Sequels Turning Off Game Consumers

Next Generation reports that the constant trend towards game sequels is lowering interest among game consumers. From the article: "A weak consumer environment leaves us questioning whether sales will rebound sufficiently to drive growth for the full year. In particular, consumers appear to be indifferent to the proliferation of sequels, indicating a slow start to holiday sales and risk of continuing weakness." That, right there, is the problem with the PSP's library at the moment.

Comments

Correction:

[B00yah]

BAD sequels turn off gamers. By bad I mean sequels that offer nothing new in the terms of gameplay, just a shinier appearance. Pretty much any EA sports game in the past 3 years have offered very little in innovative gameplay. However, sequels that offer new gameplay, storylines, etc (Zelda, Metroid, Final Fantasy), alway bring me back. There's always a draw to games that are obviously something new in a series of games, rather than just a re-hash of the same game, with a minor addition (madden, etc).

Re:Correction:

[hal2814]

You see, I've got to disagree with most of what you have to say. The only EA game I play regularly is Madden. Madden has done a decent job of adding features without screwing too much with the formula since about Madden 2003 (where 2003 is actually the year 2002 here). I like QB Vision. (I also like that you can turn it off.) I like the truck stick to an extent. I am also of the opinion that the 2006 computer AI is a bit smarter. I can't get away with one-trick-pony schemes too often anymore like I could in almost any previous Madden game. Madden also fixed QB Spy packages to actually spy the QB instead of just playing a soft zone up front. What it really comes down to is that I'd rather play Madden 06 than Madden 2005 with updated rosters.

Now the newer 2D Metroid GB games are great in my opinion, but I'm not overly impressed with their 3D offerings. I think they strayed too far from the formula there. Prime is an OK game, but I wouldn't have been happy spending more than $15 for it. Zelda did a good job of changing with the times IMHO and I enjoy each new game (even WindWalker). Personally, I thought Final Fantasy's jump to an MMO was an outright abomination.

Innovative gamplay is a double-edged sword. Straying too far will alientate some people, but staying too close to the formula not entice people to buy the newer product.

Another idiot

[sgent]

Its not sequels -- its bad sequels. I don't remember Doom, Civ2 & Civ3 or the Might & Magic games having problems. Similarly, the Zelda series on Nintendo always did well.

But give us crap, and amazingly, we don't want to buy it. Many games recently have been heavy on graphics and crap on gameplay -- so great for an hour or two, but boring.

Re:Another idiot

[Headcase88]

Agreed. Saying all sequels are bad because some companies are lazy and make shitty sequels is like saying all food is bad because you ate at Mcdonalds.

The problem with sequels by certain companies like let's say, oh I don't know, Electronic Arts, is that they take the exact same engine, change the levels around (sometimes), do nothing to the actual gameplay and call it a day.

I'm not talking about the obvious stuff like Madden, either. There aren't any sequels made by EA in the last ten years that are significantly improved from the original. Not even the SSX series... the mountain's are different, and they stream without noticeable loading, but the gameplay is the same "take a jump, mash a bunch of shoulder buttons, and boost to the finish" it has always been... the mountain changing doesn't really change the action.

Def Jam Fight for NY was a little further removed from Vendetta, so I'll give them that one. But really... any other sequels made by EA that actually had a different feel to them than the original? Discuss.

Sequels aren't inherently evil

[faloi]

I don't mind some sequels, when there's some genuinely new developments in game mechanics or a good story line to go with it. I don't mind add-ons, as long as they hit the same criteria. A lot of sequels do seem to just bank on the success of the prior game, and might have slightly different enemies/graphics. Those don't do it for me, and movie tie-ins don't do it for the same reason. I'm not going to play a mediocore game because someone slaps "Star Wars" in the title any more than I'm likely to pick up GTA:That One City Just South of the US-84 Interchange because I happened to enjoy the original. Especially if GTA:TOCJSOTU84I is just like GTA:TOCJNOTU84I with slightly different cars.

I wonder...

[AlltheCoolNamesGone]

if this will drive the industry to be even more on the safe side. Which is why we are where we are now....

Turns off new buyers?

[taeric]

I would think the largest market turned off by the use of sequels would be new buyers. I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of people that see the VIII after the last Dragon Quest game will assume that it is an ongoing story and would be hard to just jump into at this point. With this in mind, and the fact that you can't get the earlier ones, I would not be surprised if many that would enjoy the game are skipping it.

Re:That's NOT the PSP's problem

[Winterblink]

Portability, of course.

Movies?

[Jonny_eh]

How is this any different from movies? All the money goes to sequels, because there is a guaruntee (sort of) on a return on the investment.

Halo sold well, Halo 2 sold better. GTA III sold well, GTA: VC sold better. Super Mario Brothers sold well, SMB 3 sold better.

As long as people buy sequels, sequels will be made. Let the creativity be done by developers that don't own properties, or have properties that have run their course (like Rayman). The problem of course is getting these people funding.

Idiotic Analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because last year at this time, the industry was irrevocably damaged by the sequels being thrust upon us: Doom 3, Halo 2, Half Life 2 and GTA: San Andreas.