will buy the next installment of CoD just because it says CoD on the box? Baaa.

Use of the word sheeple aside. That's not their fault. It's the consumers, if you don't like it: vote with your wallet. Buy indie.

There's the flip side, of course. I can't go without addressing it. Two of the most anticipated games for me this year are Borderlands 2 and Darksiders 2 because the first entries into their respective series', in my opinion and in most of the fanbase's, honestly deserved a second game.

But Darksiders was God of War + Zelda. That's not exactly innovative. Don't get me wrong, it's a great game and I am looking forward to Darksiders 2, but I hardly think Darksiders 2 is going to be innovative. And Bordelands 2 won't be too much of a departure from Borderlands, if anything it's a refinement. Just like Assassin's Creed 2.

I'm looking forward to Bioshock Infinite as well, since the folks at Irrational Games and 2k really look like they're trying to reinvent the series. If you look between Bioshock 1-2 and Infinite, it's hard to tell they're even in the same series. THAT's what a sequel should be. Innovation or further exploration of a loved game. Not just another entry because people will buy it. Because we have these sequels that give something new to look forward to, then... well, I already addressed CoD.

Well you do realise that 2K get a stack of cash from making the best yearly basketball game there is don't you? That shit (which I like) that they sell to the 'sheeple' is what bankrolls Bioshock.
Also, Bioshock 2 was really, really, bad. It's not a very good example of the industry making bold moves.

What shocks me, though, is that I've never seen anyone else with this attitude anywhere on the internet, aside from all the disgruntled sheeple wondering why the $60 CoD 57 looked the same as the $60 CoD 56.

You don't get around much on the Internet do you? Here, Bioware Social Network, Destructiod, the Video game board on 4chan, and countless other places are home to this sentiment.
Some of us don't think it's as bad as you seem to, but there's a large portion of people who care about gaming as a media, and I'd say most of the one's who don't make money off of it feel the same way you do.

So, to the people reading this, is there anyone out there that can say they feel the same, that they're tired of the parade of sequels? Or am I just blowing steam?

If you ever have a question that boils down to "Am I the only one who...?" the answer is no. It is always no. You are never the only one. Ever.

Also, love the Doritos ad for the spamcheck. Way to throw yet another piece of advertising into my face, Internet.

I haven't seen that one yet. I look forward to it.
If you'd like to avoid adverts you can join the publisher's club, it's pretty cheap and all the cool kids are doing it. You get other stuff too which I'm unaware of.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked