As far as I'm concerned, putting a number after the title of a game isn't necessarily a bad thing, nor does it mean that the game lacks imagination. Case in point is Resident Evil 4, which many insist revolutionised the survival horror genre, and it even made a considerable impact on the entire genre of action games. Plus, sequels give developers a chance to refine existing good ideas and transform them into great ones.

Moreover, there's no need to reinvent the wheel every time you set out to make a new game. While I praise creative, new experiences, sometimes I enjoy playing something familiar. I don't see anything wrong with that. As long as it's entertaining, I don't care if it's Final Fantasy XVII or some brand new concept that no one could even fathom a year ago.

Sequels are great. It's difficult to tell a deep, compelling story in one game (or movie), excluding RPGs. Trilogies do seem the best. Everything DOES need an end. Once you get to 4 or 5, that may be a little overkill. Except for fighting games.

I like sequels, it's always nice to get the latest game in an established franchise that you're familar with.

However I'm all for new stuff as well, and I fear that a lot of niche/unknown games don't get enough praise/sales that they should, which is a shame.

So with that, BUY ZACK & WIKI damnit! :P

I'm a fan of sequels/franchises, yes, but I guess that comes naturally when you grow up with Nintendo and their many installments in the various franchises.

Perhaps Nintendo franchises aren't the best example to use because they do change things up and provide fresh experiences with each installment (well, mostly), but the idea of immersing yourself back into a familiar game world is an enticing idea to me and I like being able to do so. I see it sorta like TV shows and their seasons; we as the viewer will wanna see the brand new season because we've liked the episodes beforehand. Same applies to games and their sequels.

Of course, not all sequels will be good games and that's unfortunate, but for the most part sequels are good games that allow us to return to the game world for another adventure or whatever and I like that idea.

I also like the idea of new IP, which is one of the reasons why I think 2007 was one of the best (if not the best) years for gaming. I think we had the perfect mix of sequels (Forza 2, PGR 4, Halo and so on) alongside new IP such as BioShock, Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect. We got the best of both worlds and it was brilliant.

Sure, these new IPs will eventually become franchises in their own right but I think that's a good thing too. A) Because we'll get to revisit them in the future and B) because of their success might see developers start making new IP more - something that can only be good for the industry.

When you consider that games like Prototype and Borderlands are on the way, completely new IPs (or potential ones), we're definitely onto a good start.

And using some of the games I have mentioned as examples again, I really like the idea of developers creating trilogies these days. Sure, there is the risk that they will fail and be a massive flop, but at the same time if they succeed they bring forth new IPs that are brilliant and that we'll want to return to. We'll be able to do so via the two sequels (or prequels or whatever they end up being) and then the trilogy ends. It's not over-saturating the market with the IP, but it's also allowing us to enjoy the IP.

Good move, as far as I'm concerned.

great post nismo

I don't mind genuine sequels, but when it comes to variations of puzzle games, sports games, WWII games, and the over-saturation of franchises like NFS games I do mind.

It really depends, a great sequel will always get me psycehd, but so will a great new IP.

But the sequel has the harder job as if it doesn't exceed the original it's all the more dissapointing.

I do think, that Nintendo are a bit different from the others. Mario games
for example, are not really sequels as such. But more variations on a
theme. Generally speaking, each new mario game has something unique,
different, or at the very least improved to offer.

Games are one of the few mediums in where the product can get better with each sequel. I'd like to see new IPs, but the sequelage thing doesn't really bother me. Familiarity is okay.

Besides, movies seem to be going down a similar route when it comes to remakes and the like.

Sequels are alright but I like to see something new once in a while. For example, after endless samey Tony Hawk titles, Skate delivers something completely different on only its first try. This is what sequels should be about - trying something different - especially if this is after the 19th replica game in a row

Its simple, unless you're gonna improve on the previous title don't bother with a sequel.

It depends on the game and the system. Grand Theft Auto is a game that can have sequels because the story line is always open and the game can always be improved. The game story line has to be open for another sequel. Games like Ace Combat and Quake don't necessarily have this factor.