Are sequels bad for the sport?

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.

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...

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.