Report, edit, etc...Posted by Revelade on 2005-01-20 at 02:41:11
I was reading through an issue of GamePro (I hate them now), which was dated at 1996 or so. What caught my attention is the fact that there were so many NEW titles at the time compared to games we play today. Face it, you have a mothersload: Half-Life 2, Halo 2, Need for Speed Underground 2, Resident Evil 4, Prince of Persia 2, Metroid Prime 2, Super Mario Brother's Advance 4...
In the magazine, I saw some interesting titles that tried to explore new game styles. Though many titles did not survive into the days of today, I admire these companies for their ambition.
So flashforward to today's world. Now what I ask is not necessarily which title is better by improvements, but actually on the effect the game had on you. Sure a game can be nearly bug-free, but it can still be boring compared to a game with loads of glitches, but fun. If it is entertaining, that is what matters the most. So I ask, did games that had go arounds, such as the titles above, impact you more with their improvements or did the original titles seem to be more memorable?
I believe sequels are easier to develop than a totally new franchise. When you think of it, having a previous game/movie/book before gives you directions to head with the sequel. You know what to do because of finding weaknesses in the original game. Sure you can add improvements, but sometimes it feels the same overall.
I find the original games, movies, books, etc. to be more engaging because you don't know what to expect the first few times. But once you reveal mysteries and surprises... the "magic" disappears... Comment!
In the magazine, I saw some interesting titles that tried to explore new game styles. Though many titles did not survive into the days of today, I admire these companies for their ambition.
So flashforward to today's world. Now what I ask is not necessarily which title is better by improvements, but actually on the effect the game had on you. Sure a game can be nearly bug-free, but it can still be boring compared to a game with loads of glitches, but fun. If it is entertaining, that is what matters the most. So I ask, did games that had go arounds, such as the titles above, impact you more with their improvements or did the original titles seem to be more memorable?
I believe sequels are easier to develop than a totally new franchise. When you think of it, having a previous game/movie/book before gives you directions to head with the sequel. You know what to do because of finding weaknesses in the original game. Sure you can add improvements, but sometimes it feels the same overall.
I find the original games, movies, books, etc. to be more engaging because you don't know what to expect the first few times. But once you reveal mysteries and surprises... the "magic" disappears... Comment!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by iamacow on 2005-01-20 at 17:36:54
Sequels are only good one there is something in the first game/book/movie or whatever that makes it worthwhile to have a sequel. Something like a decent story that makes you want to know more about the past or future of where it takes place. Very glitchy games that are fun can have the fun taken right out of them by glitches for some people. Like Morrowind, that has plenty of glitches, good game, but I can't stand it because of the glitches. I could jump up one of those towers (the ones where you are supposed to levitate up tunnel things) by hooking on edges of the tower and getting stuck.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by KaboomHahahein on 2005-01-20 at 17:46:22
Even movie have alot more sequels than before. We are running out of originality. If you haven't noticed most movies these days are based on historical events, from books or just a sequel of the first movie.
Originality is definatly more important.
Originality is definatly more important.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-01-20 at 22:22:55
I wholeheartedly agree.
Sequals are out there only because the original did well. Some sequals are good, and if you liked a first game, you will most likely look forward to it's sequal, but there are no new games anymore,
. If sequals were made with some major changes from the originals, they would be that nuch better.
Sequals are out there only because the original did well. Some sequals are good, and if you liked a first game, you will most likely look forward to it's sequal, but there are no new games anymore,
. If sequals were made with some major changes from the originals, they would be that nuch better.Report, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2005-01-21 at 09:40:23
It kinda depends what game or thing we're talking about.
If it's for starcraft, i'd definately want a sequel.
If it's for warcraftIII, i'd definately hope they make someone different and original.
If it's for starcraft, i'd definately want a sequel.
If it's for warcraftIII, i'd definately hope they make someone different and original.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by notnuclearrabbit on 2005-01-22 at 06:03:30
[center]Sequals are only good when they actually develop the story more, as in the game/movie/anything else was MADE to be in multiple parts. If the second game/movie/anything else is just the same story as the first one, but in a different location, or something, then that just sucks. What did everyone think of the SC sequal; BW?[/center]
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kame on 2005-01-22 at 13:26:39
Most Sequels Suck.
Land Before Time, anyone?
And what about remakes, like Ocean's 11? That came out way back long ago. The original version had the Rat Pack in it, for christ's sake.
Land Before Time, anyone?
And what about remakes, like Ocean's 11? That came out way back long ago. The original version had the Rat Pack in it, for christ's sake.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sipher on 2005-01-22 at 14:02:10
Lol, Land before time...
Well I am the only one (From what I see) who voted Sequals..Lol, I am an outsider. I wasnt thinking about games on this issue, I was thinking about movies. Like starwars. I enjoy watching the new movies over the old movies because of digital effect and I like Jango Fett more than any other character.
Well I am the only one (From what I see) who voted Sequals..Lol, I am an outsider. I wasnt thinking about games on this issue, I was thinking about movies. Like starwars. I enjoy watching the new movies over the old movies because of digital effect and I like Jango Fett more than any other character.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by mobomojo on 2005-01-22 at 15:08:22
I think it should be a good mix of both, like a 2:1 ratio of originality and sequels. Sequels are great for continuing the first in its series, but too much saturating the market just ruins the whole series. Some needs sequels, and some are just great as stand-alones.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by NeoNightmareX on 2005-01-22 at 15:16:08
original sequels, i win, game over 
but seriously, i believe originality is better, inovation is the key to making the next "Halo" game, and by halo, i dont mean Halo 3 
, i mean one of the greatest games
but seriously, i believe originality is better, inovation is the key to making the next "Halo" game, and by halo, i dont mean Halo 3 , i mean one of the greatest gamesReport, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2005-01-24 at 19:14:49
QUOTE(FireKame @ Jan 22 2005, 12:26 PM)
Most Sequels Suck.
Land Before Time, anyone?
And what about remakes, like Ocean's 11? That came out way back long ago. The original version had the Rat Pack in it, for christ's sake.
[right][snapback]130068[/snapback][/right]
Land Before Time, anyone?
And what about remakes, like Ocean's 11? That came out way back long ago. The original version had the Rat Pack in it, for christ's sake.
[right][snapback]130068[/snapback][/right]
Only the second Land Before Time was really any good. That's probably by far my favorite Land before Time movie. The rest sucked though, including the first one sorta.
Lots of remakes/sequels are dumb but nowadays, im seeing some good sequels more often now.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Revelade on 2005-01-28 at 03:35:24
Last year had a unholy amount of sequels. I think we should give original games a chance since they might give new experiences and since they are taking risks. If you have a good title and make a sequel, sales are pretty much guaranteed. If you are making a new type of game, you'll have to take chances because it might or might not sell. I believe our society should support new ideas, because there is a lack of them today.
Notice how most games that are popular are sequels and many of them originate from a long time ago (MGS, Metroid, Mario). It's sad that as time progresses, people are happy that the quality of games go up. However, with those quality increases, it puts pressure on developers as it costs more money to make advanced games. At least back then, making risks with games were less painful because you lost less money. If you screw up now on a big project, you lose a lot more. That's why I like SC mapping. Even if your new idea is a flunk, you don't lose anything. It's free to make, free to change, and free to play.
Notice how most games that are popular are sequels and many of them originate from a long time ago (MGS, Metroid, Mario). It's sad that as time progresses, people are happy that the quality of games go up. However, with those quality increases, it puts pressure on developers as it costs more money to make advanced games. At least back then, making risks with games were less painful because you lost less money. If you screw up now on a big project, you lose a lot more. That's why I like SC mapping. Even if your new idea is a flunk, you don't lose anything. It's free to make, free to change, and free to play.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by KaboomHahahein on 2005-01-28 at 09:01:02
[justify]Movies are just a huge marketing scheme. They make movies and they start to sell all these toys and etc. They get more money on people buying the movie product than than actually making the money off the movie.
The first one they find the audience loved, they will make another one just to fulfill the peoples desire to see more. Then later they make more and then they make a fool of themselves because they sucked.
Land before Time...don't even talk about it. All I know is that there are more than ten land before times.
I think it is best if the good movies only make a sequel for it once only. Unless it is like Harry potter, Lord of the Rings etc. Maybe a 3:1 ratio of new movies compared to sequels.[/justify]
The first one they find the audience loved, they will make another one just to fulfill the peoples desire to see more. Then later they make more and then they make a fool of themselves because they sucked.
Land before Time...don't even talk about it. All I know is that there are more than ten land before times.
I think it is best if the good movies only make a sequel for it once only. Unless it is like Harry potter, Lord of the Rings etc. Maybe a 3:1 ratio of new movies compared to sequels.[/justify]