Are sequels bad for the sport?

by Joystiq Staff { Jul 6th 2006 at 3:55PM }

Sequels are a double-edged sword in the gaming world. On one hand, you have familiarity and nostalgia appeal and on the other you have cries of non-originality and staleness. Blogger SuicideNinja gives a nice breakdown of each side, complete with stereotypical examples of why sequels are both bad and good for the industry on their respective consoles.

In this easy-to-read post, SuicideNinja takes you inside the mind of fanboys on all three fronts -- Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. He then follows up a typical blind rant with a reality check of just what he thinks is really going on. We dissect it all for you after the break.

First he tackles Microsoft:

Why they support the consoles: As for the Xbox, they either waited to buy this "better" console [Xbox] or bought it after buying the PS2 and were disappointed from its lack of everything Sony promised.
Why they think the other consoles suck: They lack comprehensive online services such as Xbox Live. The PS2 and Gamecube have less features and were less powerful.

It's safe to say that the 360 will try to bank not only on Halo 3 and other key sequels -- such as Fable 2 and Forza 2 -- but also on a bevy of original titles slated to hit the system. Since Microsoft is relatively new to the console game, their reliance on ancient original IPs hasn't been as strong as the other two, allowing them to appear on the outside like the more original of the three. But, Microsoft's clock is ticking, as SuicideNinja says: "Some gamers feel that the 'good wave' of titles is taking too long to arrive."

Sony fanboys are up next:

Why they support the consoles: The PlayStation has the largest library, and has the most popular exclusives.
Why they think the other consoles suck: Most likely, they never tried the other consoles, or played them very briefly. The competition's library is smaller.

Despite the loss of exclusivity with the Grand Theft Auto franchise, Sony still has a list of exclusive sequels to make any gamer's jaw drop. As long as they continue to hold the aces of Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy in their hand, then Sony need not worry about anyone coming close to bringing them down. Even as the PS3 makes your stomach grumble for the next year or so, there are so many good PS2 games coming out to tide you over that it might not even matter. By the time the PS3 price drops and things have stabilized, who's to say that Sony won't be smiling on top of the mountain after all?

And, last but not least, the rabid fan base of Nintendo:

Why they support the consoles: They are totally content with Nintendo's first-party offerings. Nostalgic value is present for older gamers.
Why they think the other consoles suck: The other consoles don't have Nintendo's first-party titles. They aren't innovative in the next generation.

Nintendo is the ultimate wild card. No one can argue the immense interest and popularity the Nintendo booth garnered at E3. The big question is if this monumental shift in momentum will continue into the fall when the Wii is finally released. Will the company's continued reliance on sequels continue to propel Nintendo forward into a new generation? Certainly it hasn't hurt them. Mario is still going strong. Zelda is a guaranteed hit and the Pokémon franchise still sells like virtual crack.

So, all in all, are sequels still your best bet or are new franchises the way to go? It'd be wise to put your money down on a console or game maker that can give you a good mix of both. Sequels really aren't the enemy here. Bad games are.

Tags: Sequels

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Anononomous @ Jul 6th 2006 4:13PM

First off, gaming is not a sport, so your headline is just dumb. Also, the article doesn't actually bring up any concerns about sequels, all it says is that they are the games that people are looking forward to since they are the ones we know the most about.

student @ Jul 6th 2006 4:18PM

withotu reading the article... thumbs up on the photo. What a great way to say sequels are badddd. But boy, the movie did at least keep hot girls in it. I like hot girls...

PaleGringo @ Jul 6th 2006 4:19PM

Wow. Props to SuicideNinja for being fair and making some pretty sound assumptions about each of the gaming camps. Nice article, and a good read.

boots @ Jul 6th 2006 4:27PM

Nice put, Suicide Ninja. I've been saying this all along, but Xbox 360 fanboys simply want to see the bad side of sequels.

I also think Original IP is a double-edged sword: It seems original because it's a "new franchise", but after you play it, it seems like the same old RPG/FPS/Action game. We need new genres, and new gameplay, not only "Original IP".

Prey, Alan Wake, Heavenly Sword, and Lair are examples of original IP, but will they also be original gameplaywise?

32_Footsteps @ Jul 6th 2006 4:28PM

Man, Microsoft got represented by Batman & Robin? That's just asking for complaints. On the bright side, nobody was represented by Highlander 2 or Star Trek V.

I think the question isn't whether sequels are bad for video gaming - they are what they are, and they do help pad the bottom line. The important part is that in addition to the classics, companies need to come up with some clever ideas that are new and thus branch out.

In that instance, Sony seems to me to be the one most at risk, as they're completely dependent on others' game ideas. Should Microsoft and/or Nintendo ultimately convince more companies to abandon Sony exclusivity (imagine if MGS4 came out on the 360, or if FF13 came out on the Wii), then Sony would be the one to fall.

Sony really needs to work harder on producing first-party titles worth playing, or make doubly sure that their exclusives stay that way. Otherwise, they're more at risk than anyone wants to admit.

Marc @ Jul 6th 2006 4:36PM

Normally for me, sequels are bad news. But, oddly enough, Nintendo keeps winning me over with their constant reiterations. Each new Mario game has something special that other Mario titles lack. Until I find out what Nintendo does with each game, I'm a Ninty fanboy.

renaldo @ Jul 6th 2006 4:44PM

Go ahead and castrate me, but I liked Batman and Robin.

And it seems like the 360 is getting a few original titles I'm looking forward to.

Dead Rising
Bioshock
Alan Wake
Blue Dragon
Just Cause
Saints Row

There are a lot more. I'm sure the PS3 has a few of them like what Naughty Dog and Insomniac are making, but pretty much the reason to get the PS3 are sequels. And the Wii is getting an assload of originality. Nuff said.

Derek @ Jul 6th 2006 4:45PM

Of course gaming isnt a sport, I mean MLG is just completely made up for little kids!

Probot @ Jul 6th 2006 4:48PM

First, I don't get the title at all. Sport?

Overall, SuicideNinja made a good point. Gamer's complain about sequels, but at the same time demand them. Personally, I think people complain just because they like to complain. And it's that complaining that makes the industry less willing to listen to the hardcore gamer.

Gamers bash Madden, but it's consistently one of the best selling games. Should the industry listen to the gamers about that? Gamers ask for new franchies, but get upset when things change. Gamers don't know what they want.

Or worse, they ask for innovative and immersive games, but then they transform those qualities into meaningless buzzwords. Notice how not too long ago Nintendo was "innovative" and now they're "disruptive." Buzzword Bingo.

Maybe that's just the nature of the internet. Rather than having to judge reactions solely on sales, game designers and publishers now have to see direct commentary about their games.

If the money is coming from one direction (Mr. Mainstream T. Gamer) and the deeper connection to the medium is coming from another direction (Mrs. Blogger G. McBlogenstien), who should the industry listen to? Is it possible to listen to both and stay in the black?

Bertrand @ Jul 6th 2006 4:51PM

It's OK to have sequels as long as you don't have only that. From time to time, I like to play something that doesn't have Mario.

TC @ Jul 6th 2006 5:07PM

I think sequels are ok if they really add something to the franchise. Good examples would be SF2 > Street Fighter, MK2 > MK1, SMB3 > SMB2. The problem arises when an original game is popular enough to warrant a sequel, and the developers give more of the same to satisfy the thirst. Eventually, they milk the franchise and people become disenchanted with the game, sales of subsequent sequels drop and the franchise becomes less saleable. We can all name culprits (That's you Tomb Raider, FIFA and Megaman), but ultimately I feel it's bad for developers in the long run to adopt this stategy, despite the short term low costs and good sales.
That said I will be first in the queue for another marginal update on Pro Evo!

Robert Summa @ Jul 6th 2006 5:17PM

The term "bad for the sport" is simply an underground sort of internet term that was used originaly for either boxing or MMA, I can't remember which one.

At any rate, try not to take the "sport" thing literally. The whole thing is sort of like an internet saying, like "o rly?"

It can apply to anything. Like say McDonalds is making kids fat. You'd say McDonalds is bad for the sport. Or North Korea is gonna kill us all. North Korea is bad for the sport. That sort of thing.

garsh @ Jul 6th 2006 5:59PM

The word "nostlagia" was in there twice. Explain to me exactly what is "bittersweet" or "homesick" about good games.

"We need new genres, and new gameplay, not only 'Original IP'."

Boots, you made the best point ever.

Willo @ Jul 6th 2006 6:26PM

The haters getting you down Robert? You didn't need to defend yourself, I knew what "Bad for the sport" meant.

refinedsugar @ Jul 6th 2006 9:32PM

Sequels - originality - we all know this debate very well. The industry needs a healthy dose of moderation, end of story. There is some nice insight in the article by SuicideNinja, but I advise you click the actual link and read that rather than stay here and read Robert Summa's biased bits that have been intermingled with actual quotes from SuicideNinja's real article. It's hard to tell where SuicideNinja stops and Robert Summa begins.

Robert you have a serious case of obvious and apparent Sony bias. You hate on the Xbox while you project an image like Nintendo is your friend. I haven't seen this since the last retarded press release from Sony Corp on response to MS as competition.

Deny the bias, but you take any point from SuicideNinja's article that hammers Xbox, but go relatively easy on Sony. You don't even bring up SuicideNinja's negative Sony points. You also downplay Sony losing the exclusivity of the GTA franchise meanwhile you tell us not to worry about the woes of the ps3 because quote "there are so many good PS2 games coming out to tide you over that it might not even matter". Even if I believed that, the optimistic tone about Sony winning the next-gen console war is icing on the biased cake. If this was an attempt at telling everyone you are a Sony fanboy - you hit the ball out of the park buddy.

Robert Summa @ Jul 6th 2006 10:50PM

I have a Sony bias? Wow, I never got that before. If there was one company that has always shunned me during my gaming journalism career, it has been Sony.

By all intents and purposes, Sony should be my most hated company.

In all honesty. I just call it as I see it. I hold no bias to any company. I just want to see good games.

Greg @ Jul 6th 2006 11:20PM

some companies need to lay off sequels...namely capcom....I know I know RE4 was great but what the hell took them sooo long to get there....but besides that companies beat dead horses...how many damn 2D SF2 and megamen do we need to see before someone puts an end to this and i guess this would the dull rusty side of the double edge sword......On the other hand you just want to see what happens next. I.E. god of war. Sometimes the story is just that compelling that you need a contiuation....maybe the hardware limited the 1st one....I understand developers though....big money is on the line and groundbreaking doesnt always equal sales i.e. ICO, shadow of colossus, psyconauts.

Jake @ Jul 7th 2006 9:16AM

Original IP's and original games are two completely different things.

Look at Super Mario Galaxy. The 20th or so game w/ mario in it, but the gameplay is totally new. There has never been anything like it, ever. So, you have the most rehashed character out there coming with the most innovative platformer out there. IMO.

Now look at the Zelda TP gamecube version. Nothing really new. Old IP, old gameplay (mostly). However, the game will absolutely rock.

Now look at, say, Resistance: Fall of Man. That is a new IP. But, it is still a standard FPS aliens taking over the world kill em' all game. However, the game looks friken sweet.

I think the bottom line is that good games and bad games are separated by much more than originality. Personally, I actually like sequels when it comes to characters and continuing a story, but it has to have big differences in gameplay and what-not. Megaman bad. Mario good.