Sequels

Prof.Frink

I'm tired of everyone saying Sony has too many sequels.Heres a few facts about sequels the games companies like Sony don't do that it's the develepors that do that and why for money of course.And who cares anyway the games are always better like MGS 2 and GT3 just to name two.I mean people only think Sony make too many sequels is because nearly every game made on the PS is huge and so a sequel is made.And thats why Nintendo for example only has a few games and look at their big games like Mario how many sequels has that had or pokémon how many sequels has that had.And all the other games are called re-makes and people swallow that up.
But I have to admit Dreamcast has very original games and not alot of sequels because of that.
THANX

---

Glaven

Dont be at yourself

EA are probably going to get a roasting in this thread, so I'll give my two cents.

EA flog the Fifa licence every year. We all know that. But such is the nature of sports games, they need yearly updates. I don't go out and buy the next installment of Fifa every Christmas, nor do most.

EA are not aiming to sell the same game to the same people every year. The people who own every FIFA from 97-01 are idiots. But EA do need to keep their product up to date, otherwise it won't be competitive. If little johnny walks into a shop and he sees Fifa 2000 with last seasons teams, and a new Infogrames Football game with up to date teams, he'll go for the up-to-date one.

It can be argued that sequels stifle (sp?) originality - but sports games aren't supposed to be original, least of all licenced ones.

As for nearly every game made on the PS being huge - that's not true at all. If you were to compare the numver of good PS games to the number of bad ones, it would be something like one good game for every ten bad ones. On the N64, it would be more like 1:5.

And its not because a game is good that a sequel is made - its because the first one made money. I could name numerous games that didn't deserve sequels, but still got them.

Lastly, generally Nintendo sequels tend to improve greatly on the original, not offer more of the same. That's the reason why the announcement of an update in a Nintendo franchise (perhaps Pokemon excluded) is met with great excitement from gamers.

---

Fear can sometimes be a useful emotion. For instance, let's say you're an astronaught on the moon and you fear that your partner has been turned into Dracula. The next time he goes out for the moon pieces, wham! You just slam the door behind him and blast off. He might call you on the radio and say he's not Dracula, but you just say, "Think again, bat man."
hello.

RAY

well jsut to argue on that fifa point,the game is basically crap thats all there is to it. Now what kind of muppet would buy that game if i wanted to play a ice skating game i would of bought barbie super sport. The fact that they release the game every single ****ing year with little or hardly no difference like they say they have "realistic mouth movements" or "they can argue with the ref" what improvements do they actually do to the game.
And people always say they are sick of playing prequels and all that **** then why do they even bother buying games since most games are prequels the only reason they make prequels is that gamers like us liked the previous game and they see a market for a prequel to it. The only game that i thought that went a little overboard on the "prequeling" was tomb raider
P.S ISS PRO OWNS U !!!!

RAY

well prof frink b4 the game is actually released they have to send a copy to sony for them approve of it so i guess it does come down to them aswell

DeadBankClerk

Doom II
Warcraft II