Sequels: Good or Bad Part 1

The game industry is built on established franchise. If you asked the average person what they associate with video games. They would most likely say Mario. If not Mario then Zelda, Halo, or Call of Duty. These games are considered the pinnacle of the industry by many. Everyone is always looking forward to a new Street Fighter.

But what about a new Tony Hawk or a new Leisure Suit Larry game? Not only are these games taking up retail space for better games, they're also taking resources away from other potential projects. Imagine what new IP Infinity Ward could have come up with instead of working on Call of Duty. Would Mirrors Edge have sold better without having to deal with games like Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero flooding the shelves?

          Sequels aren't always a bad thing but cranking them out year after year can lead to some franchise fatigue. Guitar Hero is an excellent example. When it was first released, it revitalized the rhythm genre. But at this point it may be hurting the genre. Why spend sixty dollars on what is essentially just new tracks. You may not even like many of the tracks. I know I didn't. At some point you simply run out of new ideas and simply rehash old ones. I don't want to pay 60 dollars for a game that's the same as its predecessor. This is quite prevalent in the shooter genre where a few new guns can sometimes justify a sequel. Games like Rainbow Six Vegas Two would have been an expansion pack ten years ago.

         Sequels can be a good thing when done right and with enough time. However, releasing too many sequels and rushing them out the door hurts the franchise and leads to bad games.

     Note: This is part one of my On the Contrary article. I do realize this is being put out way past the due date. This is partially my fault for procrastinating but also because my progress got erased twice when I accidentally switched pages before saving... Oh well, either way it was fun to write and also a nice challenge.