Are too many sequels damaging video games?

Referencing from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8337492.stm

Reading this article with interest and just confirms that although the quality of gaming in terms of production is excellent when it comes to original gameplay it's suffered hugely in the last few years.

The article doesn't really go into detail about why but it does mention the huge development costs of retail gaming these days which is why XBox Live is becoming more popular. Another reason could be the fickle consumer.. or what we call the casual gamer, one who only buys the simple mainstream titles.

The casual gamer used to account for a small proportion of sales in the 80's and 90's because gaming was still seen as a little nerdy but mainly since the emergence of the XBox and PS2 has become the main source of revenue. You can tell the casual gamer a mile off. As mentioned he only buys the big title well advertised mainstream games. He gives 10 ratings to every 'arcade' shoot'em up he's ever played saying it's the best game ever, he snubs any game that involves navigating more than 2 menus to start playing or while in-game and uses more than X or A to attack/defend/go forward and finds anything of originality or of depth confusing and not worth playing. His gaming cabinent consists of: Fifa 09/10, Tiger Woods 09/10, GoW1/2, Halo 1/2, Fight Night 3/4, Forza Motorsport 2, PGR3/4, Need 4 Speed and of course COD4/5 which he'll say either one is the greatest game(s) of all time. Wow how many EA titles are here...ironic. Generally he'll buy the same game everytime a sequel with little more than a few minor additions are added because of his lack of imagination and willingness to play something other than mainstream.

For me they're the prime time TV watcher, the mainstream pop music listener of the gaming world. Is it little wonder that software houses are unwilling to develop new original games when the money is clearly in regurgitating the same type game for these unimaginative gamers. In fact many software companies budget for little profit on a first mainstream title knowing full well they'll recooperate it in the next sequel as the development costs will be considerably cheaper.

Okay it's just a thought but I'd be interested to hear others views on the matter.

No, what's damaging video games is the recession. Developers are sticking with their winning formulas because they're afraid of tanking by making something new. Which means that innovation is virtually zero at this point. Creativity could also be another reason why we're seeing so many sequels of games. Because people seem to be lacking it. How many games could you name off the top of your head that consists of a brown/grey and gritty environment with a protagonist that is equally so?

I think if every game that came out was new, every genre would get redundant veryyyyyy fast.

I fear that games are going the same way as did Hollywood productions starting at the end of the 1980's, early 1990's with the likes of the Die Hard franchise, Jurassic Park and other Terminators. What I mean is, that Big Bucks took over in favour of good storytelling.

Same thing happens with game developers. Small studios who make (made?) great games are being bought by major companies, money is being pumped in and deadlines are being put into place, because, hey, we all need those games to be out by Christmas, right?

Wrong. A game needs no deadline, it needs to be finished and working without too many bugs. And when it's a great game, don't bring out a sequel to cash-in on the succes of the first game, but do so when you've got a good idea for a follow-up.

So, to answer the main question, "Are too many sequels damaging video games...", no, they are not. It's BAD sequels that are damaging games. But grabbing the dosh is part of the industry's Master Plan, I suppose. Because Big Bucks doesn't think in terms of satisfying the customer, but rather in terms of, well, Big Bucks. Sounds too negative? Maybe. But a lot of sequels are crap, regardless of the excellence of the first in the series. An when the sequels are okay to good, it's usually more of the same. Which is okay, I guess. The problem is that the golden kalf is always being milked til it's dry. In other words, there's always one game too many in a franchise...

JJ

I think if every game that came out was new, every genre would get redundant veryyyyyy fast.

Ultrabeatdown55

Wha...? Please explain what you mean by this, because it isn't making much sense to me.

I wouldn't agree that the recession is causing it, I think the video game market was in decline before that came along. I do agree the the Hollywood link though and that's my point with the casual gamer or casual cinema goer in this case.wurd

The reason for the decline is that those major releasers are scared rabbits who don't like to take risks. The smaller developers never think in terms of money-to-be-made, but in terms of getting a great idea visualized with as much splendor as is possible with the soft- and hardware of the moment.

Once bigger studios take over, there's the added aspect of shareholders to take into account, so a game needs to make a profit. Or at least, one game needs to make enough profit to keep the numbers out of the red.

So, with profit in mind, developers tend to get more reluctant when some weird idea is being pitched to them. Instead of going with the great but weird idea, developers first want to make a sequel of game 'X' because that one was a major hit. Besides, it's also cheaper, because stuff that was already in place can be used again.

It's a sad trend that once big money takes over the reins, the creativity goes down the drain. Luckily, not always. There's stuff like Mass Effect and the Elder Scrolls franchise. But those are the exceptions. Games like NFS are a perfect example of a developer playing safe after a while, reverting to 'legal' racing and in the end even making a race-sim instead of a fun arcade game.

Maybe the recession isn't such a bad thing either. Because now, we see major studios pushing-off smaller developers, giving the latter again more freedom of movement to create their own ideas without 'the bosses' meddling with their product. After all, it's the small studios that made great games and gaming great...

JJ

I wouldn't say they're damaging gaming as whole, but rather just the series that are getting spammed. The industry has to create new ideas eventually. It may be getting less frequent, but eventually there comes a point where either the old standbys just aren't working anymore and you need to come up with something new, a new niche opens up, or an industry implosion the likes of the 1980's market crash occurs thus relieving competitive pressure and allowing the remaining publishers to get more risky with their releases.

In regards to what's going on right now, it's nothing new. This sequel spam occurs every couple of generations and it always follows the same pattern. A new, interesting, high quality game gets released. It then catches mass market appeal and a sequel comes out a couple years later. Then when that sequel is a massive hit the publisher gets greedy and starts milking it for all its worth until the quality goes to hell and the market becomes saturated with that series. After that happens the series stops selling and either the publisher collapses or gives up on the series. There's always at least 6-12 series that undergo this process at roughly the same time.

Anyone who played games back in the 32 bit days can see the parallels between then and now. For example, Guitar Hero/Rock Band are almost perfect repeats of what happened with DDR (all three franchises were novel at release, caught massive mainstream appeal, and then got released on a tri-monthly basis after a few sequels after which point no one wanted to play them anymore).

The current trend is nothing new. We're likely going to see a pruning of many once-popular franchises in the not too distant future, after which point there will be a period of a couple years when we see high quality, new series spring up to take the places of the dead franchises, and the cycle will repeat itself. I think it's safe to say that Rock Band, Guitar Hero, and Call of Duty are going to die (MW2 is going to be successful, but the series is starting to get stale and with an annual release schedule it's likely that MW2 is going to be the last popular COD game). Halo could also be on its way out if Bungie doesn't stop with the Halo spam (Halo 3:ODST and Halo Wars should have never happened).

The current trend is nothing new. We're likely going to see a pruning of many once-popular franchises in the not too distant future, after which point there will be a period of a couple years when we see high quality, new series spring up to take the places of the dead franchises, and the cycle will repeat itself. I think it's safe to say that Rock Band, Guitar Hero, and Call of Duty are going to die (MW2 is going to be successful, but the series is starting to get stale and with an annual release schedule it's likely that MW2 is going to be the last popular COD game). Halo could also be on its way out if Bungie doesn't stop with the Halo spam (Halo 3:ODST and Halo Wars should have never happened).

gameguy6700

Halo Wars wasn't even made by Bungie, and ODST is an expansion pack. What's the big deal? :|

If anything, the rumor of Halo continuing for the next 6 years is more worrying than a spin-off and a $60 expansion.

No, what's damaging video games is the recession. Developers are sticking with their winning formulas because they're afraid of tanking by making something new. Which means that innovation is virtually zero at this point. Creativity could also be another reason why we're seeing so many sequels of games. Because people seem to be lacking it. How many games could you name off the top of your head that consists of a brown/grey and gritty environment with a protagonist that is equally so?

MadVybz

I disagree, as not every company is being damaged. Bioware and EA are doing very well with the release of Dragon Age: Origins (9.5 on the PC), and they have Mass Effect 2 coming out in January.

Gearbox is doing well with Borderlands.

Both games are brand-new.

[QUOTE="MadVybz"]

No, what's damaging video games is the recession. Developers are sticking with their winning formulas because they're afraid of tanking by making something new. Which means that innovation is virtually zero at this point. Creativity could also be another reason why we're seeing so many sequels of games. Because people seem to be lacking it. How many games could you name off the top of your head that consists of a brown/grey and gritty environment with a protagonist that is equally so?

topsemag55

I disagree, as not every company is being damaged. Bioware and EA are doing very well with the release of Dragon Age: Origins (9.5 on the PC), and they have Mass Effect 2 coming out in January.

Gearbox is doing well with Borderlands.

Both games are brand-new.

I did say virtually, didn't I? :|

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

The current trend is nothing new. We're likely going to see a pruning of many once-popular franchises in the not too distant future, after which point there will be a period of a couple years when we see high quality, new series spring up to take the places of the dead franchises, and the cycle will repeat itself. I think it's safe to say that Rock Band, Guitar Hero, and Call of Duty are going to die (MW2 is going to be successful, but the series is starting to get stale and with an annual release schedule it's likely that MW2 is going to be the last popular COD game). Halo could also be on its way out if Bungie doesn't stop with the Halo spam (Halo 3:ODST and Halo Wars should have never happened).

MadVybz

Halo Wars wasn't even made by Bungie, and ODST is an expansion pack. What's the big deal? :|

If anything, the rumor of Halo continuing for the next 6 years is more worrying than a spin-off and a $60 expansion.

It's milking the franchise, that's the big deal.

At $60 it's obvious ODST isn't being sold as an expansion. It is one, but Bungie marketed it like a new game. It was really just an excuse to get another full priced Halo game out without having to invest much time and energy in development.

Halo Wars, while not made by Bungie, was licensed by them and it was their call to release it since they own the Halo IP.

Now we've got Halo Reach coming out next year, which is more or less one year after Halo ODST. It's Bungie spamming the franchise, plain and simple.

No I certainly don't think they are. Some of the best games both critically and comercially are sequels so it's obvious that a huge amount of gamers want them. There still are excellent new games being made like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Blazeblue, etc. plus ones that may have one sequel but are still quite fresh like Uncharted and Gears of War.

It really depends on the developer. Sequels that use the same engine as their predicessor can be seen as "milking" a franchise, unless noticable improvements have been made.

I wouldn't go as far as to say they damage video games though. This kind of thing has been going on since, I dunno, PC games? The thing is some developers took the idea of PC expansion sets, and market them as whole games.

I have to agree with the idea that, a sequel that uses the same engine and a lot of the same aspects of the game, is just about milking that cash cow. I wouldn't say it is damaging video games but it is certainly watering down the game market. Mainstream gaming has been around for 15+ years now so the good, new, fresh video game ideas are few and far between. This doesn't mean that these sequels year after year are bad games, they are just more of the same and we gamers can get bored i guess with playing the same Madden football year after year. The bad thing is that the casual gamer will usually buy the next madden no matter if it has one new feature over last year's game. I do believe that sequels need to be full of fresh content and features. Games like Halo ODST who just repackage the same old stuff with some new levels are being lazy and doing nobody any good except their own bank account because they know that people will buy anything that says Halo on it. This is just the state of being a person in today's society: you care about yourself and your bottom line and that's it. Not about making things better than they were before obviously not about developing fresh ideas. Every now and again some developer will acheive this but they are the exception these days and those are the games that the true gamer at heart will buy.

I'm certainly not against games having sequels. Honestly, I love them. WIth sequels, developers are allowed improve on the game more, adding new features and fixing stuff that doesn't work, and of course, expand on the story. The best thing about sequels are stories that interconnect. When a character from the first game appears later in the next game, there is that whole feeling of familiarity and connects the players with the games more.

However, methinks that when series start to outsource their projects without any new innovations from the creator's side, it becomes damaging. One example will be Silent Hill 5. There are not much new and fresh about in Silent Hill 5 that hasnt been seen before, and yet the graphics are not better than its predecessors. That is milking, and I think it did damage the series.

That said, I don't know how many more final fantasy's square enix can milk out and still be popular as ever. Imo the new characters are just more clones of each other..

It definatly depends halo has gone down although i like the new modern warfare for th COD series and I'm almost wetting myself imagining the release day of AC2 :D