Slashdot Mirror
Why Do We Prefer Sequels?
jayintune writes "2old2play has up an editorial about our love affair, as gamers, with sequels." From the article: "Sequels make us feel comfortable. Control schemes and gameplay doesn't need to be totally relearned. If you train to be a sniper in Halo 2, hopefully you will still be a good sniper in Halo 3. I still remember the disappointment I felt when they totally changed the light saber controls when Jedi Outcast came out. For an 'old school' player like me with many hours of practice, a new control scheme was just too much to relearn. A good sequel will retain mechanics to retain the existing user base and hopefully add new players as well."
I know, it's shocking... but could it be we've invested time and emotion in storylines and characters? That's the primary reason I play sequels. They're like old friends.
The reason we prefer sequels is the same reason we "prefer" McDonald's. We know what we are getting. Sure it may not be the best, but there are no surprises, and we don't have to worry about the food being bad.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
We prefer sequels? This is news to me.
"Why do we prefer sequels?"
Perhaps it is our inner fear of death that makes us love sequels. As long as the story continues, our hero or heroine, will live forever in our minds. This might possibly negate the feeling of our own impending doom as we sit in the theater.
On the other hand, there are those sequels where we wish death would visit us before the end of the movie. So in conclusion, who knows really.
I happen to think it has little to do with control schemes et al.
It is more about the story, believe it or not. I mean, hello? Most FPS games share almost identical control schemes. And if the defaults aren't the same between Quake 4 and F.E.A.R then you have free reign to change the controls.
No, I think it's the story. A story creates a world in our imaginations. A world which if we find we enjoy we will want to continue to visit.
Why do I want a sequal to a movie like The Matrix? Because (actual sequels aside) I want to be able to go back to the world the Wachowski's created, be a part of it even if I'm just the observer.
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
Folk with unhappy childhoods crave consistency. Sequels (usually) provide consistency. The piece is run on a site for older, primarily US. gamers.
Next story: Tortoises run slowly.
So as said before, you're comfortable with the controls, characters, and storyline, and you figure it's going to be as good as the lsat one, but I have another reason to contribute:
they already have the characters and story developed, and usually they have an engine to build with too. In other words, they're not starting from scratch, so they have more time to make a better game.
Take Mario Power Tennis, as a random example. They already had the actual Tennis part down (and down well), so they had time to tweak the controls, and add lots of fun gimmick courts and mini-games that fit well with the existing engine. (Also you get the power shots, but I'm lukewarm on those).
It's especially good if you were new to the series, because it's like you're getting everything the N64 game and those cool additions.
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
Oh, this is about games... some of the comments gave me the impression that it was movies.
/., I guess you were right to tell me to slow down... this time.
Well
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
I mean, you could go to that no-name place down the road, but you never know, it could end up being worse than McDonald's.
If I'm considering a no-name place down the road that isn't supported by millions of dollars of advertising and support infrastructure and yet is able to stay open, I'd be optimistic enough to think that it might be better than something I know is uniformly awful. If the no-name place is new, at least they'll be wanting to make a good first impression. If variety is the spice of life, why is a consistently bland McSomething so impressive anyway? (And if you think the no-name place is more likely to make you sick, please watch Supersize Me or find another way of waking up).
--
"Extra Anus Kills Four-Legged Chick" -- Headline
There isn't a single game that has done for me what the original did. We Love Katamari was ho hum after the original (which I still play). UT2K3 was nowhere near as much fun as the original Unreal Tournament. Project Gotham Racing 2 was "eh" after the original, and I don't have a 360 so I haven't had the pleasure of PGR3. And who thought San Andreas was so much better than Vice City, or even the "original" GTA3.
Sure maybe the control schemes are the same but the fact is that nothing grabs you like an original concept that works, so much so that a sequel is really just a warmed-over rehash of the same material to squeeze every last drop of $$$ from the player.
Meanwhile, real "sequels" get short shrift: I got through both Shenmue and Shenmue 2 they leave you wanting more, but at this point more will never come.
I don't think the gamers prefer this, the gaming companies do since development is a lot easier and costs a bundle less. Ofcourse, usually, they do charge you with the full price for the sequel.. I'd rather see updates and enhancements to a game than a whole new sequel. I can still hear my girlfriend whine about how the changed the controls (or whatever) between Tombraider releases, taking them a first update before it was fixed.
Ever read a good book, then get to the end and wish you had more to read? If it's a series, you'll probably go pick up the next book in the series so you can get back to that same feeling of elation that the previous book brought you. If the book isn't a series, then you might look for more books by the same author in hopes that his other titles will be just as good.
/End amatuer physcology
It's the same with video games. If a particular game brings you enjoyment, then you'll want more when you're done with the current one. A sequel provides a seemingly "safe" method of obtaining that enjoyment. Simply picking up a different title removes you from your comfort zone and exposes you to risk. Ergo, we try to minimize the number of new franchises we "get into".
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
We like sequels to software, everyone loves a new version unlike movies, a game can experiance a large amount of improvement or at the very least a continuation of gameplay that the user loved before.
Why can't game developers finish the story the first time around?
Whatever was wrong with the original, that got rushed through production, is probably sorted out by the time the sequel comes out.
See: Oddworld's save system.
You can't take the sky from me...
> Project Gotham Racing 2 was "eh" after the original
That's funny -- I thought PGR1 was "eh" after the actual original, Metropolis Street Racer on the Dreamcast.
> And who thought San Andreas was so much better than Vice City, or even the "original" GTA3.
I certainly did, and I've been playing the GTA games since the demo of GTA1 first came out.
I think your PGR flub betrays what's actually going on here -- people are usually fondest of whichever game in a series they're exposed to first, unless a sequel really hits the ball out of the park. It's an emotional response, not a rational one. And you have to realize that each sequel is going to be someone's first exposure to a series, so the whole argument is kind of a non-starter.
Some sequels are great. Give me any one of Sierra's 'Quest' games and I'll be happy because I'm getting a great product and characters that I like. However, excessive sequels are annoying. I really don't need to play 'generic platformer 34: the princess is kidnapped again'.
People generally do not want original content in and of its self. Original content is good from time to time, but when people sit down for a few hours of hard core gaming, they dont necessarily want original content. They want good content.
You dont need to make original games, just good ones, and unlike movies, games tend to improve from one sequel to the next.
People will go for a sequel because if the original game was good, the sequel is usually at least as good, or close enough to it. Unlike movie sequels, games have more assets with which to appeal to their audience. Solid and engaging gameplay is more important than story content. The storyline for a sequel may not be as strong as the original, but most of the time the gameplay is intact. And if the gameplay is intact, it can deliver the same things that the first game did, but do so in new levels. Gameplay in sequels generally gets improved from one iteration to the next as well, since they have all the user input from the first game to fall back on. They can reduce or remove elements of the originals that did not appeal, and improve and build upon elements that did work.
Now, not all videogame sequels are as good as their predecessors, but if the orignal was a 9 out of 10 game, the sequel is probably no worse than 7 out of 10 at the worst.
END COMMUNICATION
I think it's similar to some advice I heard growing up about dating.
:)
It's always better to leave while their wanting more then give them more and make them wish you would leave.
I can't believe I haven't seen a single reply here talking about publishers.
Publishers love sequels far more than your average gamer, because they're a safe investment. This is particularly telling nowadays, with the cost of game development going through the roof. I read a few years ago that one of the Final Fantasy games would need to sell nearly two million copies just to turn a profit; very few games have that kind of brand recognition.
In fact, not many developers have that kind of brand recognition, either. Developers often don't understand why publishers won't take a chance, just as publishers don't want to foot the bill for something that they can't guarantee will be successful. If you can't use an existing game engine, or existing characters, or existing storyboards, that bill just gets bigger, and so does the risk. Even Nintendo at E3 2006 were talking about some of their new Wii and DS titles as "franchises", surely in preparation for long series of follow-ups to each.
Hopefully, we will soon see a trend towards cheaper game development coming into the mainstream. I've already seen the light with Nintendo treating the DS as a first-class platform, and this will only improve as services such as Wii Virtual Console and Xbox Live Arcade start racking up good libraries of killer apps. We might even see all those Flash game developers join in, tapping into an established audience and a proven business model that isn't entirely sustained by advertising. Not everything can be Geometry Wars, of course, but with the barrier to entry considerably lowered, we might see a bit more freshness in the games industry.
Attack its weak point for massive damage!
I don't think it is quite as simple as it may seem with people being comfortable with the familiar idea.
Yes the consumer may feel more inclined to by sequels but that is really only true for sequels of good games. A Bad game will cause the sequels to sell worse regardless of the quality of the sequel. This works in the reverse as well. When you see a sequel to a good game there is the general idea that the sequel will be around the same quality of its predecessor. How many people bought Tomorrow Never Dies just because the loved GoldenEye 007. So I don't think it is the sequel that people love so much as trying to recapture the original that causes a lot of purchases
With that in mind you have to look at marketing a bit as well. Original IP is considered a risk by publishers and marketing and because of this, in general sequels get way more marketing dollars spent on it then originals ever would. There could be an amazing new game on the market but people never hear about it because the marketing for it was to low budget. I know this has happened to me at least, where by the time I heard of a great game the production of it has already been stopped (I'm thinking gitaroo man).
In my opinion the reason sequels sell so well is because people actually know about them before they are on the shelves.
That's odd.....I think this is one of those rare submissions that would be a lot funnier if it WAS duped.
Never play chicken with a passive aggressive.
It is a simple equation; we get ourselves into the role. A sequel represents a way in which we are reincarnated is it were. I am a quake god again. I am an awp whore again. I am a wizard-warlock-gremlin again.
/life long fan now. Quickly approaching 10 years, actually (beta .4)
When we play games, we are the persona or the avatar, we develop skills based around our experience. Unlike a movie, if we don't like the game, we aren't likely to finish playing it. When we love a game, we play it over and over and over, and experience it in different roles. That is something that movies can't replicate. Imagine, the Star Wars trilogy (Han shot first) seen THROUGH the eyes of Luke. Then imagine seeing it again THROUGH the eyes of Han. Same story, but completely different angles. We are our avatar for the short while that we play.
I loved Half-Life. Still do love HL. When the mods started to roll in, I was in love with them too. You are Gordan. You are a soilder trying to stop Gordan. You are a security guard, just trying to get out alive.
HL2 comes along. We are taken back to what we were. 3-people. New story, but an infinate way to experience it. I don't have to move along a linear track like I would in a movie. I can move side to side, I can cheat if I want. It doesn't matter, to the game. I am god.
The new episodial game sequences are going to completely revolutionize the gaming genre. Planning so that a story is incomplete, and given feedback along the path of development. So many twists, and so many opportunities.
Image. Episode 2: Omega Watch. Episode 2: Head Crab.
2c. And damn glad I still play counter-strike.
It's because we didn't get enough the first time around, obviously. This is the reason people get pissed off when a sequel drastically changes things. They were looking for that same experience, but wanted it to "happen all over again."
and I know what I'm getting. It's a consistent product.
Wow... I need to find out where this McDonald's you go to is. It sounds like Redlobster compared to the McDonald's I'm stuck with!
the sequels are better than the original.
Two off the top of my head:
Descent 1 and 2, IMO, the improvements were fantastic despite some wierd bugs that
were patched quickly. The weapons, the AI, the game play were all improved.
D3 rolled around and the Grfx were fantastic, and the play was excellent still.
Max Payne 1 and 2: Good story, good action and neat gimmics and 2 made it even more
thrilling. Improved bullet-time, fantastic play and effects of two made me wish to
play the first under the MP2 engine.
Not many games I can think of that made me say that, besides Carmageddon 1 or 2 (the 3rd one never happened, twas just a horrible nitemare...so I tell myself).
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
"Descent 1 and 2, IMO, the improvements were fantastic despite some wierd bugs that
were patched quickly. The weapons, the AI, the game play were all improved.
D3 rolled around and the Grfx were fantastic, and the play was excellent still."
And this is where we'll have to part ways! Descent 3 bombed financially, whereas D1 and D2 did not. So to say D3 was better then Descent 2 is obviously at least partly incorrect. In fact I loved descent 2 to death, I played the think religiously over Kali even when friends had moved onto quake, the frenzied multiplayer fights in those small ugly cubish levels were fun as hell and always got your blood pumping... all I can say is it wasn't the same with D3, being that D3 was made from scratch with an entirely new engine.
Music... D1 + D2 had better music then descent 3... even D1's midi music (the compositions) were better then what was found in D3, in D3 I frequently wanted to shut off the "noise" where the tracks in D2 totally suited blowing stuff (and friends) up.
Gameplay... the fact is Descent being a 3D space combat game has a certain "feel" and sense of motion that the ships and D1 and D2 had that was lost in Descent 3, not to mention the introduction of 2 other ships with different performance characteristics.
Next weapons didn't feel right if you've had played the prior 2 descent games. i.e. Plasma bullets were much smaller then the original, also many sound effects were subdued making identifying and hearing weapons fire at a distance more difficult, D3 was an especially quiet game in terms of hearing weapons fire, etc in larger levels.
Descent 2's multiplayer was greater then D3's, D3 had shinier graphics but it upset the multiplayer magic of Descent 2.
The way missiles worked in D3 and the levels being rather large, the ships all controlling differently, etc, the way some weapons characteristics were modified and the lack of carry over of Favorite weapons from other games... really killed the descent 3 experience.
I think a great example of this is with the ever popular Final Fantasy VII game. It was the first "FF" game for many folks, thanks to a huge advertising campaign by Square at the time. So, for all future FF games, FF7 has always been "the one" for these fanatics.
As someone who's played the FF games from the beginning, I never understood what the craze was about. FF7 is actually the only FF game I never played (I don't count the MMO FFXI), since it took a long time for me to jump to the PS1. And when I did have a chance to try it, I never got close to completing it, as there were far better RPGs around at the time. For me? The earlier FF games had a lot of charm, so for me, those are the ones I enjoyed the most. Very much an emotional response though.
-- jchenx
Maybe because developers today for some reason can't get it right the first time. The best we can hope for anymore is that most of the critical glitches are gone by version 1.2 and maybe another 'hotfix' after that so admins can actually detect online cheaters.
No really, I love buying games that are broken out of the box. Really.
- Collects games that don't need sequels
Why do we like sequels and franchises so much? It's the content, stupid!
Sometimes its because we really enjoy the story and characters, and want to see it continue (see the Halo, Metal Gear Solid games, among many others). Often it's because we really like that particular brand of gameplay, whether it be sports (see Madden) or a brawler (see Smash Bros), or kart racing (see Mario Kart). And often its because we really like the way a particular developer makes a game (see Final Fantasy or Grand Theft Auto, by Square-Enix and Rockstar respectively).
-- jchenx
There -are- ways to go over the top with this, though...
/incoherent rant.. not sure how to word what I'm feeling, but I guess a lot of you will know what I'm talking about.
Take for example Star Trek, which I think is probably a very good example.
I loved the shows - all of them, to varying degrees, but loved them. I watched TNG because I watched the originals, DS9 because I watched TNG, and voyager because I watched TNG as well (Darn them for running two series at about the same time).
I also watched Enterprise, but quite frankly that was a 'prequel' that just ruined a bunch of it.
Now shock & horror... there are fanfics. And there are official Star Trek books. There's whole storylines after the Voyager TV series' ending. And quite frankly, I cannot possibly get into all of them. It's just *too much*. I'm sure there are those superdevoted fans out there who will read / watch every single work on star trek in existence, but for me I just can't stand it anymore. To me things should come to an end eventually - happily ever after, or with the Earth scorched, I don't care - but drop it and create something at least remotely new so that I don't feel like I'm still stuck in the same story long after the main story had supposedly ended.
so yes, I'll play the Half Life episodes, but please let there be an end to it within the next 10 years, otherwise what happens is the same thing that happens to TV series... they get old, get canceled, and get the most f'ed up endings in TV. ( Like I can only imagine is what will happen with 'Lost'. ) I, for one, hope all game writers who write games with a 'story' have the ending of that story already in their mind, and are only working towards that ending in their sequels, without dragging things on and on.
typo! (Well, more of a brain-fart really)
http://www.amazon.com/Lucas-Arts-23272325756-Repub lic-Commando/dp/B00020BV1A
:)
Fairly fun game.
Consistency is the spice of life.
Sometimes a game that does ok has enough depth and playability to make a sequel out of it,
and the authors can take the bits that worked and improve them, fix the stuff that didn't,
and add enough new material to make it worth playing (even if that's only new dungeons
to wander around in and different monsters to shoot.) Doesn't always work, but if there wasn't enough playability to make a sequel and the game tanked in the market, usually the authors will
go out of business if they're small or write a newer game if they're better-funded.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Or do we just get more excited about them?
We're still at a point where there are very few developers in the business where plenty of people will run out and get the latest game from them due to the name. Even the really big ones like Miyamoto didn't see first week sales for a new 'original' title like Pikmin when you look at what the Nth Mario or Zelda achieves.
So unless a game looks REALLY pretty, or someone has an absolutely killer license (which is hardly a sign of originality either), to get the marketing ball rolling it's a lot easier to have a known big title name. Microsoft didn't need to tell anyone other than the words "Halo 3" at E3 to get the masses drooling, and despite there being plenty of other games looking really nice too, all we hear about the PS3 are MGS4 and FF13.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
The reason that sequels sell is simple, people already know them, so its easy to market them. Saying to the customer "more of the same" gives him a idea of what the sequel will offer. With a new game on the other side the marketing department has to start from zero, explain the world, the gameplay, the genre and what not to the consumer, a heck a lot more work then just saying "more of the same". This can also be seen by non-sequels, for examples Assassin's Creed, while its an original game, every interview basically starts with "From the creators of Prince of Persia: Sands of Time...", which is really not so different from saying "more of the same", they simply build up on the fame of the past, with true sequels that is of course even easier.
In the end I don't think that consumers want sequels, it simply happens that marketing makes it easier to buy sequels then original games. There are of course a few exceptions, when the story isn't done and there is still something to be told or when the original game simply was to short to take advantange of the full potential of the game mechanics or when the technology has advanced so much that a reinterpretation of the original game is worth the try (PrinceOfPersia, Mario, etc.). For most part I would however say that non-sequels are prefered, however what I want and what I buy don't have to be the same things in the end, thanks to marketing and a bunch of other influences.
Aside from story-related stuff, a game sequel would be better described simply as a software upgrade. Generally speaking, most sequels do exactly the same thing other software upgrades do:
- correct bugs
- improve the user interface
- adds more options
Actually, the line between console games and software has already started to blur. if you look at some of the games already out for the Xbox 360, you can perform minor upgrades of your own choosing with them, adding new characters, models, weapons and textures from a growing list of options available via Xbox Live. Future titles will eventually allow you to gradually add entirely new levels/worlds to explore, instead of making you wait a year for a simple repackaging of the same game engine with different data included on the disc.
Of course, this could eventually backfire on the end user, where if you "buy" a game from a store, it's only the game engine with a couple token levels packaged in with it, requiring you to download the rest of the game from the internet in small chunks at a collectively higher price. There's talk that the next Gran Turismo title for the PS3 will actually do just that... requiring you to purchase each car or track separately.
8==8 Bones 8==8
We don't have to worry about the "food" being food. :P
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
Give it time... this is Slashdot, man!
Meta will eat itself
and i don't understand when people do
Well, I would have to echo the thoughts of some of the other comments but not the article.
I hate and detest sequals for all they are worth. Why can't people just leave a good game alone rather than trying to constantly cash in on the name? Rarely does a sequel come out better than the original unless the original was obviously lacking (i.e. pushed out before it was finished). Video game sequels may be slightly better than movie sequels (which, again, are on the whole quite terrible with only a few minor exceptions).
To make a sequel for a videogame work, the only way is to keep the majority of the game exactly the same (as in controls, mechanics, etc.) and add "more", more levels, more secrets, more bonuses etc. But even if that's not done right, it can totally ruin a game. It has to be an "expansion pack" not a sequel for it to work properly.
There are obviously exceptions to the rule, must as there are in the movie industry, but as in the movie industry you can find that people take things just that bit too far and ruin the impression of a whole series of games. (Not that in the below list, good means "good for it's time")
GTA - good. GTA London - Good but short. GTA2 (Engine change, graphics, destroyed controls etc.) - Poor but with a few okay ideas. GTA3 (A different game entirely) worthy in it's own right but could easily have NOT been a sequel just by changing it's name.
Age of Empires - good. Age of Empires 2 (same engine, same style, same feel, same everything but done so much better, with features that are genuinely useful and with new maps, races, missions etc.) - Excellent. Age of Mythology (Let's cash in on the "Age Of" Series)- crap. Age of Empires III (a return to the old style but with my pet hate of "updated to true 3D") - good.
Carmageddon - good. Carmageddon 2 (an expansion pack with better graphics) - good. Carmageddon TDR2000 (another expansion pack, again with slightly better graphics and some physics/bonus tweaks) - good.
Command and Conquer + it's expansion packs - good. Red Alert + it's expansion packs (basically the same as C&C but with different units etc.) - Good. Red Alert 2 - starting to go downhill. Command & Conquer: Generals - crap.
Project IGI - good. Project IGI2 (Same gameplay, slightly better) - good.
Quake - excellent. Quake 2 - not too bad. Quake 3 - Yuk but fun if you started off on it as a multiplayer deathmatch kind of thing. Quake 4 - nuff said.
Counterstrike - excellent. Counterstrike Condition Zero - actually surpisingly good, despite a bad reputation. Counterstrike: Source - let's not go there.
And it's obvious why this should be = those players who love a certain game expect a sequel to be more of the same, but better. They don't expect an entirely different style of game. Those sequels that are purely mission packs / graphics upgrades but still manage to capture that same atmosphere, same responsiveness to controls etc. are the ones that are popular. Those that change the game radically will put off a lot of the original players, although if the sequel is really THAT different, it may create a new genre of it's own and thus attract players back because it's a "new" type of game. For instance, GTA3 or Quake3. However that's rare and most sequels like that just aren't as good (Age of Mythology).
If you're going to do a sequel, make it similar to the original but better (i.e. don't destroy the good pieces of the game that you originally had). If you can't make it similar, call it something else or make it clear that it is absolutely NOT a sequel in any way.
I think that we prefer sequels because it means that we finally get to see Kate Beckinsale naked.
Okay, so maybe this logic only applies to one specific case.
Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
I don't think it's so much that we, as gamers, have a 'love affair' with sequels, it's that the publishers do, and we usually accept it or benefit from it.
Sequels are cheaper to make, as they require less story development and can reuse textures and code from the old games, assuming it's on the same console. Even if it's not the same console, it's still less work in the end, and thus is cheaper.
So we wind up with GTA4, or a GTA clone, instead of some new type of game. Is GTA4 necessarily bad? Is the GTA clone? No, but rarely do sequels push boundries, becuase they try to stick to the original game.
The author mentioned his incredulity that Final Fantasy is on XII. While this is *technically* true, I feel it necessary to point out that A: the very nature of Final Fantasy does not lend itself to sequels the way that games such as Halo, Half-Life, or Elder Scrolls, or even Fable do. Well, you can have "sequels" (FFVII: Dirge of Cerberus, FFX-2) but they really don't turn out very well (I've not played DoS, or FFVII even, but FFX2 sucked so hard it made Albuquerque windy for a couple days when I bought it). Final Fantasy "major-version" releases are usually independent games with NO ties to the previous version whatsoever.
This has its upsides and its downsides. All the fanboys will immediately go buy the next Final Fantasy game pretty much without even renting it, just because it's Final Fantasy, which actually demotivates Square for the next game of the series. Not that I'm saying any of the FF games have sucked, other than FFX2. Just that this is the problem with most franchise style games, which is why Okami, Katamari Damacy, and LocoRoco are so awesome: New concept, *extremely trippy concept*, and they're BLOODY FUN TO PLAY! I've played demos of Okami and LocoRoco and the full version of Katamari (even though I'm not THAT good at it).
In other news, the story of Fable: The Lost Chapters and Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind (Game of the Year edition) is extremely good (emphasis on Fable) and capable of engrossing people who enjoy decent RPGs, or people who can't afford a bunch of games.
And I *definitely* wouldn't be talking about myself in that last semi-paragraph. No, not at all. Never!
This is not the sig you're looking for.
This is absolutely correct. People don't prefer sequels in the least, it's simply all we're giving. Companies are afraid to produce brand new content so they march out tired retreads year after year, and consumers keep the cycle going by buying them. Of course they're buying them because they have no other choices besides not buying anything, so since they sell companies make more of the same, and it continues on.
I hate to be the mom bursting in the room when all this mental masturbation is going on, but maybe it's as simple as "hey, I had fun with the original."
Now continue spooging up the internet.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
One common thread that I'm reading is that while the sequel, by itself, isn't necessarily a good thing, it often represents a refinement of the ideas presented in the original game. For example, Max Payne gave us a successful third-person shooter (at the time, a rarity outside of certain adventure games and niche games that required melee combat) with the slow-motion "bullet time" along with a film noir story; Max Payne 2 refined the ideas presented in Max Payne 1, both in terms of gameplay and developing the story. A lot of times, it gives us a chance to say "What if?" with the original game, and take it to different levels of possibility. Look at the progression of both technology and story in Warcraft to Warcraft 2 to Warcraft 3. Likewise, Resident Evil made a big jump from RE3 to RE4.
Then there are the sequels that are so radically different that they almost constitute a different game entirely. Diablo II, while still hack and slash, had such significantly different gameplay elements from the original that the similarities between the two are mostly thematic. The Civilization series has constantly reinvented itself... while still about world development and domination, the amount of detail and scope has changed with each iteration of the game.
This isn't to say that all sequels are good (or bad, for that matter). I mean, do we really need a new Madden game every single year?
You know, this is probably the reason that fan fiction is such a large phenomina these days. You get to revisit your favorite characters, in a myriad of situations.
What would have happened if Harry Potter had known he was a wizard earlier?
What was the final fate of Belgarion?
And, of course, you get to see unplausible "crossovers" that are terribly popular when they are sanctioned.
Eveyone loved seeing some of the Star Wars characters/actors on the muppets all those years ago.
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
It's movies, too; both the people who make the movies and the people who see the movies like sequels because they know what to expect. Some of it is also complacency; We elect the incumbent back to the house or senate something like 95% of the time even though all of us complain about what our government is doing.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"What's this 'we' shit, white man?"
Super Metroid.
(The original was great, but Super Metroid may be the greatest 16-bit game ever.)
Publishers do. They see them as free ways to make easy money: And then milk that cash cow. I thought this was a known fact?
It seems to me that we prefer sequels because (the good ones at least) have been improved by our feedback on the original. It was ~designed~ to be better than the original because we told them what we thought would make it better.