Is Anyone Else Bored With Sequels?

[H.O.D 0]

EA sports is (in)famous for releasing yearly iterations of its sports titles, adding a few new features and repeating the same formula year after year. These titles sell, because they're sports, and the few new features are usually enough to keep the interest alive. But when other genres of games come out with yearly iterations, how far can it be interesting? At the moment most gaming studios seem to be in the milking mode, trying to extract as much money as possible from the franchise. Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, these titles come to mind immediately when thinking of sequels...these games have a yearly title, which fans lap up with eagerness, only to discover that they keep getting worse with each sequel.

 

Now it is not fair to generalise it this way; some sequels are really good. The God of War series is a fine example. Each sequel is definitely better than its predecessor, and although there is some innovation in each sequel. After playing GoW3, the bosses in the earlier games seem too puny and funny! This is the sign of a good sequel. But today's sequels are mostly the same as their predecessors, bringing very little innovation to the table. This is what takes off the interest from these games. Now everyone is waiting with bated breath for Max Payne 3. After a few days they will wait for Assassin's Creed 3. The power of the franchises is such that fans will definitely wait for sequels, even if they turn out to be disappointing. The problem is that most sequels do turn out to be disappointing.

 

This is actually a very old trend, which is already seen in movies. Most movie studios churn out sequels, hoping to ride on the success of the first movies. Only a handful of these sequels actually work out, and they become huge franchises. But most of the sequels turn out to be duds, and the studios just manage to break even. The exact same thing is happening in the gaming industry as well. Only a few franchises manage to become hits, while some do not go beyond part 2. In spite of this, many gaming studios are feverishly planning on sequels, and due to this original games are becoming far and few. It is considered to be too risky to produce an original game title these days. Even fans support this theory by investing heavily in proven franchises. So a bestseller list will always contain more part 2s and part 3s than original titles. Is anyone else bored about this trend? As a gaming fan I too enjoy waiting for sequels of games that I've enjoyed playing. But when most of those sequels fail to deliver with repetitive gameplay, I get really bored, and the wait for the next sequel gets a little less exciting. So what do you think - if a game becomes successful should it or should it not have a sequel. If it should, how many?!!

[Ananya 0]

Sequels generally mean pulling an elastic rubber more and more until its elasticity gets truly distorted or it gets torn.Film makers tend to make remakes as they see it as an easy and convenient mode of delivering a movie in front of audience.They don't have to work out on the script from the scratch.They will just have to extend the whole lot of things it was there earlier.We audience give our mandate to film directors to continue their journey of continuing to make sequels after sequels by flocking to the cinema halls.Initially a story that had been so exciting in the beginning tends to get converted into something truly dull in the end.A sequel should be practically an extension of story but rather it turns out to become a stuff too boring to digest.