Even if a game's story is finished, even if the creators aren't too keen on making sequels, even if the original dev team have long disbanded, fans will still demand sequels to their favorite games. And while many sequels improve on the originals and are well worth buying, there are just as many sequels that aren't needed and end up being disappointments.

In this article Destructoid takes a look at game sequels, when they are (and aren't) needed, and how fans' demand for sequels can hold the creators back.

People might look at me a little strangely for implying that sequels are a sacred cow of gaming. "Everyone complains about sequels!" The thing is people complain about getting the sequels they didn't ask for, while at the same time complaining about not getting the sequels they did ask for. For example: It's oh so common to complain about Madden sequels. Admittedly even the fans of the game have an unspoken rule. "Don't buy Madden every year. Not worth it." However people harp endlessly for other games. "Because this game is dear to my heart I demand more of it!" "More Silent Hill, more Final Fantasy, more Metal Gear Solid!"

Now I won't deny that these are all good series, but if you look a little deeper you might realize that these games and the people who constantly demand them are holding their creators back.

These are all cases of companies and series that I think have lost at least some of their creative drive, because honestly I think the fans are in more control than anyone else. Their money and demands are what's driving many of these games to continue being made, and how is it possible for anyone to really be at their best when someone else is telling them what they should be making? How can any game be at its best when the original staff isn't even present to work on THEIR creation? Obviously it's not all the fault of the fans, but I'm hoping the fans themselves can realize that they're partially responsible for these creations going on as long as they have. Even the more extreme cases like Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero, where the company itself has the mentality to exploit the series on at least an annual basis: it's the peoples' money that supports that mentality.
| More
Register as a member to subscribe comments.
  • 0
    Rabla Oct 18, 09
    This may be the wrong place for me to yell 'TWEWY2TWEWY2TWEWY2'
  • 2
    InsanityS Oct 18, 09
    I understand where the writer is coming from, and indeed I can agree to the whole "it's the peoples' money that supports that mentality" concept in terms of shitty and/or pointless sequels being churned out on a regular basis.

    But at the same time, demand for a sequel itself is not a bad thing. It shows that the first game made the impact it needed and has established a solid fanbase. The public want more of the same with minor modifications here and there.

    In turn, this leads me to believe that the problem isn't the creation of sequels to appease the masses but the creation of sequels that miss the point entirely. Pointless updates that should just be DLC or games that completely ignore the base principles the original was set on.

    At that point do you really lay blame at the fans? If someone asked a shop keeper for chocolate ice cream would you blame the customer if they were given vanilla? No, you'd blame the shop keeper, as you would blame the games company for failing to deliver what their customers are asking for. If they can't manage it then they shouldn't try instead of pushing out some half-hearted rush job that's more likely to allienate fans than not producing a sequel at all.

    I mean, we might be asking for sequels to long forgotten gems like Skies of Arcadia, but nobody's boycotting Sega for not working on one, right?
  • 0
    conel3 Oct 18, 09
    It's not the fans fault. If the companies don't want to make a sequal no one's forcing them to. A bad game is made because it was developed badly not because fans wanted it to be made.
  • 1
    Bale Fire Oct 18, 09
    I would say the fans are sometimes partly at fault, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the creators. Sucker Punch could have made Sly 4 and it would have probably been an instant hit. Instead they went into bold new territory and crafted Infamous. Insomniac could have gone with another Ratchet and Clank, but they went on to make Resisance instead. No doubt they had pressure to just keep hammering out sequels, but they didn't. Those are some limited examples, but you get the idea.

This news story is archived and is closed to comments now.