Posted Oct 04, 2006 at 11:39PM by Ian C. Listed in: Off Topic Tags: Electronic Arts, Sony
Ó

if it is final, why are there so many of them


In 2005, Electronic Arts released 26 new games, and out of the 26 titles, only one was new. Interestingly, we see game sequels more than we see movie sequels. Now, the pertinent question would be, why aren't we sick of sequels yet?

For one thing, sequels are ultimately cheaper to make, they're predictable, thus, safer to make. The revenue you can generate from releasing a sequel is easy to estimate, and the name of the game is familiar already. Despite the developer factor, gamers are the ones who ultimately dictate what trends will be like. So, here are some things that sequels do to gamers:
  1. For those in the MMORPG scene, sequels tend to reunite those who left the previous game for some time. This warm fuzzy community feeling is good and it helps sell the game.
  2. Sequels tempt us with the "New Feature" ploy. Imagine a home-TV-shopping host go, "If you love game 1, you'll love game 2! It has X and Y and Z, but wait, there's more!" You get the idea.
  3. Sequels have similar game mechanics to their older versions. It makes gamers feel comfortable. It empowers them, and makes them feel more "super".
  4. Sequels have a history to back them up. Admit it, you got giggly and got the in-game joke when you saw Lulu from Final Fantasy X (while technically not a sequel, is part of an ongoing series) carry around a Moogle plushie.
Sony in particular, has a lot of people on their side of the war, just because they have a whole bevy of established game titles. FFXIII, DMC4, Virtua Fighter 5. That's a powerful list right there don't you think? Sequels have long been blamed for stagnating creativity and innovation in the gaming scene. But if done right, sequels can add a sense of legacy and history to the gaming experience that we oh so love.


[Via 2old2play] Permalink  |   Email this  |   Linking Blogs   |   Digg It!

Bookmark / Find this article on:


8 Comments


Sort by:
   by urmama (Unregistered) - 2006-10-05
 » first

first

   by ... (Unregistered) - 2006-10-05
 » Why is FF up there?

How come Final Fantasy is being called a sequel? Almost all of the Final Fantasy games made are different from each other. They are not sequels.

   by justice (Unregistered) - 2006-10-05
 » nr2 lamo

MGS is not CGI. It never used CGI and it never will. You are just a 360 fanboy that can 't deal with the fact it 's not comming to the xbox.

   by Advertising -
   by WC - 2006-10-05
 » Oy, what horrid grammar.

"Sequels have similar game mechanics than it's old versions. "

No, try 'to' instead of 'than'. Maybe that sentence will make sense.

At any rate, how do you know we 'love' sequels... Sometimes, that's all that is on the freaking market. Gamers buy what games exist. They have no control over what gets made. Not if they want to be playing games, anyhow.

   by Malik (Unregistered) - 2006-10-05
 » What?

"They have Splinter Cell and that's a far, far, FAR better series"

Great Joke Kelly.

And if you pay attention to the net chatter you would know 360 owners pleading for the game on 360 so suck it.

And yes Sony has many more IPs than that list, and they're better than the M$ ones.

   by Vietone - 2006-10-05
 » Sequals

FF series has had onlt one sequal in its entire life, FFX-2 and despite all the bad reviews it got, it was a decent and fun game. Probably not up to par on FF games but it was decent and the keyword is it was "fun" to play.

Dont even start on Splinter Cell Double Agent. SOny wouldnt what that garbage on the PS3 to begin with. For instance, there is not graphical improvement from Chaos Theory. NONE AT ALL. Those of you who may think it looks better need to get your eyes checked. PC versions of Chaos Theory look better the Double Agent on the Xbox360. Double Agent looks the same as Chaos Theory but with new missions.

Sequals work for games. Sometimes you just cant tell the entire story in one game. Like Xenosaga, the first game was filled with hours of story and the gameplay was great. But when it ended, you played for hours and never got to complete the story.

I wouldnt really call Splinter Cell sequals since the previous games dont impact the next game. Each is more or less a standalone game in the sense that the previous events dont affect the new ones. Make sense because no one is suppose to know that Fisher exist.

Yes, there are in fact too many companies making sequals. Because when a title becomes a success, they will do all they can to rip money through the name. So sequals are formed.

   by Reneid Klein (Unregistered) - 2006-10-05
 » to #5

Don't forget the fact that they spelled 'it's' wrong. There should be no apostrophe in this case because it is not 'it is'.

   by sakura (Unregistered) - 2006-10-05
 » sequels?

the majority of the reasons ppl even play sequels is because the first part pretty much gets everyone hooked on a character, and in a sequel you get to see what happens. EA's 25 sequels arent sequels, obviously the bloggers here have gone down hill. sports games dont count as sequels. and not all sequels have the same game mechanics, look at ffx and x2 the gameply changed vastly there despite the same characters.



Add QJ.NET
Add to My Yahoo!
Google Reader Subscribe with Bloglines
Add  to your Kinja digest Subscribe in NewsGator Online
Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader Add 'www.qj.net' to Newsburst from CNET News.com
Subscribe with SearchFox RSS del.icio.us www.qj.net
Add to Technorati Favorite! Add to My AOL
furl! it Stumble for Treehugger!