Thought of the Day: Originality

[zero]

So I'm browsing the most anticipated games of 05 thread and something struck me, here's a small list of what people are looking forward to:

Legend of Zelda

Splinter Cell Chaos Theory

Gran Turismo 4

Resident Evil 4

NBA Street 3

Kingdom Hearts 2

The Sims University

Tekken 5

Final Fantasy XII

Sequels, sequels, and more sequels. And what were 2004's biggest games?

GTA: San Andreas

Halo 2

Burnout 3

Metal Gear Solid 3

Ninja Gaiden

Metroid Prime 2

Half Life 2

Sequels. Now, is this necessarily a bad thing or are we simply getting more of a good thing? Originality certainly isn't dead as long as games like Katamari Damacy are coming out (with a sequel due this year haha), and Killer 7 on the way. But are we seeing more sequels than original titles? And is this a good or bad thing? Do you think gamers are getting screwed often because certain features that would have been obvious to put in a game are saved for the sequel? Or are they just getting what they want? More from their favorite franchise with big improvements? Share your thoughts.

[naiwf]

I'll try to be brief. I think it's infinitely easier to just add some new features/environments to a top seller than it is to create something from scratch, so sequels are always going to be the first choice. I mean, I don't think we really NEED a new Madden every year, but if people are willing to shell out $50 every year, why wouldn't the manufacturer keep pumping them out? I've often thought computer gamers had it a bit better since they could buy expansion packs at half the price, or get combo packs in relatively short order.

I think too many sequels is a bad thing, but on the flip side I've always been kind of upset that I never got a Dreamcast sequel to Skies of Arcadia which is perhaps my favorite game ever. My biggest gripe is when a sequel doesn't improve any of the flaws in its predecessor or takes a complete step backwards trying to do something that they never should have. So what I generally tend to do is skip a "generation" each time I know a game will have a bunch of sequels, ie I've bought Tekken 1 & 3, and I may get 5, but there's no way I was going to buy 2 or 4 since they didn't reinvent the wheel by any means.

[tristy]

I don't know man, I don't think orginality really exists anymore, if you know what I mean. Every game these days borrows something from another game, so it's never truely original.

[apsham]

Katamari Damancy certainly was, more games need to be like it, and I can't wait for the sequel.

[Cactus Drags]

Sequels are a good thing as long as they expand enough on original titles, e.g. San Andreas - no way can you say that's a simple update. Yearly updates of Madden and co are unnecessary, but a lot of people, myself included, want the latest rosters, but no way will the companies release mere expansion packs when they know they can squeeze full price out of us.

Originality isn't always a good thing, there's been a few games (unfortunately none that come to mind at the moment), that were novel ideas that either weren't executed very well, or just weren't fun to play.

[Godfatha]

Sequels are generally a preferred method for gamers and game developers when it comes to making games.

Generally only good games necessitate a sequel, as such the demand is already high. What this means is that they're guaranteed to sell. This also means that developers can just recycle the same engine and whatnot and put some new additions and there's a new game. Unfortunately, this means developers can get lazy (Halo 2 in some cases, KOTORII). But because of this demand, gamers will always purchase a sequel just because of the quality of the first and the hype of the others.

[Toe]

It is really hard in the gaming industry to try something new, as most companies aren't willing to risk money on a project that isn't guaranteed to sell. However, even in sequels we see new and interesting things like Madden's playmaker controls which changed the way I play or San Andreas with its huge customization, maps and open ended gameplay.

[JStarr]

I don't know man, I don't think orginality really exists anymore, if you know what I mean. Every game these days borrows something from another game, so it's never truely original.

←

Reading an interview right now with David Jaffe, the guy who was the lead designer on Twisted Metal Black and is now doing God of War. God of War is probably the most hyped and anticipated non-sequel out there, and Jaffe freely admits that he borrowed at least one gameplay facet from the new Prince of Persia games. But as long as the borrowing makes sense in context of a game, more power to 'em. I'm waiting for some bastard child of GTA, Mutant League Football, and NFL Blitz where squads of (fake, of course, thanks to the EA cash :thumbsup: ) players throw out Devil May Cry moves and blast each other to hell.

Katamari Damancy certainly was, more games need to be like it, and I can't wait for the sequel.

Sorry, AS, but in a thread about originality in games, this made me chuckle. :thumbsup:

[Stevie B]

In some games though, sequeals are different campared to the last one made. For example, take Shenmue. The first one was set in Japan. The sequel to Shenmue was leading off of the first one, but it was in a totally different setting and just seemed like a different game altogether.

The other type of sequel, which is common sport games is basically just an update. I haven't noticed much difference in the FIFA games since 2003, as they all look the same.

Overall, i like sequels that are based on the same engine, but are a different game, why fix something if it's not broken?