Consumers Go "Meh" to Sequels

[Gideon Ransom]

Next Generation has an article online (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1715&Itemid=2) talking about how some analyst is speculating that consumers are showing indifference to the vast number of game sequels being launched by large publishers like Electronic Arts and Activision.

The company posted, "A weak consumer environment leaves us questioning whether sales will rebound sufficiently to drive growth for the full year. In particular, consumers appear to be indifferent to the proliferation of sequels, indicating a slow tart to holiday sales and risk of continuing weakness.

The company adds, "We see little likelihood of a positive catalyst over the next five weeks."
It isn't so much the number of sequels that perturb me, it is that developers/publishers seldom "customize" sequels for each platform. Getting the same art in the PSP version of GUN as the Xbox 360 version is just lazy and weak.

[T-Dawg]

little likelihood of a positive catalyst over the next five weeks.

That could be some of the finest example of corporate doublespeak that I've ever read.

[markster3000]

Getting the same art in the PSP version of GUN as the Xbox 360 version is just lazy and weak.

Maybe I'm being picky...

But getting the same art in the PSP version as in the 360 version would be awesome! (Think PD0, intact, on the PSP)
The problem is when it goes vice-versa. (As is the case for GUN)

And one could say that the mistake in GUN's case was ever releasing it for the 360. If they had just stuck to an X-box release, it's graphics would have gone mostly under the radar. When they decided to release for the 360, they implied that this version would somehow take advantage of the system, which it really did not.

They should be getting positive press about being an original game! Instead, they now have all this negative press about a $10 cash grab.

[*Legion*]

People have the wrong mental model about games and "sequels".

A game series should be thought of more like a TV series. Nobody ever sees their favorite TV show get renewed for a new season and scream, "oh no, another SEQUEL!"

Games aren't movies. The whole "sequel" trend should not be forced into the same mental model as movie sequels.

Games like Splinter Cell embrace this well by not putting numbers in the title. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory is just the latest entry, the latest "season", in the series. And the next one's coming in February.

The idea of games as episodic content, already well on its way with digital distribution, is the natural evolution of this.

[MasterEvilAce]

NFS:MW is a terrible fucking game. Not even because it's closer to Underground than Hot Pursuit. It just fucking sucks. EA Game's idea of creating hours and hours of gameplay, is creating the same thing over and over, except making it increasingly hard, so that you have to continue playing the same damn race/level/map for an hour before you luck out and your opponents are immobilized. Such as.. Drag racing in NFS:MW is NOT FUN. It is the lamest piece of shit I have ever seen. Dodge traffic while drag racing! Yeah. That's not drag racing. That's a stupid fucking game.

[Wonka]

It isn't so much the number of sequels that perturb me, it is that developers/publishers seldom "customize" sequels for each platform. Getting the same art in the PSP version of GUN as the Xbox 360 version is just lazy and weak.

You clearly do not understand. It's NOT lazy OR weak. It's merely less expensive.

I think it's important for you to understand that these decisions are not actually made by game developers. They are made by publisher "suits" who are deciding "how many artists to hire". If you can do special art for the better platforms (and especially if those better platforms have a smaller installed base) then these guys would conclude that your art budget it too big and someone needs to be laid off.

[Deathbane27]

People have the wrong mental model about games and "sequels".

A game series should be thought of more like a TV series. Nobody ever sees their favorite TV show get renewed for a new season and scream, "oh no, another SEQUEL!"

Games aren't movies. The whole "sequel" trend should not be forced into the same mental model as movie sequels.

Games like Splinter Cell embrace this well by not putting numbers in the title. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory is just the latest entry, the latest "season", in the series. And the next one's coming in February.

The idea of games as episodic content, already well on its way with digital distribution, is the natural evolution of this.


Ex-fricking-actly.

There's a HUGE difference between actual sequels (Halo -> Halo 2; Half Life -> HL2; Arena -> Daggerfall -> Morrowind -> Oblivion; the Splinter Cell series; etc.) and EA's "sequels" like Madden NFL (Insert Year Here), which are basically the same thing with new packaging.

[DaXIthR]

What about what EA has done with the Bond license? or the Need for Speed franchise?

They typify "old garbage in a new box" more than the Madden series, and I don't even like American football. You can't pick and choose which series qualify as 'actual sequels' and which don't.

That's absurd. These are continuations of a series I enjoy, therefore they are 'actual sequels'. Other examples are rehashed and regurgitated?

What about Mario Party? NFL Street? Tony Hawk? Tomb Raider?

You, sir, need to rethink what you've said.

[Kelegacy]

EA takes well known franchises and runs them into the ground. Like DaXIthR said, the Bond games are mediocre at best, and the Godfather game looks set to float on the toilet water as well. The Warriors is the best use of an old license I have seen in a while, but I bet Scarface will end up saying hello to the bargain bin.

Franchises are okay, but it is so hard to recapture old magic or continue to make the game the same, yet different to warrant another purchase. The Ratchet and Clank games are one example of a franchise done RIGHT, even with the most recent Ratchet game taking a detour from the normal formula. Tomb Raider is the antithesis of good franchising. Hopefully TR:Legend fixes this.

[Deadend]

There is a diffrence between an EA-sequel, and a Splinter Cell sequal.
One is regurgitating the same damn game and adding a new bulletpoint that is poorly done.

Oh, I am also sick of NFS:MW, the gane is long, but it feels like the races probably were put together in less time it takes to run them, simply by reusing EVERY SINGLE piece of track. It's boring.

Splinter Cell games, have always been expanding in concept, from the first sneaker, to the second which gave you a bit more freedom, then the 3rd gave you several diffrent ways to do missions and also allowed for more of a aggressive stealth style, and amazing graphics.

Yes, Nintendo needs to stop with the Mario Parties, as they are stale, but god help us all... people keep buying. Shit, I know someone who is proud to buy EVERY EA Sports game every year.

What I wish could be done, would be for 2k sports to give EA the ultimate bitch slap, updated rosters to 2k5, as a free patch, or some kind of loophole, and keep doing it, just to kill the roster update concept. So if there is going to be a Madden '07, they better bring some new shit to the table.

Game sequals would also be easier to swallow in story-based games if the stories were more episodic in nature. Say in F.E.A.R. 2 for example, you had several seperate missions that each were self contained with stories, and plot twists, but there are connections, and everything ties together in the last 2 or 3 missions, like a good TV series. Then leave some open threads for a season 3.

[Heretic Machine]

I like sequels, as long as they are a good game. But in many cases the sequels aren't just not better than the originals, but they aren't even as good. That's when things become a problem. As long as the companies put as much effort into the sequels, then I wouldn't have any problem with them. Actually, quite the contrary, I look forward to sequels made by companies who are good at what they do.

[JazGalaxy]

It isn't so much the number of sequels that perturb me, it is that developers/publishers seldom "customize" sequels for each platform. Getting the same art in the PSP version of GUN as the Xbox 360 version is just lazy and weak.

I think you're confusing the word "sequel" with something else.

A sequel is an idea like "Gun 2". A game that continues the adventures of the charachters of Gun.

A port is a game that shows up on multiple consoles like PSP and 360.

Personally I oculdn't be happier that developers are realizing that sequels are absolutely ridiculous. It is true that people don't like to take a chance on buying games, but it has nothing to do with them not wanting to take a chance on content.

I think if developers established a brand like "Legacy of Kain" or "Might and Magic" people would be just as willing to take a chance on it as they would "something 2". The only difference is, in making direct sequels you are retreading the same ground and can easily make a crappy game, whereas it's a lot harder to fall below people's expectatoins when you are weaving a new tale under an old banner.

I feel this way about Perfect Dark Zero. The game is sweet, adn I would love it if it was a new game, but as a sequel to a game I would rate a 10, it's only dissapointing...

[anclunn]

We all knows what happens when you make sequels with nothing new too many times. Remember Toruk?

[Cyrano]

I agree with the article; holiday sales are indeed off to a slow tart.

[StANTo]

EA takes well known franchises and runs them into the ground

*cough*battlefield*cough*

[Frogleg Special]

Game sequals would also be easier to swallow in story-based games if the stories were more episodic in nature. Say in F.E.A.R. 2 for example, you had several seperate missions that each were self contained with stories, and plot twists, but there are connections, and everything ties together in the last 2 or 3 missions, like a good TV series. Then leave some open threads for a season 3.

Yes...

I also want to see FEAR 2. Monolith should make this game like X-Files on Acid. The hero is made of a bad seed, trying to redeem himself by fighting paranormal entities like ghosts, mutants and aliens. Big bucks there - not so original stuff, but a new premise in the gaming world.

[NACIONAL]

We all knows what happens when you make sequels with nothing new too many times. Remember Toruk?
Actually you didn't rememberd well either...

It was called Turok!

[dark_inchworm]

Ex-fricking-actly.

Most awkward insertion of a word into a word... ever!

May I suggest: "Pre-fuckin'-cisely"

[Coolnut]

People have the wrong mental model about games and "sequels".

A game series should be thought of more like a TV series. Nobody ever sees their favorite TV show get renewed for a new season and scream, "oh no, another SEQUEL!"



Not really - TV series are "free". (Except for cable/satellite TV costs, if any.) You have to pay to play the game or watch the movie.

In addition, TV series are generally vignettes or neverending stories, and you are generally compelled to watch the next one... and the next one... and the next. Movies and games "end" in a way.

[The Letter 3]

It is true that people don't like to take a chance on buying games, but it has nothing to do with them not wanting to take a chance on content.
Very true. And because people don't like to take chances when buying games, they visit websites or read magazines that review games. If publishers give a developer enough freedom (and support) to make a great game (assuming the developer can accomplish this *cough*Fable*cough*), then word will get out that the game is great and sales will soar.

The most obvious example in the world? Halo.
A better example? Katamari Damacy.

And finally, my disclaimer. Fable is a good game. I enjoyed it throughly. But, for the time and money that was invested in it, I was slightly disappointed.

[Rafer]

I think I've mentioned this before, but of the 50 top selling games last year, there was only one original non-sequel, non-license game, Fable. This year it looks like God of War. Consumers say they're tired of sequels, but there's a difference between what people say and what they actually spend money on.

Personally I think consumers are more likely to buy a game if it's a sequel, even if they'd never heard of the first one. For example, I doubt most people had played the 2d games Grand Theft Auto 1 and 2, Legacy of Kain 1, or the PC only game Hitman 1. But the 3d console sequel sells well.

If I was publishing an original game, I'd add a roman numeral to just for the heck of it, thinking that something like "Psychonauts III" has a more marketable sounding name, then if that was succesful do parts 1 and 2.

[Royal Fool]

NFS:MW is a terrible fucking game. Not even because it's closer to Underground than Hot Pursuit. It just fucking sucks. EA Game's idea of creating hours and hours of gameplay, is creating the same thing over and over, except making it increasingly hard, so that you have to continue playing the same damn race/level/map for an hour before you luck out and your opponents are immobilized. Such as.. Drag racing in NFS:MW is NOT FUN. It is the lamest piece of shit I have ever seen. Dodge traffic while drag racing! Yeah. That's not drag racing. That's a stupid fucking game.

Yep, the way the same basic game mechanics are stretched across the whole freaking game with barely no variety to it at all is really awful. The blacklist in NFS:MW isn't enough of an illusion to hide the fact that it's just the same stupid and boring events all over again (Circuit and sprint races = worst ever). Add the fact that there is very customization allowed or alternative methods to advancement... and the game is pretty screwed. The only fun thing about the game are the cop chases - that part should have been made into a seperate game and expanded upon IMO.

[The Iron Weasel]

*cough*battlefield*cough*

Your retarded you know that right? Battlefield 2 is absolutly amazing.

[Groo]

Just because game B is a sequel to game B doesn't mean it can't be original/exciting. There are many franchises that have amazing longetivity, and others that burn out in a few years.

The key is inserting originality into sequels. Super Mario 64 wouldn't have had the huge impact that it did if it had been a 2D platformer (no matter how good it was). The Ratchet and Clank games manage to stay interesting by adding new/improved stuff. On the other hand, many EA franchises seem to regress.

[spacerat100]

the worse thing about sequals is that they usually are bug riddled pieces of shit becuase pubs and devs think everyone will buy it cuz the original was amazing. See Deus Ex: Invisible war.

[JazGalaxy]

DX: Invisible War is one of my favorite games of all time.

[sTubbs]

DX: Invisible War is one of my favorite games of all time.

That is okay being your opinion and all, but I do hope that you played the original and are willing to state that it is a better game by far. If you do not, then I will reach across the internets and slap you in the face.

Unless of course you were merely trolling...then just continue on your way.

[bean19]

There is a diffrence between an EA-sequel, and a Splinter Cell sequal.
One is regurgitating the same damn game and adding a new bulletpoint that is poorly done.

Oh, I am also sick of NFS:MW, the gane is long, but it feels like the races probably were put together in less time it takes to run them, simply by reusing EVERY SINGLE piece of track. It's boring.

Splinter Cell games, have always been expanding in concept, from the first sneaker, to the second which gave you a bit more freedom, then the 3rd gave you several diffrent ways to do missions and also allowed for more of a aggressive stealth style, and amazing graphics.

First, good point about the difference between sequels done right and sequels done wrong. However, NFS:MW is not a good negative example. Sure, the game is made artificially longer and merely ramps up in difficulty over time, but that is pretty standard fair in racing games. Which games don't use tracks or don't become harder over time? However, the point that you seem to have missed is probably the most fun part of the game: Running from the Popos and taking them out by running into shops that flatten them with a giant donut (or one of the other many, many pursuit breakers in the game). That is innovation. It is done well, and it is very fun. Also, you gotta love a main boss that is so comical. . . his nickname is "Razor". Haha! You can tell that all of the Blacklist 15 are despised for whatever reason and are based on real streetracer personalities. Very amusing.

Yes, Nintendo needs to stop with the Mario Parties, as they are stale, but god help us all... people keep buying. Shit, I know someone who is proud to buy EVERY EA Sports game every year.

Well, Mario Party is for a very different type of gamer. The only people I know who buy it do so because they are crazy enthusiests. I've played with them and there have always been enough new game modes that the experience was fresh and fun. . . at least for me. I can imagine how boring repeating those puzzles would be for someone who owns the games and how they would like a new one with fresh puzzles if they liked it.

On the EA sports titles. . . well, again, they are made for a very different type of gamer than you or I. However, I think they are seeing a loss of revenues because unlike Mario Party, they are not delivering enough stuff that is new. People might buy Madden every year for an updated roster, but not every roster changes so much or has so many factors involved. There are only 5 starters on any NBA team, golfing and tennis are only one player, etc.

Game sequals would also be easier to swallow in story-based games if the stories were more episodic in nature. Say in F.E.A.R. 2 for example, you had several seperate missions that each were self contained with stories, and plot twists, but there are connections, and everything ties together in the last 2 or 3 missions, like a good TV series. Then leave some open threads for a season 3.

I really disagree with this. Sequels have to be fun games on their own, and they should bring enough new stuff to the table that they don't feel like a rehash of another game. Games with good stories really don't get judged as harshly in their sequels for innovating less because the story, at least, is new. Of course, usually if a game's story is good, then the rest of the game is good too. I think the same thinking bone that writes good fiction is the same one that is capable of thinking up good game mechanics.

[The Letter 3]

Wow. When does bean19's post come out in novel form? I'm looking forward to the trilogy. ;)

[mister_slim]

Your retarded you know that right? Battlefield 2 is absolutly amazing.
When calling someone retarded it helps to spell all of the words correctly.

[JazGalaxy]

That is okay being your opinion and all, but I do hope that you played the original and are willing to state that it is a better game by far. If you do not, then I will reach across the internets and slap you in the face.

Unless of course you were merely trolling...then just continue on your way.

I thought DX IW was a better game. Or at least, I had a better time with it. Whenever I play RPGs that let you make decisions, I don't make try to "be good" or "be bad" to play that kind of charachter, I just try to make decisions as I really would. In real life, I'm pretty political, and I am very anti capitalist for the very reasons that capitalism is bad in the game. Capitalism cares nothing for people. At the same time, I'm religious, but really can't stand religious zealotry. I spend a lot of time thinking about the way things should be, and what needs to be done in society and in politics to make the world a better place. The end of IW was so thoughtfully engaging that I literally put my controller down and sat there thinking for a half an hour about what choice to make to solve the game before I arrived at a decision, and the decision I arrived at was to fight for the status quo. For all my opinions on politics, and how the world should be, I faught to keep the world the same as it is. Nobody should have a new world thrust on them. Which, frankly relates to Iraq rather well. The idea that a game could be so absolutely relavent, and actually show you somethign about yourself is an amazing accomplishment.

So, yeah, one of my favorite games of all time.

[JazGalaxy]

I really disagree with this. Sequels have to be fun games on their own, and they should bring enough new stuff to the table that they don't feel like a rehash of another game. Games with good stories really don't get judged as harshly in their sequels for innovating less because the story, at least, is new. Of course, usually if a game's story is good, then the rest of the game is good too. I think the same thinking bone that writes good fiction is the same one that is capable of thinking up good game mechanics.

Sequels are a hard subject. There are some games (Jet Moto, Halo, Tenchu 1 Etc.) that have such great mechanics, that I'm not interested in anything other than more of the same. A few new tracks, or a few new levels, and I'm good to go. And in fact, whent hey mess with the recipe, the sequels are really never as good.

There are other games, though, that have completely weak mechanics and gimmicky gameplay. Those games are the oens that constantly need a new gimmick to hold your attention. Personally I would like to see gimmicky gameplay done away with entirely. Like prince of Persia's new "speed kill" gimmick. What? Why is that necessary?

[Deathbane27]

May I suggest: "Pre-fuckin'-cisely"

Thank you, much better. ;)


Um... Daxither? Your post doesn't indicate who you were speaking to, and it seems like you're trying to make two contradictory points in it.

In the chance you were speaking to me: When I said EA's Madden NFL series, that's all I meant, and I wasn't implying EA didn't have any "real" sequels. Just a higher-than-normal concentration of "might as well have been a patch" sequels.

[Kefkataran]

It isn't so much the number of sequels that perturb me, it is that developers/publishers seldom "customize" sequels for each platform. Getting the same art in the PSP version of GUN as the Xbox 360 version is just lazy and weak.

GUN probably isn't the best example of a sequel...

[XenonCJ]

How about Ultima 9 as an example? EA fucked over Origin and one of the best computer game franchises in computer game history.

[JazGalaxy]

You mean Ultima X? The online one?

I liked Ultima IX quite a bit, even if it was almost broken.

[XenonCJ]

No I mean Ultima 9. What you speak of is "Ultima Worlds Online: Origin", which is yet another EA fiasco.

I'm not sure if I need to remind you, but Ultima 9 was completely broken at launch, and virtually unplayable. Also, a lot of the core of what made the Ultimas great was ripped out so EA could get U9 out for a Christmas launch.

UWOO was never released at all...

[Kefkataran]

You mean Ultima X? The online one?

I liked Ultima IX quite a bit, even if it was almost broken.

Ultima X, the online one, was never released. Got pretty far along in development from the looks of it, but the plug was pulled.

[captainspankypants]

I'm much more jaded than most of the people here. I used to be a total hardcore gamer like all of you, but the repetition in the medium has finally broken my spirit. I'm not just talking sequels, I'm talking about every damn game on the shelf being identical.

All the FPS games have blended together for me now, since they don't really do anything to differentiate. It's like developers just take the weapon list and "special powers" list and so on, put them all in a big hat, and pull items out at random. They've been doing it for so long that I really don't see any significant differences any more, and I just can't bring myself to care about yet another WWII-themed FPS, some sci-fi shooter in a war-torn environment, or whatever. I DON'T CARE ANY MORE.

That's just one genre for an example. Every genre is the same. Racing, RPGs, platformers, they're all the same as twelve hundred games that came before them, just with the marketing bullet points mixed around. When a game like True Crime: NY comes out, it doesn't matter if it's a sequel or not. It's just like the GTA games, the Getaway games, the shitty Driver game, and all the other free-roaming crime games. How many of them do we need?

There's the occasional Katamari Damacy, Guitar Hero, or Shadow of the Colossus, but those are the only things that keep me checking out the gaming news and reviews any more. I don't give a flying fuck about the newest movie tie-in, or about how cool the explosions are in the newest squad-based shooter, or how the newest platformer has you collecting berries instead of coins. I want something NEW.

[JazGalaxy]

No I mean Ultima 9. What you speak of is "Ultima Worlds Online: Origin", which is yet another EA fiasco.

I'm not sure if I need to remind you, but Ultima 9 was completely broken at launch, and virtually unplayable. Also, a lot of the core of what made the Ultimas great was ripped out so EA could get U9 out for a Christmas launch.

UWOO was never released at all...
I played Ultima 9 years after it was released when I finally got a computer good enough to run it. It took me about three hours to get it to run, and I had a blast all the way up until I got to a dungeon where these snake heads shot fireballs at me. Anytime the fireballs would get to a certain point the game would lock up. I would have to reboot and enter the game again. Even with that, though, I still tried to find away around it for about ten hours (not in one sitting) before I surrendered and never played it again. I was really having fun though.

Ultima X was the more recently cancelled online ultima game. It was supposed to be massively single player, or something along those lines. It sounded awesome.

[XenonCJ]

I'm much more jaded than most of the people here. I used to be a total hardcore gamer like all of you, but the repetition in the medium has finally broken my spirit. I'm not just talking sequels, I'm talking about every damn game on the shelf being identical.

All the FPS games have blended together for me now, since they don't really do anything to differentiate. It's like developers just take the weapon list and "special powers" list and so on, put them all in a big hat, and pull items out at random. They've been doing it for so long that I really don't see any significant differences any more, and I just can't bring myself to care about yet another WWII-themed FPS, some sci-fi shooter in a war-torn environment, or whatever. I DON'T CARE ANY MORE.

That's just one genre for an example. Every genre is the same. Racing, RPGs, platformers, they're all the same as twelve hundred games that came before them, just with the marketing bullet points mixed around. When a game like True Crime: NY comes out, it doesn't matter if it's a sequel or not. It's just like the GTA games, the Getaway games, the shitty Driver game, and all the other free-roaming crime games. How many of them do we need?

There's the occasional Katamari Damacy, Guitar Hero, or Shadow of the Colossus, but those are the only things that keep me checking out the gaming news and reviews any more. I don't give a flying fuck about the newest movie tie-in, or about how cool the explosions are in the newest squad-based shooter, or how the newest platformer has you collecting berries instead of coins. I want something NEW.I'm right there with ya dude, except I don't think it's really possible to make anything new because, well, basically, we live in the "end times" ahahaha

But seriously, once 2D was done, then 3D graphics was basically mastered there's only so much you can really do that's interesting anymore...

That's why I think I play WoW so much... Having actual real people in the mix changes the experiance daily. But in the end you are right, it's all the same bullshit rehashed and recycled.

[bean19]

captainspankypants - Surely there is some leeway? A lot of games in the same genre play with vast difference from one another.

Counter-strike is all about communicating well with your squad, lining up shots to aim well, and managing your funds.

Unreal Tournament 2004, however, scratches a different itch by having tons of different game modes, weapons that all have secondary fire modes, and vehicular combat.

Perfect Dark Zero is a little bit of both. The Dark Ops mode has weapon buying like Counter-Strike and all of the weapons have an expanding reticle like Counter-Strikes, and vastly improved damage when hits are scored on an opponents head (one hit kills if you remove their head armor). The game also offers up a ton of game modes like Unreal Tournament and has a ton of weapons all with secondary effects like Unreal Tournament as well as a small number of vehicles (albeit much inferior to UT2K4's variety).

While these games definitely have their similarities. After all you are just aiming and shooting really; they are different enough to offer vastly varied play experiences.

Burnout is my favorite race game as it offers a ton of violent game modes where the objective is not to win the race, but to takedown other cars, or to create the biggest crash, etc., but I also like to play Need for Speed because of it's hokey story-telling and insane police chases, and while I don't PAY for Ridge Racer, I've enjoyed it at friend's houses because it is so arcadey. You basically hold down the acceleration most of the game and skill is in drifting around corners, like in F-Zero, and it just feels incredibly fast.

Different game experiences!

Action/Adventure - Zelda. . . all about puzzle solving and exploration. Mario - Jump puzzles galore. Ratchet & Clank - all about the cool gadgets and weapons you collect.

Different game experiences!

RPGs - Okay, these are all mostly the same game over and over, but the stories are different. Most of the innovations have been lemons, so I can't really recommend them, but Shadow Heart's Ring of Fate is super fun, and if you like tactical RPGs, they are all vastly different from one another. I am also a fan of the Star Ocean that was released for the original Playstation, and Kingdom Hearts is an excellent action RPG.

Sports seems to be the genre that lacks innovation in sequels. . . but not as a genre. The Mario sport games always add interesting twists to gameplay, and even in the franchise locked NFL, Blitz: The League introduced arcadey gameplay with violence while the "Jam" series introduced "trick" gameplay for both football and basketball. I'm not really a fan of these personally, although I do end up playing these games for a little while.

Also, I think your list of innovative games could be a bit longer. There was a lot of innovation shown this year:

Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney
Nintendogs
Psychonauts
Dance Dance Revolution
Trauma Center: Under the Knife
Electro Plankton
Meteos
Lumines
The Movies
Kameo

[Kefkataran]

I'm much more jaded than most of the people here. I used to be a total hardcore gamer like all of you, but the repetition in the medium has finally broken my spirit. I'm not just talking sequels, I'm talking about every damn game on the shelf being identical.

All the FPS games have blended together for me now, since they don't really do anything to differentiate. It's like developers just take the weapon list and "special powers" list and so on, put them all in a big hat, and pull items out at random. They've been doing it for so long that I really don't see any significant differences any more, and I just can't bring myself to care about yet another WWII-themed FPS, some sci-fi shooter in a war-torn environment, or whatever. I DON'T CARE ANY MORE.

That's just one genre for an example. Every genre is the same. Racing, RPGs, platformers, they're all the same as twelve hundred games that came before them, just with the marketing bullet points mixed around. When a game like True Crime: NY comes out, it doesn't matter if it's a sequel or not. It's just like the GTA games, the Getaway games, the shitty Driver game, and all the other free-roaming crime games. How many of them do we need?

There's the occasional Katamari Damacy, Guitar Hero, or Shadow of the Colossus, but those are the only things that keep me checking out the gaming news and reviews any more. I don't give a flying fuck about the newest movie tie-in, or about how cool the explosions are in the newest squad-based shooter, or how the newest platformer has you collecting berries instead of coins. I want something NEW.

Shit, you're cynical in the worst way. Your choice, of course, I just think you're probably missing out on a lot of good stuff with your shit attitude. Saying all FPSes are the same because they follow a similar (FPS) formula is silly. That's how genre works. What makes genre fun is when people play around with it. You're not going to find many people thinking Quake 4 is the same as F.E.A.R. It's the same deal with movies, and, of course, it's why genres go up and down. But for example, there's tons of sci-fi stuff being made that all follows similar formulae. And yes, much of it sucks. But there will still always be gems like Firefly, for example, that still rock.

Meh.

[captainspankypants]

bean19, your descriptions of FPS games sort of proves my point. I could take out the name "Counter-Strike" and replace it with "Rainbow Six," or a bunch of other games, and it would make no difference. Replace "Unreal Tournament 2004" with "Halo 2" etc. etc. Perfect Dark Zero is the worst example because its "little bit of both" is exactly the grab bag of marketing bullet points I was talking about. Throw all the features of every FPS in a hat and start drawing them out at random and you end up with something like PD0.

To be fair, FPS is the genre that's the worst offender, aside from maybe platformers. The bajillion movie/cartoon/other crappy license games really drag down platformers as a genre, drowning out the Ratchet & Clank's of the world.

And yes Kefkataran, I probably am missing out on a lot of great games. I just feel like they're only marginally better than the great games I already own. I just don't feel like pumping money into a never-ending cycle to get slightly better games than what I already have.

I guess I just miss the arcade days of my youth. Frogger, Q-bert, Moon Patrol, Dig Dug, Burger Time... you have to admit there's a lot more variety there. I can't help but think it could be so much better than what it is now. Games like Mr Mosquito make me keep hoping, but then a game like Path of Neo comes out and I just want to put a gun in my mouth.

[JazGalaxy]

bean19, your descriptions of FPS games sort of proves my point. I could take out the name "Counter-Strike" and replace it with "Rainbow Six," or a bunch of other games, and it would make no difference. Replace "Unreal Tournament 2004" with "Halo 2" etc. etc. Perfect Dark Zero is the worst example because its "little bit of both" is exactly the grab bag of marketing bullet points I was talking about. Throw all the features of every FPS in a hat and start drawing them out at random and you end up with something like PD0.

To be fair, FPS is the genre that's the worst offender, aside from maybe platformers. The bajillion movie/cartoon/other crappy license games really drag down platformers as a genre, drowning out the Ratchet & Clank's of the world.

And yes Kefkataran, I probably am missing out on a lot of great games. I just feel like they're only marginally better than the great games I already own. I just don't feel like pumping money into a never-ending cycle to get slightly better games than what I already have.

I guess I just miss the arcade days of my youth. Frogger, Q-bert, Moon Patrol, Dig Dug, Burger Time... you have to admit there's a lot more variety there. I can't help but think it could be so much better than what it is now. Games like Mr Mosquito make me keep hoping, but then a game like Path of Neo comes out and I just want to put a gun in my mouth.


I agree with you about 90%.

I think you are looking at the past with rose colored glasses, though. The reason Nintendo feels that the market crashed in the 80s is because there were so many versions of the same game out. Like 50 different versoins of pac man... 50 different versions of Super Sprint... 50 different versions of donkey kong... etc. Y ou just don't remember those now becuase the poor ones fade away and only the good ones are left in vivid memory.

Nintendo put it's quality control in place, and allowed developers to only make 7 games a year for the very reasons you are mentioning though. Less repition. But, when Sony kind of did away with the whole quality control concept and let developers make anything and put it on their console... it did away with the idea of... well... quality. Now it's every man for himself... whatever sells.

[Kefkataran]

And yes Kefkataran, I probably am missing out on a lot of great games. I just feel like they're only marginally better than the great games I already own. I just don't feel like pumping money into a never-ending cycle to get slightly better games than what I already have.

I think that makes sense. Hell, I even agree with you. That's the very reason I've stopped purchasing 90-95% of games new. Unless I'm REALLY excited about a title, I'll wait until it's been out a few months and buy a used copy or a super-cheap new copy.

I guess I just miss the arcade days of my youth. Frogger, Q-bert, Moon Patrol, Dig Dug, Burger Time... you have to admit there's a lot more variety there. I can't help but think it could be so much better than what it is now. Games like Mr Mosquito make me keep hoping, but then a game like Path of Neo comes out and I just want to put a gun in my mouth.

See, that makes this even worse. Not only are you super-insane levels of cynical about the present, you're also ridiculously praiseworthy about the past. Now, don't get me wrong. I adore retro gaming, and obviously there have been some great games. But there was not *that* much difference, and the past had just as many shitty titles in comparison to groundbreaking awesome titles as we do now. They had sequels and shitty rip-off games also.

Does a game like Path of Neo appeal to me? Not at all. Am I going to fret over it to the point of claiming it makes me want to put a gun in my mouth? No -- why the fuck should I? I can ignore it and wait for something I like to come out. Problem solved.

[captainspankypants]

Heh, I guess I do tend to reach into hyperbole on occasion, don't I? And I did manage to erase a lot of those old shitty games from memory, now that you mention it. Ah, such wonderful flashbacks of the NES version of Total Recall.

I stand firm on my assessment of today's game industry though. It could be so much better. The reason Path of Neo hurts me so is because I really do have a passion for gaming. If I didn't love it so much, I wouldn't care. It's like watching your child get gang-raped.

There's that hyperbole again.

[Kefkataran]

I stand firm on my assessment of today's game industry though. It could be so much better. The reason Path of Neo hurts me so is because I really do have a passion for gaming. If I didn't love it so much, I wouldn't care. It's like watching your child get gang-raped.

There's that hyperbole again.

Heh. At least you write it in amusing ways. I agree with you that there's way too much shit out there, but that's the case with all art consumed in any ways by the mainstream. The only way to combat it, and it's just barely enough, is to keep supporting the stuff you know is good and try to get others to.

[mister_slim]

I stand firm on my assessment of today's game industry though. It could be so much better. The reason Path of Neo hurts me so is because I really do have a passion for gaming. If I didn't love it so much, I wouldn't care. It's like watching your child get gang-raped.
This is just a tough time, and it's going to stay that way for a while. I like to think of it as the pre-mature-technology phase. Music has come through that phase, where someone with a couple thousand dollars of equipment can make a song 98% equivalent to a professional. Movies are moving that way, where most of the equipment is getting cheaper and more accessible (labor costs will only drop so much, but someone who wants to make a moody documentary can do so on the cheap now). Games are currently still moving up, and will for a while. It'll get better eventually though.