Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Entertainment Games

Sequels Turning Off Game Consumers 67

Posted by Zonk from the seen-it-all-before dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sequels Turning Off Game Consumers More

Sequels Turning Off Game Consumers

Comments Filter:

  • Correction: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by B00yah ( 213676 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @10:02AM (#14100309) Homepage
    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).
    • FIFA 2006 is by far the best football game ever. I still like 2005 too. At least with sports games you know what you're getting. FIFA for the XBox 360 is worthless [gamespot.com]. So I'll be waiting till next year for a 360 assuming anything good is released for it.
      • Sorry but FIFA sucks compared to Pro Evolution. FIFA plays like a game designed by people who have only ever seen football on the TV; Pro Evo plays like an actual game of football.

        The only good thing about FIFA is the club/player licensing; and that's of no interest to me as it doesn't cover the English lower leagues.

    • Re:Correction: (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hal2814 ( 725639 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @10:51AM (#14100748)
      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.
      • Almost 100% of the time, when someone claims each Madden game is nothing but a roster update, they haven't played any of the Madden games. These people are callow and have the need to insult others who they perceive to be less intelligent.
        • Almost 100% of the time, when someone claims each Madden game is nothing but a roster update, they haven't played any of the Madden games.

          I played the games from the genesis to the ps2, and there were continual changes - but there were several years that contained very little more than a roster update. I haven't played a Madden game in about 3 years, lost interest in tv sports mostly and the games were not good enough to enjoy for themselves.

          These people are callow and have the need to insult others

        • Some of them may not have played Madden, but some of them have played both Madden and the NFL 2K series and know exactly what they're talking about. Specifically, the running game.
      • 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).

        You need to read this [gamespot.com].

        "Many of the unique gameplay features of the last couple of Madden games are missing; lots of missing modes--all you get is a husk of a franchise mode and online play; some unsightly animation and graphical hang-ups that
        • I don't know everyone else is doing with Madden, but I'm using it to play football. Last time I checked, it still does that. The actual football engine has improved even if some bells and whistles that don't involve the engine were cut. The reviews are looking at what all "features" Madden packed into the game. I'm looking at how well Madden does the one thing it was specifically designed to do. It plays football and it plays it better than Madden 2005.

          Also, at least the GC version CAN Challenge plays.
      • I honestly can't see what you see as a problem with MP 1&2. They both made an excellent jump to 3D, and I'm willing to bet that what I saw as insane difficulty is most likely (although I don't know this for a fact) standard in fps's now. Plus, it's Wind Waker, not Walker.
    • Yah you're right the only reason those game series stayed was because they offered something new.

      FF have juste a completly new story, completly new char, completly new world, slight to big change in the gameplay, slight to big change in the character rising system and a slight to big change in the graphics just to had a little more but nothing of importance. That is what kept FF on top.

      Metroid have run too by changing completly the game style from a side-scroller 2D game to a FPS and kept the gameplay
    • and that is the key to a successful Nintendo launch If they manage to get out a Metroid, F-Zero, Zelda and Mario game at launch I would buy it and this is coming from someone who owned every console up to the Dreamcast. After the Dreamcast it was all about who can make the shiniest clone. We will see if the Revolution changes that
    • I agree. I point at Half-Life 2 and Halo 2 as two games that were better than the originals, and had very strong sales. Obviously gamers WANT sequels (arguably more than they want new non-sequels), they just want them to be good.
    • BAD sequels turn off gamers. By bad I mean sequels that offer nothing new in the terms of gameplay, just a shinier appearance.

      There's really only so many sequels you can go through before this becomes inevitable. usually by number three, the dev team has either screwed it up, gone stagnant, or reached perfection. Number 4 is almost guaranteed to be stale, and it's time to move on to something else. NaughtyDog is one company that understands this. Bungie is going to have to be another.

    • " BAD sequels turn off gamers."

      Exactly. Games like Grand Theft Auto 3, Mario 64 and Dune 2 are all technically sequels, but they were also revolutionary games which created new genres. Resident Evil 4 and Civilization IV are both sequels, but they're also by far the best games in their respective series and contenders for Game of the Year. A lot of games take a few iterations to really get everything right. For example: Pikmin 2, Fallout 2, Baldur's Gate 2, Master of Orion 2 and Space Empires IV. Ho

  • Another idiot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sgent ( 874402 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @10:03AM (#14100322)
    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 (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Headcase88 ( 828620 )
      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 si
    • It's a very good point--it's the BAD sequels that ruin it for the rest of them.

      What's interesting is to look ahead and try and think how developers can/might improve on today's hot games. Right now, I'm playing UT2004. I didn't get UT2003, simply because the demo didn't impress me as being much better in terms of gameplay than the original Unreal Tournament. UT2004 restored Assault and added several other gameplay types. The graphics (for me) were just a big bonus.

      Future games will look better. It's

  • Sequels aren't inherently evil (Score:4, Insightful)

    by faloi ( 738831 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @10:05AM (#14100340)
    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... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AlltheCoolNamesGone ( 838035 ) * on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @10:06AM (#14100350)
    if this will drive the industry to be even more on the safe side. Which is why we are where we are now....

  • Observation (Score:4, Informative)

    by SamSim ( 630795 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @10:15AM (#14100412) Homepage Journal

    There are 18 games [xbox.com] in the Xbox 360 launch catalogue. 14 of them are sequels. (11 of them are sports/racing games!)

  • The problem with the PSP is that right now you're seeing almost nothing but PORTS, not sequels. Lets face it, Burnout Legends, while a fantastic game for the PSP, is basically a port of Burnout 3. Ditto for practically every sports game on the platform.

    The games developed for the platform specifically seem to be getting the best reviews - Lumines is a prime example, and is an excellent game.

    Some commentary I've read tends to blame this on the push for the next gen consoles. Developers might be more likel

  • Correction. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by werewolf1031 ( 869837 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @10:27AM (#14100513)
    The plethora of sequals has nothing to do with any slumping sales. Keep in mind, kids -- your average, brainwashed-by-the-public-"education"-system consumer is actually more comfortable purchasing a product that is percieved as a "known quantity", rather than trying something new and different. Those of us who enjoy "new and different" are among the minority, and are atypical consumers.

    Madden, Final Fantasy, ad infinitum will continue to sell in mass quantities, so long as the designers don't churn out pure and utter crap (ie. creating a game that even their long-time loyal fans would hate).
    • Gotta disagree with you here.

      With the exception of a few classic franchises, successful movies don't do more than two sequels, and if they do, the last couple are straight-to-DVD. it's just not profitable to send those things into the theaters. Why? Well the only new audience you're gonna get for Police Academy VI are the kids who were too young to get into Police Academy V. Releasing sequels doesn't by itself get you much marketshare; sequels are a way to maximize income from a niche, but the "niche" shou
      • Interesting points. The only part of your post I definitely disagree with is your comparison of game sequals to movie sequals.

        A movie must have original content, storyline, often even core charcters and concepts, with each iteration. If it's "just more of the same" then it'll likely do poorly at the box office.

        Games, however, are an entirely different critter, based mostly on their freeform, interactive nature, as opposed to the entirely passive and utterly linear movie-viewing experience. Games often c
    • FF is infact the polar opposit of a sequal factory. If you play the full series of spin offs you'll be shocked at how different they are. From heavily turned based down to full on action RPGs (Secret of mana series is a FF gaiden).

      I'm not one to support FF but try playing crystal chronicles and telling me it's not totally different from the main timeline.
      • Secret of mana series is a FF gaiden

        Since when? Mana is a completely seperate series. The only connection between them is Chocobos and "Final Fantasy Adventure" on the original Game Boy, which was renamed and rehashed to piggy back the FF name in the US.
        • Mystic quest (AKA Seiken Densetsu 1 on the gameboy and SNES) had the label "FF gaiden" under it. It's officially a final fantasy spin off. But they decided it stood alone well enough to cut the series free to be it's own series. The saga series is the same.
    • Steve: We have many sequels for your Xbox 360 launch!
      Bill: How many sequels?
      Steve: Many sequels, many!
      Bill: Steve, would you say I have a plethora of sequels?
      Steve: Yes, Bill. You have a plethora.
      Bill: Steve, what is a plethora?
  • EA are great at flogging sequels off. FIFA 2006 is the 13th (not to mention another 13 odd games outside the yearly releases) in the FIFA series. How could they not have the formula right by now?

  • Turns off new buyers? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by taeric ( 204033 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @10:30AM (#14100550)
    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.

    • The new ones just aren't as entertaining, period. I mean, what happened to the good old days when a Japanese kid couldn't buy a Dragon Quest game without getting shivved for it on the way home? That's demand, baby!
    • "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."

      I haven't been on top of the DW/DQ series as much as I should be, but I know enough to know this ain't Final Fantasy. If I-III and IV-VI are any indication, VIII is a sequel of VII, in every sense of the word.

      At any rate, when they gonna port V and VI stateside? They'd be perfect for the GBA at this point.
      • Then you know just enough to be wrong. There may be some sort of tie in later on in the game, but from the first 10 hours I've put in, there is absolutely nothing to have required the older games to know what is going on.

        This is not to say that there are not throw backs. You still have to save at churches and whatnot. They even have some of the original synthesized music. But it is not a sequel in the same way that most other mediums do sequels.

  • Movies? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jonny_eh ( 765306 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @10:32AM (#14100569)
    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.
    • vice city is a huge step up from 3, as is mario 3 to mario 1 (all but a totally new game in both style and abilities which are no longer fireball or jump).

      You're insulting good sequels :/
    • Big difference. In video games, sequels to videogames are the exception to the rule, where as in movies it's the opposite. In video game sequels most often the same people who worked on the predecessor work on the current game in the series. And in most cases these people see some of the mistakes they made on the first game and fix it in the next game. In movies however, it's not so easy to get all the same people together who made the first movie. And unlike in video games, trying to recapture the magic of

  • Idiotic Analysis (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 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.
  • There are already a few comments about how it's not "sequels" but "bad sequels" that are the problem. However, i think the root of the problem is that too many publishers are relying on "sure bets" or franchises they can guarantee will make X amount of sales. If they see that there's a market for some entertainment franchise, they will continue to develop games using that franchise until it's run into the ground. Movie producers are the same way. Stick to the formula, make movies and sequels where we kn

  • Not just turning off consumers... (Score:4, Funny)

    by dolphinling ( 720774 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @10:42AM (#14100666) Homepage Journal
    I think they're turning off the new XBox [slashdot.org],too.
  • lets call them Weak-quels

  • "Sequels" or "Iterations"? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by lividdr ( 775594 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @11:23AM (#14101009) Homepage
    The "sequel" tag is deceptive. In most cases, it's used just to piggyback on the success of a previous title. I wouldn't call Civ 2, 3, or 4 sequels so much as "iterations". There's no ongoing storyline or plot between the titles. Same goes for sports games - Madden '06 is Madden '05 with a few tweaks and newer player rosters. The Final Fantasy series typically introduces new gameplay dynamics with each title, but sets them in totally different game worlds (at least until FFX-2). To me, the sequel tag indicates some sort of storyline continuity between the games, even if the gameplay isn't exactly the same.

    By that definition, real sequels are a lot less common than iterations. Quake 4 and Doom 3 have a at least a passing relationship with previous games in the series, though in both cases I don't think the storyline continuity is a major selling point. Even Knights of the Old Republic II only pays lip service to the previous game. The Myst series, on the other hand, is very closely tied together, especially in the later games in the series where the events of previous games are tightly woven into the storylines.

    It's all about marketing and sales. Publishers won't to release "Final Quest XII" if has so much tie-in to previous titles that it isn't accessible to someone new to the series. Even the hallowed Ultima series, which was very tight between 4 - 6, seemed to distance itself between titles towards the end, both in gameplay and storyline continuity.

    Bottom line? I think "iterations" have more potential draw (Ooh, I liked NFL '05, and '06 is going to have *insert new favorite player here*!) and more potential drawbacks (Bleah, NFL '05 wasn't any better than '04, why would I buy '06?). Genuine sequels have to toe the line between too much continuity (scare away new customers) and not enough (turn off the loyal customers of the series). If that balance isn't just right, the sequel flops. All the publishers (_publishers_, not developers) really care about is what is going to sell, and iterative series are much safer investments. But maybe, just maybe, the general game-buying public might be starintg wise up to the fact that they've just bought the same thing for the 4th or 5th year in a row and realize it's time to start demanding more.

    Nah, who am I kidding? Recent sales charts are all stacked with the latest Sims, Madden, Quake, Doom, and Battlefield titles and add-ons. Hell, I just picked up Sly 3 for PS2 and will probably pick up Dragon Quest VIII this weekend and FFXII whenever it comes out, too.
  • And yet, the two best games ever, Sacrifice and Total Annihilation, had one expansion pack between them and no sequels.

    And no, TA: Kingdoms doesn't count.
  • Unfortunately this is where the industry could be heading. Think about it, games are costing more money to make each generation, forcing developers to stick to what sells (*cough* EA *cough*). This works because they don't need to worry about whether or not it will sell especially if the last one was a smash hit.

    On the same line, assets from the previous game can be re-used. Art, game setting, engine, characters, etc. can be re-used (and maybe touched up some) for a cheaper cost than having to pay artist
  • The reception of Quack 4 after years of hype has been lack luster, a minor update to an exhausted game franchise.

    It's not so much that sequels are bad, its just when people don't innovate new ideas and revamp franchises is when I get a little ticked off with the same old rehash of an existing game.

    Over the last decade, most companies have strived to make graphics updates to their popular games, and for a while, customers loved each new revision that offered slicker 3D graphics. But now, 3D graphics are not
  • Seriously, I can play by revision number wipeout 5, twisted metal 6 (or seven?), star wars battlefront 2, Ridge racer 8 (its the eigth revision released), ape escape 4, or Grand theft auto 5. Luminies is original, as is untold legents (original but horrible), Metal gear acid is also original. Why sony doesnt make any original games for this system is beyond me...I rented "infected" just to get and original game, and man is it pretty redundant, and I also rented "legend of heroes" and its pretty generic RPG,

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close