Espeon200
August 9th, 2009, 02:19 PM
Alright, I know I didn't write this editorial (http://www.nintendojo.com/editorials/view_item.php?1249618798), but I have to say that it's definitely a topic that I have been thinking about quite a bit, and I wanted to open up discussion on it. Unfortunately we don't have comments set up on site yet, so the only way to do that is to start a thread. I'm not going to do this for every editorial that gets posted (and especially not mine, though if I say something profound or stupid enough that you want to comment, go for it). But as I said, this is definitely something I want to sound off about.
Aaron is right, complaining about sequels is in vogue right now, and not just in the video game world. Movies have been taking flack for this for some time, thanks to the Disney Syndrome that takes a fun idea and beats it to death (Cinderella III, I'm looking at you). But you don't see this in other mediums. It's expected for a best-selling book to get a sequel, even if the writer didn't plan for it to have one. Many writers have taken to making sure that all their loose ends aren't completely tied up just so that they have an opening if the book sells well. The reason is simple: sequels sell.
Seriously, I know this sounds basic, but it's the truth. If sequels didn't sell, then companies wouldn't produce them. Instead everything would be a new IP. The reason that sequels tend to sell so well is that they allow people to continue an experience that they really enjoyed. If you finished reading Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and wanted to see what happened next in Harry's life, then you were in luck as you had six more books chronicling it. If you loved the extremely difficult platform-shooter known as Mega Man, then you had plenty of sequels to sate your appetite for more of the same. The familiar draws us because it is familiar.
Think about it, early in in video games, the trend was to do something completely different with the sequel to differentiate it from its predecessor. Super Mario Bros. to Super Mario Bros. 2 (USA) or The Legend of Zelda to The Adventure of Link, both of these series tried to be drastically different. I find it interesting that the second of both of those games are looked down upon just because they were so different, even though they introduced elements that still exist in current entries in their series. Doesn't seem fair, does it.
The other series I would draw your attention to is Final Fantasy. Of the numbered sequels, no game is exactly like the one before it. In fact, most people agree that they don't exist in the same world and that every entry into the series is set in its own universe. But unlike Mario and Zelda, these games have been lauded for doing something different in every new entry in the series. The difference between the Final Fantasy games and the aforementioned Mario and Zelda series is that the Final Fantasy series made much more subtle changes to the mechanics. Final Fantasy II is different from Final Fantasy, but the change isn't as big as Zelda to Zelda 2. Final Fantasy hit the perfect midpoint between the Mega Man series (almost no change at all) and the Zelda series (huge change).
I think that Final Fantasy is the reason that we expect our games to have some new "hook" whenever they come out. It's not the sole reason we expect this, but I think it is one of the major reasons. So now, when games don't "innovate" enough we complain about them. That doesn't stop us eagerly anticipating the next entry in the series. Of the games I'm really looking forward to right now, the majority are either sequels or remakes. There are very few that are original IPs -- Scribblenauts comes to mind right away, but other than that I can't think of any.
Like Aaron, I love sequels. Even when they end up being complete retreads of the previous game with a few tweaks, they make me happy because there's a reason I liked the first version.
Aaron is right, complaining about sequels is in vogue right now, and not just in the video game world. Movies have been taking flack for this for some time, thanks to the Disney Syndrome that takes a fun idea and beats it to death (Cinderella III, I'm looking at you). But you don't see this in other mediums. It's expected for a best-selling book to get a sequel, even if the writer didn't plan for it to have one. Many writers have taken to making sure that all their loose ends aren't completely tied up just so that they have an opening if the book sells well. The reason is simple: sequels sell.
Seriously, I know this sounds basic, but it's the truth. If sequels didn't sell, then companies wouldn't produce them. Instead everything would be a new IP. The reason that sequels tend to sell so well is that they allow people to continue an experience that they really enjoyed. If you finished reading Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and wanted to see what happened next in Harry's life, then you were in luck as you had six more books chronicling it. If you loved the extremely difficult platform-shooter known as Mega Man, then you had plenty of sequels to sate your appetite for more of the same. The familiar draws us because it is familiar.
Think about it, early in in video games, the trend was to do something completely different with the sequel to differentiate it from its predecessor. Super Mario Bros. to Super Mario Bros. 2 (USA) or The Legend of Zelda to The Adventure of Link, both of these series tried to be drastically different. I find it interesting that the second of both of those games are looked down upon just because they were so different, even though they introduced elements that still exist in current entries in their series. Doesn't seem fair, does it.
The other series I would draw your attention to is Final Fantasy. Of the numbered sequels, no game is exactly like the one before it. In fact, most people agree that they don't exist in the same world and that every entry into the series is set in its own universe. But unlike Mario and Zelda, these games have been lauded for doing something different in every new entry in the series. The difference between the Final Fantasy games and the aforementioned Mario and Zelda series is that the Final Fantasy series made much more subtle changes to the mechanics. Final Fantasy II is different from Final Fantasy, but the change isn't as big as Zelda to Zelda 2. Final Fantasy hit the perfect midpoint between the Mega Man series (almost no change at all) and the Zelda series (huge change).
I think that Final Fantasy is the reason that we expect our games to have some new "hook" whenever they come out. It's not the sole reason we expect this, but I think it is one of the major reasons. So now, when games don't "innovate" enough we complain about them. That doesn't stop us eagerly anticipating the next entry in the series. Of the games I'm really looking forward to right now, the majority are either sequels or remakes. There are very few that are original IPs -- Scribblenauts comes to mind right away, but other than that I can't think of any.
Like Aaron, I love sequels. Even when they end up being complete retreads of the previous game with a few tweaks, they make me happy because there's a reason I liked the first version.