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.
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.
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!"
Although, you gotta admit, most Mario games are sequels and feature original gameplay and content.
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
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.
You seem to have "back in my day..." syndrome. I disagree with all of your points. We Love Katamari was what the original Katamari should have been. I liked UT2K3 better than the original: better graphics with the same fast-paced FPS-styel gaming. GTA: San Andreas was/is so much better than the original GTA: more and varied vehicles, much larger game scope, much better storyline, etc. Certainly there are bad sequals, but none of the ones you've mentioned are them.
> 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.
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
"Although, you gotta admit, most Mario games are sequels and feature original gameplay and content."
It's easier to describe Mario games as a franchise instead of sequels. I have no problem calling Mario Sunshine a sequel, but Mario 64? Different animal.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
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.