Sequels.

We all enjoy them but at the same time we also like to complain that there are too many of them. Well even though I am guilty of complaining about them I would like to point out something about sequels. The PS2/Xbox/GCN era of consoles, commonly known as the current generation has received the most complaints in regards to the quantity of sequels but I wonder, why is that? I mean, most of the franchises that we associate with sequelitis ironically have also started within the same generation, the current generation. Take Criterion's Burnout franchise for example, four games on the consoles and one for the PSP. It actually annoys me when people forget about certain installments of a franchise and yet still argue the sequelitis argument. Obviously Burnout 1 and 2 exist but they have been forgotten about ever since Takedown came and blew everyone away. Fair enough, I can understand why this has occured but still, it can't be ignored that there was two awesome games before that and they were both on this generation. Now yes, 4 games in one generation may be a little overboard but I still wouldn't put it down to being too many sequels. Not if it's franchises like Burnout where each and every entry is a decent (and different) one. Who cares about the quantity if the quality is there?
Grand Theft Auto would be another good example, three games (GTA 1, GTA 2 and the London GTA) on the PS1 and 3 games on the PS2. Too much? No, I don't think so. Again effort comes into the argument and Rockstar have definitely put the effort in with each installment of the franchise. Hell even Halo could be an example of playing the part in the 'sequels' game that we know and complain about these days. Again the effort argument would come into play, does the quantity matter if the developer puts the effort in to deliver quality each and every time? No, I don't think so.

But let's ignore those game examples and focus on the point instead. Why is it that we as gamers complain about there being far too many sequels when a lot of the games we complain about started this generation? Granted, there are franchises that have been around for years but they aren't the ones complained about either (and if they are it is by the minority). So why do we complain so much? I dunno, I just think it is stupid that we are so hypocritical towards sequels all the time. Sure, more originality would be awesome and I desire it as much as you do, but sequels aren't always bad either and I am just sick of seeing complaints about them as if they were the worst thing ever.

That's my rant over, your thoughts?

Yeah, I agree with most of that, though Criterion really shold have held B4 off until this year, as it was a step backwards for the series in my opinion. I think maybe the series has already peaked with B3, but I hope I'm wrong.

I think you've answered your own question Nismo, allow me to quote:

Put simply the prime candidates for sequel complaint in your example Burnout and GTA and there are others, like Splinter Cell are such because as you put it the franchises have started within the same generation. This means a game like Burnout which has 4 games in the series and started this generation, essentially got a new release every year and as a result people got familiar with the new releases quickly and end up complaining that there are too many sequels.

It's a similar case with Splinter Cell, sure all the games are top quality but they are still released close to each other, another example Mario Party, the series has got a new release every year and is now on its 7th game, and lots of people are sick of that game.

Now this brings me to the second quote I made above, franchises that have been around for years but dont get complained about, well at least not to the extent of Burnout. Some prime examples are classic Nintendo games, The Legend of Zelda and the Super Mario series. Been around since the 80's have many games in the series but we dont complain when a new one comes along why? Because we only get a new entry in the series every console generation, 2 if we are lucky, this means there are several years of waiting between games, unlike the annual instalments where one grows tired. Hence by the time a new entry in the series comes along people have been starved from it for such a long time that the vast majority praise the latest instalment.

Look at Zelda, the series has only really had one new game each console generation, except for the NES (but Zelda II was regarded as the worst game) and the N64. The GCN was supposed to have two Zelda games, Wind Waker and Twilight Princess, but as we know TP is now on the Wii, while its still going to be on GCN, there was again still several years between the release of both games.

It's a similar situation with Mario, one entry into the platform genre on N64, GCN and thus far Wii. In addition to having a long wait between the games, having a new entry on a different console each times often means that there are radical changes to the series and thus the game feels a lot more "new" than an annual instalment would. And of course we have Metroid again in a similar situation, with the series not even getting a release on the N64, but fans were finally compensated with 2 games on GCN.

Therefore we have this complaining about sequels from franchises that started this generation because each new entry while still a top game, wont have the impact from spacing out franchise releases like with Nintendo games. Of course the only problem with Nintendo's strategy is that you often get gaming droughts between the releases, it happens on all consoles (hell the 360 is in one now), but it was to a greater extent on N64 and GCN. Nintendo was able to compensate for this with 3rd party support on the NES and SNES days, and hopes to get back to this on Wii.

But on the other hand, releasing annual instalments of the same franchise while does provide more frequent supply of quality games, often their individual impact is lessened and there is often complaining that we are getting too many sequels.

Rockstar seem to be dishing out GTA sequels left, right and centre lately. Their PSP releases were already 75% complete before they even started on it simply because they already had the geographical locations and map systems. All they did was take some buildings out, whack in some new ones and add a few missions and new vehicles. That's how it got released so fast, then with their new PSP sequel, GTA: Vice City Stories announced only a month or 2 ago, is already being planned to be released on 16th October 2006 (US)

It's like The Sims expansion packs all over again!

Another problem with sequels it seems like that's the only thing we ever look forward to when it comes to next gen titles. If it hasn't got a number next to it (a sequel number), then it mustn't be worth buying the console for it unless it's had sufficent enough advertising and coverage (like Dead Rising).

It's a shame because this is why there aren't many original games anymore, developers are feared to what might happen if they try something bold and creative. They prefer to usually stick with a project that has guaranteed income

yeah rockstar need to really slow down with gtaIV and get it just right, it could be THE next gen game if all goes well

Time and budget.

I think we all just like to piss and moan and pretend we're all experts in the industry we have fallen in love with.

We could all be simply frustrated that this generation hasn't been the quantum leap over what we played on our PSone a decade ago, Mario64 notwithstanding.

It could be because for the genre's we have, there are a tonne of "me too" titles which don't really offer much new and that recycling proven IP doesn't lend itself to new ideas (especially given how risky developing games are these days).

Or, it could be because we're becoming jaded... that's why we complain...

I think this is a big point actually. I think we are actually using the sequels to vent our frustration and that we are actually annoyed by the similarity we see in games. While yes we may think that certain sequels should have been left in the development process for longer or whatever, generally we are still quite happy with the final product/s even if they are so quickly released after the previous games. It's the copy-me attitude that this generation has had that seems to be our actual complaint and we just aren't realising the fact. This is understandable I guess but perhaps it is time to start complaining about that rather than direct anger (or whatever) at particular sequels.

i think their are way to many tony hawks games it doesnt need to keep upto date with rosters so why do it annually.

but i would love to see another Katamari Game as that as already been ended. i suppose its better they stop it before they ruin the series a la Tomb Raider (well until legend came out)