Ponderables: How much is too much?

Written by Jim Squires

Friday, 11 May 2007 07:30

When a game comes out and knocks our socks off, we can't help but wish there was more to it. The developers and publishers, fully aware of the impact their new title has had, kick it into high gear to bang out a sequel. People buy it based on the success of the first one, and the cycle begins anew. It's a little disease I like to call sequelitis.

It starts off innocent enough, and then the next thing you know you're buying the fifth Splinter Cell game even though you didn't really like the last two just because you feel committed to the franchise. Sometimes its different - a brilliant title comes out that succeeds because of its originality, and the publishers attempt to cash in despite the fact that very little can be done to improve upon it -- Katamari Damacy is a perfect example of this.

Company's like Blizzard and Nintendo know the value of spacing out their releases and only putting a product to market that they believe is a worthy addition to their franchises. The know how to protect their IP's, and they're willing to sacrifice the cash grab to do it.

So the question is this - would you rather get your sequels every year regardless of quality, or settle for one or two top notch titles from your favorite developers in a console cycle?

Comments (8) Add Comment

...
written by Dexie Oblivion, May 11, 2007

Y'know....I was just about to post something like this on the forums, concerning how Square-Enix has around...15? I think, new Final Fantasy games announced and coming out soon.

I miss the old Square, when they weren't afraid to try a new IP without slapping FF in front of it's name. :/

...
written by Dexie Oblivion, May 11, 2007

Oh, and to answer your question...the second, definately. Take your time with releases, geez.

...
written by Dr. Cossack, May 11, 2007

Definitely, clearly, and obviously the second option. For example, there's no way I'd want to see a new Super Smash Bros. game being released every year: I'm perfectly satisfied by receiving one by console generation. Some companies release their games too quickly without giving them much thought, and as such, I'm not even bothering to look at them on launch day (see: Sonic's latest few 3D games).

That's not to say that getting a new game every year means that it will be of a dubious quality: the portable Castlevania titles have been getting better since the GBA's release, and the releases have been happening almost yearly.

...
written by Katana, May 11, 2007

I'll gladly take quality titles, like BioShock or Mass Effect, rather than see an IP fall victim to Maddenitis.

...
written by Dan Zuccarelli, May 11, 2007

I remember sitting in the SquareEnix theater last year at E3 and watching a presentation of nothing but FF games.

I love me some final fantasy but you couldn't tell one game from the next. I distinctly remembering I just stopped writing them down, it got to be downright ridiculous.

...
written by Andrew Hayward, May 11, 2007

I've got a mixed reaction to this situation, because while there are certainly instances in which I'd rather have an improved game every two or three years, there are other games/series that I like to rely on each year.

In the ideal situation, I'd like to see publishers drop the pretense of releasing a completely new game every fall (like with Need for Speed and Tony Hawk) and jump to a staggered release schedule where we get a full-fledged sequel every two years (or so) with a mission pack-style release in-between. That way, you can have one team working on the great new evolution for the series while another focuses on extending the reach and length of the previous one.

Even if that doesn't happen, I'm still going to buy a full-priced Tony Hawk every fall. Multiply that by a million (or more) and you can see why publishers rarely skip a year.

...
written by Kat, May 12, 2007

When I was younger, I was like that. At age 8 I got the Land Before Time movie, and I had to pick up every sequel after that. Finally around number 7, I realized how crappy they all were and gave all but the original to a friend's kids.

I felt compelled to get every Final Fantasy game, until I got FFIII on the DS and was so disappointed with it. Now I'm seriously reconsidering.

So I tend to watch the reviews and if a title comes out as really crappy, I won't get it just because it's a sequel. I *am* a sucker for Katamari, though.

...
written by greshkov, May 15, 2007

i would much rather have a game done right once every five or six years than have a pushed regurgitation of the same game a year later. i think splinter cell is a perfect example. ubi montreal did the first one, and it was good. ubi shanghai did the second game, and it was trash. the third was ubi montreal again, and it was good. rinse, wash, repeat. i was buying every other one until i realized it just wasn't worth it. there are too many. tony hawk is another good example. i used to skate every day for eight years. i love skateboarding. i haven't bought a thps game since the first underground. too much of a good thing without any great changes.