Separator
In Defense of "Unnecessary" Sequels
No-photo
Sunday, May 23, 2010
ARTICLE TOOLS

Riding Yoshi is a rite of passage to playing more high-quality games.

 

I don’t understand why some people in the community are up in arms over Super Mario Galaxy 2.  The original game garnered critical acclaim from a variety of outlets—bloggers, journalists, and enthusiasts alike. Now, with the same premise of a cartoony galaxy odyssey with more power-ups and brand new planets to explore, people are in an uproar. It sounds too much like the first Galaxy and not enough like a new experience, they say. But the fact of the matter is that the industry needs intermediary games like Galaxy 2 to stay in the black.

For better or worse, video games is a business. It is an art, sure, but a business first. This is especially true for those who push the products.  Now I love my hobby; it is a form of recreation, enjoyment, and pleasure for me. But I am not distracted by the illusion. Money makes the industry stay sound. What better way to meet this goal than to produce so-called unnecessary sequels?

Money

Titles like Super Mario Galaxy 2 and Obsidian’s upcoming role-playing title, Fallout: New Vegas, are essential to promote creativity and financial stability in this industry. I know some of you wondering about the merits of these games’ creativity. For that I turn back to SMG 2. In this case, Nintendo added in loads of new levels and power-ups, not to mention Yoshi and Luigi, and upped the difficulty. When developers stick to what works and advance the game by adding new tweaks to the game play everyone benefits.

This allows them to keep the experience fresh while simultaneously filling their money coffers. New ideas, whether akin to Rock Mario in SMG 2 or a complete overhaul of the plasmid system in Bioshock 2, explore different concepts to possibly include future iterations. Once the economy picks up steam, the developers can take the money and design concepts they amassed and include this knowledge when making brand-new IPs.

Don’t bash seemingly unnecessary games. They are necessary for the industry’s future. The community needs to think long-term on matters like this one, not just their next fix. Pointing your criticism reticle at potentially great games without thinking of the ramifications is very unnecessary.

 
Pages: /1
1
3
BITMOB SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (8)
Redeye
May 24, 2010 09:28

I agree. I don't really have too many problems with sequels that aren't light years ahead. Often times they still manage to do something interesting that is worth seeing in light of the game they are supposedly mooching off of. The most positive impressions I made for a game on this site were for Bioshock 2.

http://www.bitmob.com/articles/post-game-musings-bioshock-2

Judging by the complete and total lack of a reaction by anyone Bioshock 2 was apparently not finished by a lot of people and they aren't interested in it. I think that's a shame because I honestly think that Bioshock 2 had a lot to offer dispite being an obvious zombie sequel of a game that put itself to bed at the end. So much so that I actually am anxious for a second 'unneccisary sequel' to it.

No-photo
May 27, 2010 15:16

@Jeffrey You are right. Oftentimes innovation doesn't make light year jumps; sequels make moderate incremental changes to the formula.

No-photo
May 29, 2010 16:26

Hello?  Guitar hero 100 is so much different from Guitar Hero 1-99!  They haz new sonz.  Madden 2011!

Redeye
May 29, 2010 16:43

@Toby That really isn't relevant to the current discussion at all. He doesn't even mention Activision's iterative yearly cash ins or sports games in his article.

No-photo
May 30, 2010 14:12

True, possibly a bit off topic, as they are not necessarily 'sequels' but he does talk about the business side of making games that could be deemed unnecessary, and I'd consider the guitar hero additions and sports games are an example of that business sense.  Especially as they don't really add any of those tweaks like Yoshi/Luigi or the Plasmid overhaul.  Update the graphics, update the roster, change the songs...same game though.  Although I haven't played many of the newest guitar heroes or sports games so I could definitely be wrong

Redeye
May 30, 2010 16:53

@Toby While i'm sure this argument could potentially be used to defend those games as well, I don't think Rakim strikes me as interested in doing so. Neither am I.

No-photo
May 30, 2010 17:14

@Jeffrey I agree that my argument could possibly be used by the opposing view as well. And you are right, I am not interested in making a huge debate out of it. I am just bringing awareness to the issue. But I will say this:

@Toby It is a bit off topic, but I will discuss what you mentioned. A fine line exists between so-called unnecessary sequels and yearly cash-ins. What I speak of in this article are intermediary games. Titles like Super Mario Galaxy 2 and Fallout: New Vegas that bridge a previous game to the next big release. Some people view these titles as unnecessary and include them in the yearly cash-in group as well. I am not talking about Guitar Hero like instances. As you said, games like those are essentially the same game done again, repeatedly. Intermediary titles expand a bit, evolving the series. They add to the core gameplay, but definitely do not stagnate. 
Interest in plastic musical peripherals and and the software itself is on the decline. Their creativity has long ended. But other games --the examples I gave and more-- push the boundaries even farther in terms of ingenuity. Also, I don't like Guitar Hero and the genre. So I understand where you are coming from. :)

No-photo
June 01, 2010 09:50

word

You must log in to post a comment. Please register or Connect with Facebook if you do not have an account yet.