Sequels - Good or Bad?

[Darth Marsden]

I read an article over at a gaming site, and the title got me thinking - "Do you think game designers as storytellers have a duty to finish their stories, and not use unfinished stories as a marketing tool for expansions and sequels? Do they have a duty to tell good stories, with well crafted plots and important lessons?"

It's not just limited to games - the same applies to books, films, TV - but if we focus on games, is it a good thing that we get so many sequels? Do you think certain types of games should have sequels and others not? Do you think they should finish the story through expansions rather then full-on sequels?

Personally, I think it differs from game to game, but some really deserve sequels/add-ons. Games like Beyond Good and Evil, which, as well as having a fantastic plot, is also a really good game, should be able to continue the story in some way, be it a sequel or an add-on, and yet due to poor sales, it hasn't (yet). Meanwhile, certain other types of games, like Crash Bandicoot, doesn't really need sequels, but they keep coming anyway. I applaud companies that end series on a high - the new Prince of Persia trilogy, for example, or the Jak series (Daxter spin-offs not included). We need more companies to stop while they're ahead. We don't want another Tomb Raider - Angel of Darkness, do we?

Anyway, that's what I think. What are your views?

[Archibaldo]

I think they should only have unfinished stories if they're positive that they're going to make a sequel. I just finished KOTOR 2 the other day and the ending definitely left room for a sequel, and I hope they make one. But games that just end with room for a sequel and never gt one kind of annoys me. Currently, the only game that has left room for a sequel and has not yet delivered is the first Fire Emblem for the GBA. They probably have one in Japan, ut when are they going to bring it to NA.

[ZTC]

I've found that sequels are usually good.
Prolly a few of my favorite series is the The Legend of Zelda games.

The exceptions, ie - crappy releases, are like beating a decaying corpse of a horse.
[/disturbing comparasion]

[vegeta1215]

I can't imagine the new Tomb Raider being that great - the Prince of Persia trilogy raised the bar pretty high. Plus, who really cares about Lara Croft today anyways?

[Tygore]

I think they should only have unfinished stories if they're positive that they're going to make a sequel. I just finished KOTOR 2 the other day and the ending definitely left room for a sequel, and I hope they make one. But games that just end with room for a sequel and never gt one kind of annoys me. Currently, the only game that has left room for a sequel and has not yet delivered is the first Fire Emblem for the GBA. They probably have one in Japan, ut when are they going to bring it to NA.

The first American GBA Fire Emblem is actually a prequel to the one before it, so it is very unlikely that we'll see a sequel.

[ONeilcool]

I can't imagine the new Tomb Raider being that great - the Prince of Persia trilogy raised the bar pretty high. Plus, who really cares about Lara Croft today anyways?

No ever really cared about Lara Croft, but I can make a list of guys that liked her boobs

[MacWeirdo42]

Eh, one of the greatest games of all time, Doom, had basically no story line. Just run around slaughtering demons. Then they decided to cash in on it and make a sequel. Added a bunch of new monsters, bringing the variety up to about twice that of the original, new levels, and one new gun. However, they really didn't change the game in any fundamental way, and there was no real storyline to follow up on. All these years later, I don't think anybody is complaining that Doom 2 was just cashing in on the success of Doom.

In general, though, I really like sequels. At their best, they allow designers to correct the flaws of their predecessors, as well as giving us a bunch of new content on top of a game we already love. Heh, come to think of it, I don't think there are many games I play these days that aren't built upon existing franchises. I think the real problem is that people expect too much, they want a completely new, original, and revolutionary game... In essence, to recapture the feeling the original game created. However, in reality, sequels are more about taking an existing gameplay mechanic, maybe fine-tuning it, and giving you more of what you loved about the first. In the end, though, people are let down by the fact that it isn't as innovative as the original, whereas they should just be happy having a game that they love extended.

[Cloral]

Sequels are good. I do wish though they would spend more time making new franchises rather than tons of sequels to existing franchises. Then again, I'm working on the 6th installment of the baseball franchise, so I guess I can't complain *runs and hides*

[ZomfgIts0rzlolo]

Archibaldo, someone made an english translation patch for the prequel to the First American Fire Emblem (FE6). Search for FESS forums or something, I think that's the name.

[Grasshopper]

I agree with many people here. Sequels are good. Sequels in any type of media. But I think in recent years, companies have been using sequels as a crutch, to carry them along in the industry.


We need more companies to stop while they're ahead. We don't want another Tomb Raider - Angel of Darkness, do we?

I can't imagine the new Tomb Raider being that great - the Prince of Persia trilogy raised the bar pretty high. Plus, who really cares about Lara Croft today anyways?

Not that I like TR, but I thought the first game was decent. (Only one I played) But I have heard that Toby Gard, the creator of Tomb Raider is working on this game. He's only worked on two games, this one, and the first one. (Which is probably why they went downhill from there). In other words, its back in the hands of its creator, so I would hope it would be better than the rest. Not that I would want it, but I still think its better than AoD.