Unlike Movie-Goers, Gamers Love Sequels?

Thanks to EvilAvatar for pointing to a Seattle Post-Intelligencer article discussing how gaming sequels tower above most movie sequels in terms of desirability and quality. The piece argues of movies: "Sequels suck, right? For every 'Godfather 2' and 'Aliens' there are hundreds of horrendous rehashes clogging the video store shelves. Hollywood wants your money; quality control be damned", before contrasting them with games: "Fans chomp at the bit for a few screenshots from the next installment of beloved games such as 'Half-Life' and 'Halo.' When the games arrive they rarely disappoint. Gaming franchises get better and better while their celluloid cousins go straight to video." Valve's Gabe Newell also comments on feedback for sequels: "We are super-involved in the community that has sprung up around our games. Whether through e-mail, the forums, the fan sites, or calling my house at 3 a.m. in the morning, we have a pretty good idea what they are thinking. And it absolutely factors into our decisions."

Comments

That's largely relative

[Anonymous Coward]

I think first of all it depends entirely on the sequel in question.

Personally, however, I really do not like sequels at all. Unless the studio in question can create a unique addition to the franchise instead of more of the same, I will always shy away from repeated outings under a single title. If I detect that the developer or publisher is being cheap and trying to cash in, they can kiss my money good bye

Like I said at first though, depends on what it is; "Tomb Raider" (and the more recent addition: "Hitman" series) being the worst case scenario, while, say Halflife 2, which is obviously an honest attempt to reach new heights, is an example of a sequel I might buy (too bad about the steam technology).

Re:That's largely relative

[Goldberg's Pants]

I hate sequels in forms of entertainment. It shows a dirth of creativity and originality. I couldn't care less about Half Life 2. Just like I don't care about Doom 3. Been there, done that. How about having some original ideas instead of just churning out more of the same?

Say what you will, when you get right down to it, Half Life 2 is a first person shooter with a good story, and it's the sequel to a first person shooter with a good story.

This is why I'm rapidly losing interest in games. I've been a gamer for over 20 years now... But I'm just losing interest when all that's coming down the pike is more of the same. Don't get me wrong, the games aren't BAD... But when you get fed apples all the time, you really long for an orange or too...

Are the games "sequels" as such?

[AtariAmarok]

I don't consider the games to be "sequels" in the same way movies are: The games are more like "new improved" versions of the old. (Whether they do improve things is another topic).

You are probably going to buy Halo 2 because you enjoyed Halo 1 and are expecting a better version of "more of the same". In contrast, you don't go to "Batman 5" expecting a version of "Batman 1" to see the same battle between Bats and the Joker with the latest new effects added that they didn't have in 1989.

It's more about the dearth of *good* video games

[Richard Jones]

I reckon people avoid sequel movies because in general they're by a new director, and hence the style and substance will be quite different.

I think the point with video games is that *most* of the time, sequels are produced by the same company / team. You can be fairly sure that if the first game was really good, then the follow-up will be good too.

I think that if Valve decided to produce a game that wasn't called "half-life 2" but with the same gameplay emphasis, then people would be just as eager to play it.

Can't see forest through trees...

[Guppy06]

We don't like game sequels, we like good games.

We don't hate movie sequels, we hate bad movies.

When game sequels become nothing more than milking a cash-cow name, we won't like them.

When movie sequels stop being nothing more than milking a cash-cow name, we'll like them.

How much money do these people get paid to give us this "enlightenment?"

Worthless comparison

[borisbfurry]

From the article:
It would appear that the relatively small game development houses know something that the film industry giants don't.

...

The Hollywood behemoths can't compete with the gaming company guerrillas because they've forgotten who pays their bills. Fans get a nod at test screenings, but the movie already has been made. The most that's going to happen is a new edit.

Is the author honestly suggesting that movies be made with the same degree of consumer feedback as games? Movies are bad enough when the script has passed through five sets of hands who all think they know best. How could 500 or 5000 possibly be better?

The author misses the point that the vast majority of community feedback on games is about gameplay, not plot or character development. I doubt many people on the WoW boards are upset because the Horde backstory isn't fleshed out enough.