Videogame sequels: is more of the same enough?

The autumn months are now the videogame industry’s equivalent of cinema’s blockbuster season; it’s the time of year where the medium’s most expensive games are rolled out in time for Christmas. And like most summer blockbuster movies, this season’s big games are almost exclusively sequels – the past few weeks have seen the likes of Arkham City, Battlefield 3 and Uncharted 3 all arrive in a swirl of hype and excitement.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Kran2447d ago

The leap from AC to ACII was incredible. However ACII to Brotherhood wasnt as much.

emekcrash2446d ago

I agree, Arkham City 2 was an incredible game.

Cosmit2446d ago

@ Emek

He means Assassins Creed. Not Batman.

emekcrash2446d ago

How do you know that? Source?

Kran2446d ago (Edited 2446d ago )

well considering I just talked about Brotherhood (theres not really many recent games with Brotherhood in the title), it's pretty obvious I was talking about Assassin's Creed ¬¬

STK0262446d ago

Because he also refers to "Brotherhood"? Or the fact that the first batman game was called Arkham Asylum, which would have AA as its initials, not AC. Or just the fact that it is somewhat common knowledge among gamers that AC refers to Assasins Creed. And I presume I'm being trolled.

ShaunCameron2446d ago

"Brotherhood"? I can't recall a Batman game ever titled or subtitled Brotherhood in it.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2446d ago
WolfLeBlack2447d ago

Sequels are alays a tough one to judge, in my opinion. On the one hand, changing it too much alienates the fan base and generally makes it feels as though it's not part of the series. On other hand, failing to change anything makes the series stagnant.

Call of Duty is a prime example of both arguments: if they radically changed the game, then all those people complaining about it never changing would suddenly start complaining about how it isn't Call of Duty anymore. And yes, I am saying that a lot of gamers are hypocrits. On the other hand, don't change it and you start to get bored of the series, wishing that they would at least try something a little different.

Of course, the other argument would be that after 7 (or is it 8?) Call of Duty games it would be pretty hard to actually add anything new because you've already done it.

Another example would be the AC series, as Kran above me was saying. The leap from AC2 to AC2 was huge, but then Brotherhood was a smaller leap. The first reason for this, of course, is actually because Brotherhood and Revelations are only part of a sub-series, not the actual main series, so hopefully we'll see a bigger leap in AC3. The other is that they'd gotten it concept pretty much nailed in AC2, so they could only really refine it for ACB and add in smaller new features. With this logic it's hard to expect huge new things from Revelations, because where do they go with it now? What do they add to it?

And did any of this make sense? No? That's probably for the best, then :)

banner2446d ago (Edited 2446d ago )

I got it and agree... Some gamers are just a ficky bunch, I like cod for what it is. Leave the franchise and it's millions of fans alone. Crying as if there isn't enough shooters out already

Pikajew2446d ago

You use the base formula that made the original so great and add to it with more stuff and take away the bad parts for a sequel

kneon2446d ago

If the game is one with a decent story, such as uncharted then they just need to move forward on the story, gameplay improvements are optional. On the other hand if it's a game with little story, such as COD, then they had better improve on the gameplay.

Show all comments (15)