Slashdot Mirror
More Products From the Sequel Factory
Both the New York Times and Electronic Gaming Monthly have commented recently on the ongoing trend of sequel production in gaming. The NYT specifically cites EA's recent trends regarding endless rehashing of titles, while EGM talks more broadly about the role of sequels in the industry. While most reviewers lament the current state of the sequel factory, those within the industry rely on new versions of old titles for their bread and butter. From the EGM article: "Let's assume the publisher's position that sequels are a necessary evil, and the blockbuster videogame industry we have today cannot exist without sequels to support its often great financial burdens for research and development, marketing, distribution, etc. So, what are sequels doing for the gamer who's not interested in keeping up with the sequel treadmill?"
So, what are sequels doing for the gamer who's not interested in keeping up with the sequel treadmill?"
hmmm... maybe not buying them?
however, while some gamers might not venture into the sequel of their favorite game, there must be enough followers to keep the gaming industry making sequels after sequels.
it's similar to spams, while most people just ignore them, some of them ended up buying from the spammers, and this is what keeps the spamming industry going and even growing.
creating a different genre or trying something new is a big risk that most companies can't afford to take, this is especially true if each new game costs few millions to produce. that's why we saw a lot of interesting, exciting and ground-breaking games in the '80s because the cost was so low, people were more willing to take risk and create different games.
i have created a game almost to the words as described here (Point 2 Paragraph 2) and discussed here.
but let me tell you, it's been very difficult to get people playing it or even understanding it, because everybody's so used to the grinding.
everyday, i have to answer questions from players who want to know how to grind their stats to the top, because grinding is what defines game at the moment.
Play Found: Desert Island
"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."
That's quite awkward...
Go to the w3.org and put Slashdot.org through the validator.
sounds exactly like the movie industry
This is basically the problem with the gaming industry. Sequels can be innovative and original, and new titles can be boring, and direct rip-off of other titles. The Final Fantasy games I think is a series that tries to be original - with different characters, worlds, 2D -> 3D, storylines, etc, and that series count up to over 11 already.
And then on the other hand, how many Street Fighter/Tekken/Soul Calibur/Virtual Fighter clones do we really need?
http://www.rayn.net . Funny. Stuff.
I usually like sequels in games. Often times a brand new games is just not well recevied, since there is no prior response to that game. A game like Doom is a tried and true concept, so when they make a sequel, you can expect the same kind of satisfaction.
Why mess with a proven concept right?
...is the purpose of sequels. A company only comes up with so many hit titles, and so if they did not release other sub-par games, they would be only releasing games every few months. Now instead of releasing large amounts of games that nobody has heard of, they fill the void between hit titles with sequels because they sell. People play the first game, and hope that the following titles in the series are as good.
do.what.promptcmds
Some times, you really do a game well, and it's just nice to do more of it. I think the GTA series are a good example. GTA 3 (which itself was a sequel) was just really well done, tons of fun to play. So no we have GTA VC and San Andreas. They aren't really anything new, but just more of the same game done very well. Both also a lot of fun. You can over do it, of course, but I think in many cases it's nice.
Also sequels over the longer term can be real cool, like GTA 2 to GTA 3. There are many older games that I'd like to see redone to current technology. I mean I still play X-com because it's a great game, but what I'd really like to see is a new X-com, designed for modern hardware, with updated graphics, AI, etc, etc.
I agree that in many cases it gets stupid, it seems that it's just "Hey that last one made money, let's release another exactly like it!" but you get that even in non-sequels, you get games copying heavily from successful games.
I really don't think a game has to be unique to be good. I don't care if it's the 5th game in a series so long as it's entertaining.
With lots of feedback on the gameplay of the originals, a sequel can be tweaked to make it better.
Some games are also rather short, especially ones with intricate levels, and releasing a sequel or expansion pack allows the publishers to continue working on the game while also earning money.
If you don't like the game, just don't buy the sequel!
Ars has a good comment up already here. Basically saying that there's nothing wrong with sequels per say (ie. Half-Life 2), but series like Madden where things seem to be changed just for the sake of changing them from year to year.
$_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;
I read today that Hollywood will produce 40 movies this year that are derived from old TV shows. And that doesn't count movie sequels.
EA Games: Sequel Everything
Whereas movies typically get a healthy amount of advertising on TV, the majority video game ads are found in magazines or online. Thus, name recognition in a title - "The Legend of Zelda: _______" or "Mario [sport]" - plays a much more important role in selling video games to casual gamers than it does in getting casual moviegoers to the theatres.
What's so bad about sequels? Is there something inherently bad about refining a game to make it even better? Does anyone like Halo 2's mechanics less than the first? Does everyone disparage Super Mario Bros 3? Is Ninja Gaiden teh suck? Was Wing Commander 2 not revolutionary?
While most reviewers lament the current state of the sequel factory, those within the industry rely on new versions of old titles fro their bread and butter.
One of the advantages to the sequel model is it's easier to tweak a proven commodity than to risk launching a new franchise (note that games are invariably franchises nowdays: Sims, Doom, Halo, Railroad Tycoon, etc).
Take Rockstar games for instance. The Grand Theft Auto series has gone from strength to strength, likewise the Midnight Club titles. Contrast this with their attempts at breaking new ground, the mediocre Red Dead Revolver, and the notoriously lousy Manhunt. Rockstar's upcoming new titles, Bully and The Warriors, don't look too promising either.
It's just good business practice to go with what works, especially when you take into account how expensive it is to develop games these days.
Is there an alternative? Probably not for the time being. It would be nice to see a plethora of decent OSS games sprouting up as an alternative, but for the present, that is just a pipe dream. Oh well, I'm off to pick up a copy of NCAA Football '06.
Just because EA makes crappy sequels, doesn't mean that companies that make mostly sequels are being unoriginal.
In the early days Sierra was a company that produced sequels almost exclusively, and I thought they were pretty good. Space Quest I-V, Kings Quest I-VI, Heroes Quest I-IV, etc. Those were all really good games.
I don't know about you, but personally I liked Doom, Doom 2 and Doom 3.
Now as for the Madden series of games...
Is to try and make a better version. It doesn't matter if you are making the next one in a series, or if your game is highly similar to another one, it matters that you are abot to make your game entertaining, and hopefully by improving on the orignal.
Take Rome: Total War. Excellent game, one of the best strategy games in a long time. First time in a long time a strategy game has been on the best sellers list for a good amount of time. However not at all orignal. The plot is, well, Roman history. There's some modifications for playability and creative license and so on but the story was taken directly form the history books. The game is, of course, the latest in the Total War series, itself based on earlier games like Civilization.
However for all that, it's a ton of fun to play. It is so well done. The gameplay is excellent and engaging, the music is superb and the graphics are amazing, good enough the History channel uses the engine.
It doesn't matter that there's no orignality to plot or concept, the game is just flat out fun, more fun that those that came before it, and that's what really matters.
The true purpose of the sequel is to get the consumer to pay for the second half of a hit game. Has anyone else noted the trend toward shorter games these days? If you liked game A, then they are hoping you will shell out again for part B, which is more of the same, with a couple extra things thrown in to sweeten the pot.
you won't play the same Madden commentary sound files on every fifth play. "Whoa, he looked like he was hit by a truck! A five-ton truck hauling a trailer!" Yes, you'll hear that one six motherslapping times in one game of Madden '05. YOU HAVE A HARD DRIVE NOW, taking data from a 9 GB DVD. You have NO excuse to keep recycling the same mindless observations over and over and over again until we're pointing at our television with a shaking finger and screaming "EAT ME, JOHN! JUST EAT MEEEEEEE!" as most of us do now.
Obviously this guy has never watched a football game where Madden was doing the commentary. Madden moves between a few mindless quips and stating the obvious. Why people are so impressed with Madden, I will never know. Yes, the guy really knows football, but listening to him makes me want to shoot myself.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
1.) Movies make tons of money off sequels that may not give the same emotion as the original hit.
2.) Technological Advances are usually a very very attractive feature without having the game being identical otherwise (cept Doom 3 which was technically a very sweet redo minus the original emotion for most)
3.) There are always new kids/buyers to sell to and nobody wants to buy old games or watch old movies. Maybe the hairstyles turn people off ;)
You may agree or disagree, but I believe these are obvious points.
some sequels are completely lame, but others OTOH are actualy a marked improvement on a fun game.
take the command and conquer series. the first game was awesome and each consecutive release was better than the last. now were going on to something like the sixth or seventh and they have yet disapoint me*
even after ea took over, I grudgingly admit, red alert 2 and generals were (and still are) a lot of fun. and from what I hear, theres a red alert 3 comming.
*renegade dosent count. that game was completely lame. that was a bad sequel.
"What does slashdotting mean?"
"You've never heard of slashdot?"
"I know it makes websites not work."
Sequels are fine.
Sequels that are marginally different from their predecessor suck *COUGH EA*.
But then again, when you try to make a sequel that isnt a mirror image of its predecessor, people stop chanting how they want innovation just long enough to bash the game *COUGH Mario Sunshine, Zelda Wind Waker, etc*.
Perhaps the sequels coming from developers in both movies and games show a nation-wide drop in creativity in the field. Maybe the system is in a late entropic state and needs a complete "reimagining" (Hopefully not by Tim Burton). Personally, I think the stuff coming out from independent film-makers in Asia knocks Hollywood films on their asses.
I'd love to see another in the OddWorld series.
And another game like Fantasy General would be way cool too.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
People are now working on making and visiting complete worlds, not just sequels.
I believe it's similar to how our songs are getting longer and longer, too- it's not unusual to hear a song that goes on for 20 minutes, now. In fact, we just call it a "mix," and it's a big long stream of music, with a little of this, a little of that, mixed in for funn.
People feel attached to these worlds, and they wonder about these characters. They don't want to be hit with a brand new world everyday. Rather, they like a particular world, and they want to see it carried out further.
Also, they want it on multiple senses. They want to read it in book format, they want to play it as a video game, as a role playing game, they want to see it as a movie, they want to keep up with it as a TV show. All these things that people want to do.
People want to know the side stories, feel out the nooks and crannies of the complexities.
This is Slashdot, so I should mention that there are implications for Free Software game developers: network your worlds. Make a Tetris game that celebrates a theme from a constructed world that some tabletop gamers articulated in detail. Fetch fanfic authors to create stories based in this world. Get an existing RPG engine, and see if you can make a short game out of one of those authors' stories. See if an illustrator won't do an illustration of a major scene. We can have whole worlds, not just isolated projects.
Somebody already pointed out GTA3 -> Vice City -> San Andreas. These games are all basically the same, but each game is quite different from the others. Similary, each incarnation of Madden improves on the ones before it. The biggest jump in recent memory was from 2004 to 2005. 2004 gave you tons of control over your offense. Many people felt this was an unfair advantage, and in 2005 countermeasures were added to the defense. Of course, most people here have probably never played Madden in their lives so I wouldn't expect you to know the intricacies and subtleties of each improvement. That being said, I generally don't buy Madden X every year. I wait until the previews and reviews are out and read all the forums before I decide to buy it or not. Or I can just rent it from Blockbuster or whatever.
Of course, many people (myself included) LIKE the sequels. I can't wait for the next GTA and am eagerly waiting for the verdict on Madden 2006. If people didn't like the sequels, they wouldn't buy them. If this bothers you, then go start up your own indie game house and more power to you. The same can be said for "reality" tv. If people didn't watch it, they wouldn't make it. If this bothers you, tough shit. Go start your own TV station. With blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the TV station.
Shaddup already and gimme.... Deus Ex 3, System Shock 3 Doom 4 UT2005 XIII part deux StarCraft 2 etc etc etc.. Sh*T man, Get us hooked on storylines and THEN makes us wait until we're over 35 ?? Hey Brossard, you Jerk ! where the Hell is Duke Nukem Forever ??!!! Peace out to ALL Game Coders
End of Line.
Sequals are easier to make, that's why we see so many of them.
If little Timmy doesn't have to buy Halo, Half-life and Doom sequals he can buy 3 "not sequal" games. Which then means they make the same amount of money but don't risk annoying a fanbase.
If you flood a market with oranges and then see oranges getting 75% of all sales on that market, oranges arn't running the market, they're bring forced down peoples necks because there is nothing else.
I like muppets.
I guess if you want to make a bogus argument so you can get paid as a journalist it's easy to write an article based on the names of games because it looks convincing to the average non-game playing reader who sees only ads for games and never plays them. But I think the average /. reader ought to be able to see beyond that.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
... Recent trends??? EA has been putting the same crappy sequel year after year to their games. In my opnion single handledly the most un-innovative game company out there!
... that is, two posts, has been promotion for your game. Other (same?) iClod persons post here in self promotion as well. It's pretty obnoxious.
EA just seems to be cashing in on commercial mods.
It's pretty simple, really. If I can't beta a game (for MMOs especially) then I don't really want to shell out $50 to find out it sucks.
For non-online games, it still hold's true. I have more games that turned out to be complete stinkers on my bookshelf than I care to admit.
Most gamers don't just look at the company and say "Oh, EA made X, so Y should be great!". They look at X, and believe X2 should be at least as good, or at least offer a reasonable hope of fun.
If you played and loved Fallout and Fallout 2, and Interplay releases Fallout 3, aren't you going to buy it? Heck, even if the game engine doesn't get a radical overhaul, I'd still want to try it when it hits the bargain bin.
New games often require new engines, and a ton of creative juice. A sequel to a very successful game requires a new plot, maybe some engine tweaks, some graphic tweaks, and you are done.
And even if they do update the engine, etc... If they had released Doom 3 with just "Resurrection of Evil" as it's title, with no reference whatsoever to it's Doom legacy, what do you think it's sales would have been?
Nobody likes to take chances if they can make a sure buck. The same thing is happening with movies these days. And who likes a sure buck? Corporations. Sign o the times.
I've been having so much fun, I forgot to take my medicine.
John Buchanan, the university liason officer for Electronic Arts, came to our university. I remember him specifically talking about how EA was not an "art house" and that their main objective was to entertain people and make lots of money doing so, much like Spielberg (sp?) and Lucas want to do this very same thing in Hollywood.
The way to achieve this? Sequels of course, and rehashes of tried and true concepts (read: steal ideas liberally from best-selling games). Nothing else is guaranteed to be a profit, and although you won't ever come out with a truly stellar bar-raising game that makes zillions of dollars, on average you're going to be doing better. How do you get new ideas? Buy out smaller companies. John challenged us to name one original game that EA has put out in the last five years -- he said he'd give us twenty bucks -- and nobody could. He was sort of strangely proud of this, proud that they'd figured out a way to just, well, fucking rip people off and let them have a good time at it. How does EA get new games, ever? They buy out smaller companies.
If you want to become a games programmer because creativity is your thing, EA is not the place for you. It was quite disconcerting to hear someone be so upfront about these things.
I asked him if it was depressing, to him personally, as a human -- the fact that he acknowledges what they're doing is hardly art, is hardly revolutionary, but just aims to please the masses while earning them all a big fat paycheck -- and his answer? No... the money's good, I have some fun, I get to travael, why should I complain?
Basically I was just disgusted by the whole experience. IBM, Google, Microsoft, Sun -- they can all afford research departments, I don't see why the major games companies in industry cannot... even if there's no short-term payoff, in the long term I think there's a lot more money to be made... there's an incredible amount that simply *hasn't* been done with computer games and interactive entertainment to date, to the extent that it could really really push outside of the current teenage "gamer" market.
I mean, think about it: the games industry grosses more than the Hollywood box office, yet its real market is a fraction of the size. How are you going to reach a larger market? Research, risks, bona fide works of art, and truly engaging experiences.
and everything to do with business sense. Game one takes 3 years to develop. Tools, Characters, levels. Lots of money spent.
The staff becomes more efficient as the process goes along. Version one is a hit. Now with the same staff (if the profit sharing is lucrative enough) and one under their belt, part 2 and three might take a year each to develop.
Sequels of hit games cost developers less to produce and are practically guaranteed revenue.
The game (normally) gets better with added features, better graphics, etc.. everybody wins.
Try this:
E, A, Sports. It's in the game. It will be in the sequel too, but with up-to-date rosters and a few extra unused features to make you actually pay for it.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
If they had released Doom 3 with just "Resurrection of Evil" as it's title, with no reference whatsoever to it's Doom legacy, what do you think it's sales would have been?
How many did Quake sell?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I'd to throw in that not everyone plays "sequal" style games in a linear manner. I played the original GTA, and I own Vice City. Didn't play any of the ones in-between though, so perhaps people who grab Madden 2010 haven't played 2009 and below... but they'd still like an up-to-date roster, physics, etc.
Sequels that are "same ol' same ol'" are definately a problem, but just because something has the same name doesn't mean it's the same game... and sometimes sameness elements make the game familiar/fun as well. When I buy a Final Fantasy game I'm looking for an experience similar to what has come before, but unique enough to still keep me interested (which, except for FFX-2 is usually the case).
I just wish that making 'similar' games didn't kill off original games.
...the developers at Oddworld Inhabitants are accused of enslaving their programmers, amid their return to the video game industry. A five-minute audio clip, in which managers are apparently lashing employees and shouting at them "DO IT!", has been spreading online fast. This comes at a time when a sequel to the popular Oddworld series starring Abe the fugitive slave is being hotly anticipated.
Oddworld president Lorne Lanning had no comment; she waved our reporters away while she was polishing a leather whip and refused to take our multiple phone calls.
More news, and the scandalous mp3 file, at 11. ;)
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
You mean like they did with Quake? That had no reference to the Doom legacy and, I understand, did pretty well for itself.
Hey Blizzard...
WHERE IS DIABLO III?
Some of us got very sick of WoW and want our old favorites back =(.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
People have commented about Open Source games, or the lack thereof, and what this would do to innovation in the gaming industry.
To that, I think the answer is commercial games that are developed with the concept of mods from the very beginning. We've all scene some funny mods show up to add a little this or a little that to game play.
But many of us are aware of some excellent mods that have kept an otherwise dead game alive-and-kicking for years.
A sequel is fine, especially to release enhanced interfaces and AI along with new content. But developers would do well to set themselves up for modding so that FOSS can develop some real creative innovation in their otherwise derivative games.
I find the "sequel treadmill" for video games far less worrisome than the same phenomenon in movies. Look at your own personal list of "best video games ever," and count how many sequels are on there. Mario 3, Zelda 2, Doom 2, Soul Calibur 2, Tekken 3, GTA 3, Final Fantasy 7, Baldur's Gate 2... Now do the same for movies. Let's see, we've got Godfather 2, maybe Star Wars or Lord of the Rings... not quite as long a list, is it? The trick is that fun and innovative gameplay has always been the key to a good game, not plot. I can't watch even my favorite movie twice in the same month without getting bored, but I can play the same level of Soul Calibur 2 for hours on end. And frankly, I'd much rather have Namco spend their time and money refining that already polished gameplay than starting from scratch with some new game that I'd have to learn anew. Does this mean "the death of innovation"? Of course not. In fact, I'd say a sequel can sometimes leverage the good name of its franchise to take more gameplay "risks" than a non-sequel could manage. Why do you think Final Fantasy Tactics is a million-seller and Tactics Ogre (the game it's based on) is hardly a blip Stateside? One's part of a beloved franchise, while the other's part of a franchise that never caught on in the US.
Man, how dare they give me: ... and, you get the point. The idea that because a game is a sequel means it's "unoriginal" and unfun is kind of stupid.
1. Half-Life 2
2. Battlefield 2
3. Freespace 2
4. Civilization 2 and 3
5. Jagged Alliance 2
6. Descent 3
7. Quake 3 (bad example?)
8. Unreal Tournament 2004
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
List 'em here:
Star Control 2
umm... umm...
The NYT specifically cites EA's recent trends regarding endless rehashing of titles, while EGM talks more broadly about the role of sequels in the industry. While most reviewers lament the current state of the sequel factory, those within the industry rely on new versions of old titles for their bread and butter. ...At least he was impartial in this article :)
... charge 12 dollars for it.
Microsoft never, EVER would have succeeded based on its own technical merits. Price trumps perceived value at almost every turn. That's why Wal-Mart is king of almost every category it competes in.
Sell a big budget game for 20 dollars instead of 50 and watch 10 million people buy it in a heartbeat.
No, you want depressing? Your comment prompted me to reach for my copy of Strike Fleet (circa 1987) and read the box copy: And remember, this was the company which in its early days brought us (stolen from Wikipedia):
- Pinball Construction Set (1982)
- Archon (1983)
- M.U.L.E. (1983) - Dani Bunten, we miss you.
- One on One: Dr. J vs. Larry Bird (1983)
- Music Construction Set (1984)
- The Seven Cities of Gold (1984)
- Skyfox (1984)
- The Bard's Tale (1985), by Interplay Productions
- Adventure Construction Set (1985)
- Populous (1989)
- Chuck Yeager's Air Combat (1993)
Could those games have been made at EA today? I may just go and cry now. What a difference twenty three years makes, eh?Carthago delenda est!
There are still innovative games like Katamari Damashi coming out, but I'm beginning to see web-based games (yes, Flash is severely limited in some ways) as analogous to indie cinema, cheap to make and free to play so there's less risk- and in some cases the production value is really good.
Sure, the web is full of SameGame & Lights Out variations just like the indie film scene is choked with copycats & also-rans, but there are new ideas out there, too.
I think we all loved the Red Room puzzles & the strange one with the mossy planet.
This one just came out yesterday: Carnyville- very weird.
For those that bought a prequel, why won't game companies offer a reduced price, like other software companies offer for version upgrades? Why should i shell out $40 for a new Madden every year just because the roster has changed? Sure i'd prefer to have the new version and if i, as a repeat customer, could get it at half price, i'd buy it. Wouldn't the economics of this work for the game comanies?
Ludwig Wittgenstein
But the THPS folks have pushed the features and fun of the game with each release so much, that I fork over for a whole damn system just to get the fix of the new goods.
I don't even know if I am an anomaly because I spend no time at all in the gaming circles (short of reading this /. article).
You know what?
If you look back at the "golden age" of computer gaming, the same proportion of games were sequels.
Ultima
King's Quest
Wizardry
Bard's Tale
Police Quest
Leisure Suit Larry
Might and Magic
Quest for Glory
Space Quest
Monkey Island
If you walked into a local game store in the late 80s, many of the big sellers were sequels.
The question of legitimacy of sequels is exactly why Duke Nukem forever has not been released yet. All you people complaining and trash talking sequels are ruining it for those of us still waiting. Thanks for nothing you damn role playing game basement living low lag time no social life self auto-erotic hippies.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
There's a difference between a sequal and a remake. A sequel usually involves the same characters in a new (though perhaps similar) story. A remake however involves the same characters in pretty much the same story.
GTA3, GTA VC, GTA SA each use a slightly updated engine, but with new characters, in a new story.
The EA games however use a slightly updated engine, with the same characters, and the same story.
While sports games are sometimes an exception because the rules of the game are fairly ridgid, people tend to prefer sequels over remakes.
As for the people who would buy the new version even for the updated roster, I'm reminding of P.T. Barnum's statement "There's a sucker born every minute".
-Chris
--an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
Many of the titles that EA creates are sports titles, and so it is not exactly accurate to say that they just keep releasing sequels because sequels are absolutely necessary in many sports games. I'm an avid sports watcher and an avid sport video game player and I *want* the updated rosters and draft picks and whatnot. To be honest I could care less about new features. The game could stay EXACTLY the same from year to year and I'd still buy it just for the updated season info.
Now I realize this is not the same for a lot of people, so from the point of view of a consumer I can see that it gets boring and old for a company to keep releasing the same game with minor updates, but please keep in mind that developing and selling a Madden '06 is not exactly the same as developing and selling a Metal Gear Solid 12 would be.
From the NYT article:
The deals - reported to be $400 million for the N.F.L. for five years
and
Since 1989, Electronic Arts has sold 43 million copies of Madden
Let's be generous and assume they sell 10 million copies a year for the next 5 years, ie 50 million all up. Now in that same time they are paying $400m for an exclusive licence, isn't that $8 per copy of the game? I understand that games in the US are about $50, so that's a fairly large chunk of the retail price.
Maybe there are other titles in the NFL collection, I don't know (I'm not from the US). But still, that is an obscene amount of money just to stop Take 2 from producing their own NFL games.
whenever something is turned into an industry the entire product falls apart.
industry == exploitation at some level.
industry takes the fun and innovation out of products (note how art is not an industry), industry squeezes every last penny out of a product, and then sells you the same thing over again.
industry is currently a bad word in my books, when something is described as such *cough*searchengines*cough* i know they are gonig to suffer as a result.
ps. anyone note that the "your not a script" uses dictionary words? dictionary based attack anyone?
Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
How on earth are they easier?
Generally a sequel is more complex than some new games. Look at the past: Deus Ex, Klingon Honor Guard, Rune, etc, were all based on the Unreal Engine. Unreal II on the other hand, was built on a new, improved engine.
So all the "original" games that were built on U-1 were mostly story, and graphics, etc, hanging off an existing engine. U-2 on the other hand, was all of that, plus an all new, more complex, bigger, more expansive engine.
The *only* think made much easier in many sequels, is that the basic setting doesn't have to be created. The raw outline of where the game happens, is set. The scripting and everything beyond it is still all new tho.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
and keep brand names of game fresh. After all, who wants to Play Civilization II when Civilization IV and V are coming out? Maybe the abandonware sites can allow Civ I and II to be downloaded, but if IV and V are out, they can claim to be based off of I and II, and thus they are not abandonware.
I heard in Civlization V, that you can play as George W. Bush, Tony Blair, or Osama bin Laden, and other timely figures in Modern Civlization.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
"Sequelae are inherently unpredictable"
-Ian Malcolm. Actually, I just felt like quoting Ian Malcolm...
hmm...
Latest Sony all products keygen incl mp3/mpeg plugin fix: http://rapidshare.de/files/3667497/sonyproducts-ke ygen.zip.html
Full version Sony app: http://download.sonypictures.com/current
I don't know why no one has figured this out yet, but sports games are not "sequels." For the majority of sports fans, they are buying NFL200X because it has the new players/rosters, anything else is just gravy. In all honesty, if you told them it was the same exact game they have, but with the teams updated, they would still pay 50 clams for it.
Now that we can do local storage on consoles, why not just sell the rosters every year at the same price, and sell a true "sequel", i.e. an improved game, every other? Your current revenue stream would remain largely unchanged, and every other year you could double it by selling a new game.
Sports fans buy sports games. Sports fans are fiercly loyal. Give them what they want, the players/teams they identify with. Let the sports *gamers* decided when they want a new game.
-- I have fans? Wow.
A game on the same lines was made not to long ago that was just like an updated X-com... I own it, but it had a number of bugs and I eventually stopped playing because of them (the biggest one caused your teams to stop developing further skills forcing you to cheat them up enough to be effective)... However it's been a bit to long since I last played to remember it's name now...
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
I can remember when Lucas Arts canned Sam & Max 2 (itself a sequel, although to a very good original adventure game). Presumably, this was to focus on profiting from an abundance of star wars games. This explains it pretty well:
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=90
But Quake was actually a decent game. Doom 3 had no redeeming features whatsoever. If it didn't have the Doom name on it, it wouldn't have got any of the hype, and the people praising it would have been slamming it.
http://www.uncoverip.com/
Pirates! Oustanding remake of an outstanding classic.
I'll be happy if the NEXT Pirates! isn't for another 10 years or so. This one was worth the wait!
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Everything is a sequel or rehash. Right now, it seems like the 80s are making a comeback. Just look at Hulk Hogan in WWE. Look at toys like Transformers and GI Joe. There is no need inventing new things because these new things to market, as ideas to market were already invented 20 years ago.
Final Fantasy has changed significantly since FF1... in that it has more cutscenes of a formulaic anime melodrama these days, but it is hardly something to be held as an example of originality in a series. FFX had just as many tired cliches as every other interactive Japanese soap opera.
I would say Ultima is a better example of a long series that had maintained originality (no pun intended), with the last three games in the series being dramatically different from the previous games- in story as well as gameplay. If you shoehorn the Underworld titles into what is considered the series, there's even more originality and fresh gameplay.
Also, though I tend to pan Nintendo for whoring their 20 year old franchises, they have a pretty good track record of making good games out of said franchises. Look at the variety in the Zelda, Metroid and Mario games through the years. Okay, so the stories are all pretty much the same, but the gameplay is almost always fresh.
I don't play NCAA, but all of my friends do. The players, numbered not named, are all fairly accurate portrayals from what I understand, and you can name them.
In fact, there's some decent money to be made out there on Ebay selling memory cards with the full player names on them.
I live in a college town for a football school in a state with no professional team, that's another deal-breaker.
I can think of something worse than sequels. Games based on movies. Remember Enter the Matrix and Catwoman?
I think sequels have a much better market than those types of games.
That's EA's entire business model if you ask me, buy out good companies like maxis and westwood, then release really crappy sequels to all of those companies decent games for a few bucks. I'm surprised EA hasn't tried buying blizzard out yet, could be quite profitable throwing out crappy sequel after crappy sequel of warcraft / starcraft / diablo / whatever.
Don't be mad at EA. They are just following a trend that Capcom set over a decade ago.
(that said, I love Capcom games, even if they are all the same :)
While the melodramatic stories are certainly not to everyone's taste, each FF game is different in that the skill learning/character customization system gets a shakeup in every game, and the series isn't afraid to try bold experiments that sometimes don't work as well as hoped (e.g. the Junction system in FFVIII -- innovtative system that abolished armour upgrades in favour of using magic for stat alteration; probably worked very well on paper, but made the game too easy in practice).
FFX-2, the first direct sequel in the series' history, is a completely different experience from FFX because the character customization systems are radically different.
-Stephen
They might have a point if only the greatest games around weren't sequals themselves. Anti-sequalists have this idea that games should come out perfect the first time, fully god-breathed and explore all potentially interesting aveneues. Yet the best games we have are almost exclusively sequals. A Link to the Past was a second sequal, as was Super Metroid. Grand Theft Auto 3 was in the same boat. Final Fantasy is probably the most legitmate target of sequal haters, in that aside from a few common semi-plot elements (crystals, airships, etc) the only thing uniting them is a combat system and a desperate need for your money.
The history of literature disagrees with anti-sequalists. Long before the written word set story in stone-type, civilization had the oral tradition. Tales were told of ancient gods, and of heroes in epic battles of fate. But each telling of the tale was different, and afterwards the storyteller could evaluate what worked and what didn't work, and maybe what might have worked had it been changed only slightly. The origins of comedy come from improvisational humor, and even today's stand-up routine is a dynamic, flexible presentation. Live music is improvizational, and improvization is central to Jazz music. None of these forms of entertainment are capable of calling a singular act 'perfect.'
I like to consider each Zelda game not as an internally consistant series of adventures of Link, but an evolving image of the Hero of the Master Sword. In fact, we've come to accept and require that the series introduces changes. The most common and valid criticism of the Zelda Oracle games was that they were too similar, both to Zelda DX and to each other.
Anti-sequalists essentially translate the modern literary theory onto games, and ignore the naggling details that emerge when finished. Games aren't the work of a single guiding authoring force, responsible for the day to day decisions that encompasses the work, forming a singular message for the player(s).
I wonder, then, what people who promote 'originality' have to say about 'We Love Katamari.'
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
The reason that that is the case, is that the state of the art in games progresses at a much faster rate than the state of the art in movies. You could even remake a game within three years after its original release, and it would be a quite different game, and probably of much higher quality.
Basically, there are two reasons why game sequels may suck: (1) when the creators think they can "improve" the original concept (e.g., the simplification of Deus Ex 2, the MOO3 overhaul); and (2) when a publisher gives the developers not enough time to develop a real sequel, because it has to go to market quickly (e.g., Knights of the Old Republic 2 without a proper endgame).
However, if a sequel is just like the original game, except with better graphics, better AI, and better sound, it may give players the same good playing experience but modernized. And there is no reason why its quality has to be lower than the quality of the original game.
Looking at the top twenty sales charts, you'd be lucky to see a single title without a number in its name, yet many games are being made.
The most sequelised company was of course Electronic Arts, who also have three times the sales of their nearest competitor (Activision). The most original titles were by Microsoft and Sony (as platform holders they want to lead from the front. Nintendo has great games but they are often franchise driven).
People love John Madden because he's great at explaining what's going on in a game in a very simple way. If you don't know jack about football, you can still understand what he's talking about. On top of that, he's funny in a Barney the Dinasour sort of way...
It's because there are more original games. Here's an example: Black & White was original when it came out. They are planning a total of five games. So the release of one original game will spawn anything up to 4 sequels. Most truly original games are worthy of sequels, so it's not a bad thing, but it means that the number of sequels released will continue to grow massively, as, in this example, Lionhead can move on to creating something else that is original (e.g. The Movies), while churning out sequels to B&W, then do the same again, and again, and end up with many sequels coming out alongside new games.
I remember a magazine article way back from 1990 when EA said they they thought they could do so much more with graphics and sports in games, and back then they were touting their On-track racing game (a horse racing derby sim) on the Commodore 64.
Since then, almost everything they've done (with a few exceptions) have been sports.
For examples of how to wreck a great game with a sequel: Deus Ex 2, and Unreal 2.
Both those games took otherwise great gameplay mechanics which shouldn't have been messed with, overdid it on the graphics, dumbed down the playability, and shortened the overall length of the experience so we all felt ripped off.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
I read this bit in the NYT a few days ago and composed my own response.
http://zoomba.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=83176
In short, while publishers and developers are ultimately responsible for turning out rehashed games year after year after year, they only do it because WE want them to. We buy them. We DEMAND THEM (Starcraft 2 is a prime example of this demand).
Laser Squad Nemesis is supposedly a pretty good modern version of X-Com. It was actually created and developed by former X-Com developers, so you may want to download the demo and give it a try. I haven't been able to try it out yet, so I couldn't tell you how it is, personally. The reviews seem pretty favorable, though.
--------
This isn't the sig you're looking for. Move along.
Anyone want to guess when that will happen?
Make love, not reality television.
If Deus Ex 3 would continue going towards the direction of Deus Ex 2 then this is what you'd have:
Yeah. Something like that. *fires up DX1 while still being bitter*.
Let's see my stack of Xbox game...
Halo, Amped, KOTOR, Beyond Good and Evil,
Max Payne 2, Serious Sam, Burnout 3, Phantom Dust, Ninja Gaiden and LOTR : Third Age.
Of all those games, only 2 are sequels. (You could argue that Ninja Gaiden is a sequel, but the previous game was released more than 10 years ago and is drastically different).
Who said you couldn't be a gamer (especially an xbox gamer) and have non-sequel games?
Crusader: no remorse/regret, the graphics still impress me 10 years later
diablo, though I guess worlds of warcraft is the sequel
the falcon series of flight simulators
return to castle wolfenstien using the doom 3 engine
privateer
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
The fact about Rome Total war is that its one in a serie. Not Rome Total war 2: the revenge (or something as insipid.)
If they make Barbarian invasion Total war or Dark age total war I dont mind. Its the continuing serie.
BTW I AM still waiting for Daikatana 2 you know.
that reads like a list of every game i enjoyed on the c64 or 286 back in the 80s.
i hadn't remembered that they were all EA. it IS kind of sad in a way to see an idealistic little startup become a huge impersonal corporate monolith. but on the other hand, it is kind of happy too. I'm sure the people who started it all off got out of there with nice fat paycheques and it's not like there are any shortage of idealistic startups in the industry today.
lysergically yours
Battlefield 1942 vs. Battlefield 2 Made by: DICE
More stabiblity, better graphics, better gameplay, modern weapons and combat. An overall improvement over the original title.
Any of the Medal of Honor series. For some reason EA seemed to shit these out like a bad can of beans. And they just got worse and worse. By far though, IMHO the final release of MOH Pacific Assault is the absolute best for single player fun and eye candy.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Using someone elses engine, is guaranteed to be a whole hell of a lot faster than upgrading your own engine to the latest tech.
My point is still valid. Building an "original" game on someone elses engine, is likely to be significantly less work than building a sequel to your blockbuster, on a completely rewritten engine.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
is the name of the game (pun not intended).
Finding new and interesting content is hard. And risky. Big distributors would rather have predictable revenue than gamble with something original (and possibly more lucrative). As movie companies get bigger they lose the eccentric loose cannon guy at the top who would say "Gone With The Wind 2?!? Have we no shame!?" He gets replaced by shareholders who just want the company to put out a steady stream of dividends, taste be damned.
You see it everywhere now: music, TV, even books.
Looks like the video game industry has finally grown up.
:(
the fact is, sequels aren't anything new in the video game industry. in fact, they're really nothing new in any industry. remember lord of the rings? remember how super mario bros. is the sequel of a little game called mario bros.? when you look at video games compared to say, movies, the fact that one game is the sequel to another doesn't imply very much at all. technically ocarina of time is a sequel to a link to the past, but besides the obvious symbolic references and plot, the games play pretty differently. sure, making your new game part of a well-established franchise ensures that it will sell well, but doesn't necessarily indicate that the game will be mindless. EGM's article half-complains about the mindless nature of sequels, but at the same time complains that there's no sequel to beyond good & evil, a game which wrapped up pretty well at the end. when you look at the video game industry as a whole, the sequel concept works because you're already invested in that particular world/concept and desire to revisit it with new/improved gameplay or ideas. sort of like how godfather II was just a little better than the first. sure, there will always be bad sequels, but there are just as many, if not more bad original games as well.
...whose stock is valued on the growth of the company. The entire company culture revolves around this. At least this guy is honest about that, and they are not lying to the potential peons.
All of their top people have oodles of stock options. Seriously, look at the executive trading. They are in it for the money. Period. I worked there in the early 90's - it was always like that. I made money from it, and sometimes wish I could have stayed, and made even more.
Expecting any different is based on fantasy, not any previous experience. Any cool game to come from EA (UO, Sims, Battlefield) was likely from an outside developer, and was probably seriosly undervalued and almost canceled many times by the suits. When the suits try to "innovate", you get EA.COM, Earth and Beyond, and Sims Online.
-Donut
ps. Any pointing back to their past is fairly worthless argument. Starbucks used to be a coffee shop run by hippies, and Walmart was a grungy place to buy rejected crap for cheap.
Final Fantasy- every Final Fantasy from 1 to 10 (I dunno about X-2), relys on the same fundamental formula that hasn't changed for nearly 20 years. A team of no more than five adventurers, likely the holy trinity of fighter mage and healer (yeah yeah character customization...), fight in hundreds to thousands of random encounters in a turn based (ABT), more detailed view. Personal inventory is limited to what is equipped at the time, everything else is managed via a party inventory screen. There's likely to be a mog, a chocobo, and an airship somewhere in there too.
The only differences between games are: the graphics, number of cutscenes, the caracter development system, and the minor differences to the formulaic plot. The fundamental gameplay stays the same.
Now look at variation in the Zelda games. 1 was overhead, built almost entirely around exploration. 2 was a side scroller that had more elements of plot. 3 was much like 1, but the exploration was guided by the storyline. Ocarina of Time brought it all into 3d and is very much a completely different experience. Majora's Mask built on that fundamental gameplay by giving the player special powers, focusing gameplay on puzzles and limiting exploration with a time requirement. Four Swords returned to gameplay much like 3, but the addition of cooperative multiplayer once again proved to be a dramatic departure from the original games- at least in terms of gameplay. Say what you will about the story.
The Ultima series was all overhead exploration and "slay the evil wizard" until the second trilogy. Though the gameplay stayed fundamentally the same, the continuous storyline took front and center, providing goals and character development that had never been seen before. The third trilogy continued that trend, but completely reimagined the gameplay for each game. Ultima 7 was a fully realized and interactive living world with real-time combat, Ultima 8 was an isometric platformer and Ultima 9 was a 3rd person action-rpg.
The Final Fantasy series are some great games, but I stand by my claim that they are not an example of originality in a series. For that to be the case, Square would have made FF: Tactics, Secret of Mana and Chrono Trigger Final Fantasy games. (Crystal Chronicles and Mystic Quest on the other hand are unworthy of the title.)
NOBODY explains the game like Madden does. You don't like his sense of humor? You'd prefer a dipshit like Howard Cosell maybe? If you're really a football fan, you ought to appreciate the man's insight into the game. If not, what the fuck are you even doing in this thread?
We like sequels because instead of buying every Burnout, Splinter Cell, Ratchet & Clank, DBZ: Budakai, Metal Gear Solid, that comes out, we can just buy the one with the best review score, or the one with the features we want (for me offline coop and versus modes, and low required play times). This, of course, assumes we have the patience to wait for a good sample of each to come out.
This strategy is best if you just want to build a small games library of varied good games (good for entertaining guests). However, you might feel left out if a all the games in a frachise are really great, or if stories build upon eachother.
Games are going in the same direction as the movie industry. Flashy effects, big names, and weaker plots. Every movie is a remake of a classic movie/TV show, bastardized sequel, or a comic book. This still makes money because its always interesting to see a new take on something. Now what I don't find interesting is something like this. Jean Claude Van Damme is an "insert occupation here" fighting the "insert organization here" to regain his honor. (Its a fun game, try it sometime.)
Jean Claude Van Damme is an "lonely housewife" fighting the "EA slave drivers" to regain his honor.