I was reading these two articles one of them old on Eurogamer and another that's fairly new on the BBC news website (not exactly known for gaming).
The BBC news article was that gaming was becoming stale because the biggest games are just a list of sequels:
Gears of War 3, Far Cry 3, Uncharted 3, Mass Effect 3 and Battlefield 3. Even with Nintendo 3DS we're getting Mario Kart, Super mario, Animal Crossing all of which we've seen before. On the Wii Nintendo won't even risk releasing original titles on the Wii (Xenoblade/Pandora's Tower) so they're playing it safe with Zelda and Kirby two names they know people will snap up without question.
"People like to tick boxes and play it safe, but sequels are the bane of our industry. 'The last one was good so the board wants ten more the same...' That's actually harming the marketplace irreparably,"
- Quote from Evolution studios boss.
However they're have been some original titles, LA Noire, Heavy Rain, Heroes of Ruin and Steel Diver but they are few and far between.
Thoughts?
Check out my RP Kirby Sig made by Anisaxis, thanks dude
Hmm... Well I don't think they are DESTROYING gaming at all. It's just that Sequels will always be more hyped than the previous game, it happens. Like for Super Mario Galaxy 2, everyone was exited it because it was Galaxy 2, and everyone loved Galaxy 1. So it's pretty normal.
I was reading these two articles one of them old on Eurogamer and another that's fairly new on the BBC news website (not exactly known for gaming).
The BBC news article was that gaming was becoming stale because the biggest games are just a list of sequels:
Gears of War 3, Far Cry 3, Uncharted 3, Mass Effect 3 and Battlefield 3. Even with Nintendo 3DS we're getting Mario Kart, Super mario, Animal Crossing all of which we've seen before. On the Wii Nintendo won't even risk releasing original titles on the Wii (Xenoblade/Pandora's Tower) so they're playing it safe with Zelda and Kirby two names they know people will snap up without question.
- Quote from Evolution studios boss.
However they're have been some original titles, LA Noire, Heavy Rain, Heroes of Ruin and Steel Diver but they are few and far between.
Thoughts?
Well first one has to decide what destroying gaming means. If you mean outright driving down sales and cutting the revenue, then Sequels don't destroy gaming, often because the sequel can out do the original game in question(IE Okami-Okamiden). If you mean that the sequels are killing innovation are causing this industry to begin to stagnate, then yes, I would agree with that, but only partially.
Also, it depends upon the developer. If it's someone like Activision who makes a game just for the point of Money, then the sequel is made just for that purpose. If it's a Company like Valve, they often believe that a Sequel should not be made unless they can provide enough new mechanics to completely form a new game. the only exception to this was Left4Dead 2, which was only made into a full game because Valve realized that most of the planned ideas for DLC for the original game would be to big to deliver just as DLC. Gabe Newell, the CEO of Valve, even went on record saying he was against the idea of another sequel so soon.
My opinion, and one that's shared by most of my friends, is that Sequels only ruin gaming if there is little to no difference between the sequel and the original game. The innovations between most of the Call of Duty games is next to non-existent, So I believe that they are killing innovation by causing most developers to try to capitalize on that success by creating copies of Call of Duty.
However, if the game makes signifigant changes from the original and/or expands/add more concepts that fit right in there with the core central mechanic, then I believe that the game is actually helping the industry. A great example of this would be Portal-Portal 2. the sequel keeps the games central mechanic of a portal gun intact, but it adds several new mechanics that enhance and expand upon the basic gameplay mechanic.
Then we have the games such as Zelda and Mario. These games keep the same basic mechanic and alter it enough to make it different, but stop there. My theory behind this is that they want to keep the series fresh and unique, but they also are somewhat forced to keep the basic mechanics from the games that the series is regarded from. the only recent game from Nintendo that actually got rid of the basic mechanics of the titles series was Kirby's Epic Yarn, which was never designed to be a Kirby game in the first place.
In short, Sequels only kill the industry if the changes rarely occur or if the gameplay of the sequel is identical(with a few minor tweaks such as guns you can use and multiplayer components) to the original.
Just my 2 cents
Edited by Wiiwouldlike2playwithU, 24 July 2011 - 10:11 AM.
Well first one has to decide what destroying gaming means. If you mean outright driving down sales and cutting the revenue, then Sequels don't destroy gaming, often because the sequel can out do the original game in question(IE Okami-Okamiden). If you mean that the sequels are killing innovation are causing this industry to begin to stagnate, then yes, I would agree with that, but only partially.
Also, it depends upon the developer. If it's someone like Activision who makes a game just for the point of Money, then the sequel is made just for that purpose. If it's a Company like Valve, they often believe that a Sequel should not be made unless they can provide enough new mechanics to completely form a new game. the only exception to this was Left4Dead 2, which was only made into a full game because Valve realized that most of the planned ideas for DLC for the original game would be to big to deliver just as DLC. Gabe Newell, the CEO of Valve, even went on record saying he was against the idea of another sequel so soon.
My opinion, and one that's shared by most of my friends, is that Sequels only ruin gaming if there is little to no difference between the sequel and the original game. The innovations between most of the Call of Duty games is next to non-existent, So I believe that they are killing innovation by causing most developers to try to capitalize on that success by creating copies of Call of Duty.
However, if the game makes signifigant changes from the original and/or expands/add more concepts that fit right in there with the core central mechanic, then I believe that the game is actually helping the industry. A great example of this would be Portal-Portal 2. the sequel keeps the games central mechanic of a portal gun intact, but it adds several new mechanics that enhance and expand upon the basic gameplay mechanic.
Then we have the games such as Zelda and Mario. These games keep the same basic mechanic and alter it enough to make it different, but stop there. My theory behind this is that they want to keep the series fresh and unique, but they also are somewhat forced to keep the basic mechanics from the games that the series is regarded from. the only recent game from Nintendo that actually got rid of the basic mechanics of the titles series was Kirby's Epic Yarn, which was never designed to be a Kirby game in the first place.
In short, Sequels only kill the industry if the changes rarely occur or if the gameplay of the sequel is identical(with a few minor tweaks such as guns you can use and multiplayer components) to the original.
Just my 2 cents
Not necessarily true, I admit that Call of Duty 1, 2, and 3 were bad games, in my honest opinion. But Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare revolutionized the First Person Shooter games. Call of Duty 4 had lots of 'upgrades' to it, to make an excellent game. It has kill streaks for the first time in the CoD series, customization on classes for your weapons. Such as your first, second and third perk. Then you can customize your attachments for your main gun, such as an assault rifle. You could put a silencer or red dot sight on your AK-47. Then same with your secondary, a pistol is able to customize too.
You can put a silencer on your Usp.45 or M1911.45's. If you ask me that's not copying and pasting. Now we head over to World at War, it was another great CoD game. It took place in the WW II era. WaW also made something entirely new. It was zombies, I can't tell you how excellent Treyarch did at making that extra zombie game alongside with the multiplayer and campaign for the Call of Duty World at War game. Treyarch also did multiplayer very well. They put in brand new guns, perks, kill streaks, maps. They put in lots of new things in their WaW title.
Now, Modern Warfare 2 revolutionized the CoD games and the FPS category. How? It brought its multiplayer to a whole new level. It has a lot more kill streaks, guns, game modes, customization and originality. Modern Warfare 2 also brought 'Quick Scoping' to CoD. It is very fun to quick scope, if you didn't know you have to use a Cheytac M200 or they call it in the game, the Intervention. The Intervention is a bolt-action sniper rifle. People quick scope a lot in MW2, including me, sometimes they even use the Barrette .50 Caliber. Here's a video about quick scoping.
The latest title in the successful CoD series is, Call of Duty Black Ops. If Call of Duty is such a "copy and paste" game, how did Call of Duty Black Ops surpass 650 million dollars, in five days? On second note, Black Ops made one billion dollars in sales, in just one month. Who knows how many billions of dollars its made, up to now?
Call of Duty a "copy and paste" game? I think not.
Not necessarily true, I admit that Call of Duty 1, 2, and 3 were bad games, in my honest opinion. But Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare revolutionized the First Person Shooter games. Call of Duty 4 had lots of 'upgrades' to it, to make an excellent game. It has kill streaks for the first time in the CoD series, customization on classes for your weapons. Such as your first, second and third perk. Then you can customize your attachments for your main gun, such as an assault rifle. You could put a silencer or red dot sight on your AK-47. Then same with your secondary, a pistol is able to customize too.
You can put a silencer on your Usp.45 or M1911.45's. If you ask me that's not copying and pasting. Now we head over to World at War, it was another great CoD game. It took place in the WW II era. WaW also made something entirely new. It was zombies, I can't tell you how excellent Treyarch did at making that extra zombie game alongside with the multiplayer and campaign for the Call of Duty World at War game. Treyarch also did multiplayer very well. They put in brand new guns, perks, kill streaks, maps. They put in lots of new things in their WaW title.
Now, Modern Warfare 2 revolutionized the CoD games and the FPS category. How? It brought its multiplayer to a whole new level. It has a lot more kill streaks, guns, game modes, customization and originality. Modern Warfare 2 also brought 'Quick Scoping' to CoD. It is very fun to quick scope, if you didn't know you have to use a Cheytac M200 or they call it in the game, the Intervention. The Intervention is a bolt-action sniper rifle. People quick scope a lot in MW2, including me, sometimes they even use the Barrette .50 Caliber. Here's a video about quick scoping. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=e-oD2ufX1ys
The latest title in the successful CoD series is, Call of Duty Black Ops. If Call of Duty is such a "copy and paste" game, how did Call of Duty Black Ops surpass 650 million dollars, in five days? On second note, Black Ops made one billion dollars in sales, in just one month. Who knows how many billions of dollars its made, up to now?
Call of Duty a "copy and paste" game? I think not.
Even though most of MW and WaW's ideas had already been done in other games. Customization of Character Load out was first though up by Team Fortress 2, which was in Development before MW. Perks are Over rated. Zombies were first done by Left4dead, which has much better zombies. Quick scoping is a horrible advance in the industry. Why? It's not realistic at all and people get mad when it doesn't work in other games.
Plus, most of these Advances as you call them Are over glorified DLC given a $60 price tag.
Games that refuse to use Gameplay effectively to do anything are like films that refuse to use cinematography in film to do anything.
NNID: Lord of Grape Juice /PSN: Nderbert/Steam: Harmonius EX
Even though most of MW and WaW's ideas had already been done in other games. Customization of Character Load out was first though up by Team Fortress 2, which was in Development before MW. Perks are Over rated. Zombies were first done by Left4dead, which has much better zombies. Quick scoping is a horrible advance in the industry. Why? It's not realistic at all and people get mad when it doesn't work in other games.
Plus, most of these Advances as you call them Are over glorified DLC given a $60 price tag.
Notice how I said, "It has kill streaks for the first time in the CoD series, customization on classes for your weapons." I didn't say that CoD 4 was the first game that had lots of customization options. I said that CoD 4 was the first CoD game to include customization, like the one in CoD 4. Furthermore, perks aren't over rated. It's what makes the CoD games more fun, in my opinion. Would you like to reload a M249 Saw LMG for 20 seconds, or five? A perk for that would be sleight of hand, which reloads a gun faster. Secondly I didn't say that zombie game in WaW, was the first zombie game ever. In fact, the zombie mode in WaW isn't even a full zombie game, like Left 4 Dead. All it is, is a fun bonus when you beat the campaign. Also, I wouldn't see anybody Quick scoping, outside of CoD games. It would be pretty pointless.
Last time I checked it's not a DLC pack.
Lets see, MW2 picked up where CoD 4, left off in the campaign. Black Ops picked up where WaW, left off in the campaign. Then on November eight, MW3 will pick up where MW2 left off.
The only game that I see is the same game over and over again, is the NFL,NBA,NHL games.
No. Call of Duty is a copy and paste job. Aside from the campaign and stupid online full of 9 year old kids, what is so different about it? Yeah, yeah, you get new guns, but what about something more innovative, something different from all the other FPS? It's like freaking Street Fighter 4, in which it's the same thing, and has nothing new but a few characters and a new overpowered Ryu. Only CoD isn't DLC. What's so special about CoD that it makes it different from Medal of Honor, Battle field, all other fps out there. I mean, at least Legend of Zelda brings new dungeons, characters, gameplay, items, villains etc. MW is VERY overrated, I've played it, played Black Ops, I think it's the same pony dung over and over and over AGAIN. Few tweaks here and there, more ways to cheat, few maps, and new maps which you have to pay for. It's just, ugh. But to each his own, I guess.
Edited by Feld0, 25 July 2011 - 08:07 AM. Censoring a swear word
Notice how I said, "It has kill streaks for the first time in the CoD series, customization on classes for your weapons." I didn't say that CoD 4 was the first game that had lots of customization options. I said that CoD 4 was the first CoD game to include customization, like the one in CoD 4. Furthermore, perks aren't over rated. It's what makes the CoD games funner, in my opinion. Would you light to reload a M249 Saw LMG for 20 seconds, or five? A perk for that would be sleight of hand, which reloads a gun faster. Secondly I didn't say that zombie game in WaW, was the first zombie game ever. In fact, the zombie mode in WaW isn't even a full zombie game, like Left 4 Dead. All it is, is a fun bonus when you beat the campaign. Also, I wouldn't see anybody Quick scoping, outside of CoD games. It would be pretty pointless.
Last time I checked it's not a DLC pack.
Lets see, MW2 picked up where CoD 4, left off in the campaign. Black Ops picked up where WaW, left off in the campaign. Then on November eight, MW3 will pick up where MW2 left off.
The only game that I see is the same game over and over again, is the NFL,NBA,NHL games.
You still don't get it. Besides your horrible english( it's more fun, not funner) Considering that no one that I know in Person plays the single player, It is a copy paste job in the multiplayer. You say that they added new modes and guns and that makes it worth it's $60 price tag, when Valve basically gives these to players for free. Plus, being the first in a series to innovate isn't good. You want to be the first in an industry to innovate. your just backing up your statement with your opinion, while I have solid facts and the opinion of several actual gamers that I know in person.
No. Call of Duty is a copy and paste job. Aside from the campaign and stupid online full of 9 year old kids, what is so different about it? Yeah, yeah, you get new guns, but what about something more innovative, something different from all the other FPS? It's like freaking Street Fighter 4, in which it's the same thing, and has nothing new but a few characters and a new overpowered Ryu. Only CoD isn't DLC. What's so special about CoD that it makes it different from Medal of Honor, Battle field, all other fps out there. I mean, at least Legend of Zelda brings new dungeons, characters, gameplay, items, villains etc. MW is VERY overrated, I've played it, played Black Ops, I think it's the same pony dung over and over and over AGAIN. Few tweaks here and there, more ways to cheat, few maps, and new maps which you have to pay for. It's just, ugh. But to each his own, I guess.
see, Blade agrees with me
Edited by Feld0, 25 July 2011 - 08:07 AM. Censoring a swear word
You still don't get it. Besides your horrible english( it's more fun, not funner) Considering that no one that I know in Person plays the single player, It is a copy paste job in the multiplayer. You say that they added new modes and guns and that makes it worth it's $60 price tag, when Valve basically gives these to players for free. Plus, being the first in a series to innovate isn't good. You want to be the first in an industry to innovate. your just backing up your statement with your opinion, while I have solid facts and the opinion of several actual gamers that I know in person.
see, Blade agrees with me
First off, I am not horrible at English. Secondly, can you learn how to type before insulting me? Thanks.
No. Call of Duty is a copy and paste job. Aside from the campaign and stupid online full of 9 year old kids, what is so different about it? Yeah, yeah, you get new guns, but what about something more innovative, something different from all the other FPS? It's like freaking Street Fighter 4, in which it's the same thing, and has nothing new but a few characters and a new overpowered Ryu. Only CoD isn't DLC. What's so special about CoD that it makes it different from Medal of Honor, Battle field, all other fps out there. I mean, at least Legend of Zelda brings new dungeons, characters, gameplay, items, villains etc. MW is VERY overrated, I've played it, played Black Ops, I think it's the same pony dung over and over and over AGAIN. Few tweaks here and there, more ways to cheat, few maps, and new maps which you have to pay for. It's just, ugh. But to each his own, I guess.
Blade, how long have you even played Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops? One hour? I don't really think that's long enough to tell the differences in all of the CoD games. Might I add that MW2 added a new game mode called Spec-Ops. That was something entirely new to the series. I could tell you a lot on how CoD is not a "copy and paste job" but I think that you guys wouldn't even listen to all the facts I say anyway. I didn't mean to start a whole war here. I was just backing up one of my favorite franchises, that I have played for years. If you've played a game long enough, you can tell it's differences in it's sequel.
Edited by Feld0, 25 July 2011 - 08:09 AM. Censoring a swear word
Can't stand CoD. My brothers play it, all I see them do is the same thing over and over again. With a few new guns. Does a silencer make a difference to gameplay? No. It makes your gun quiet (as far as my friend told me anyway). I just watched them for an hour, went downstairs and picked up my laptop, then I carried on building my roller-coaster in Minecraft. Whereas, Ninty will add new powerups, levels, baddies and much much more in every Mario game. Notch will add more stuff in Minecraft 1.8 then CoD will add at the rate it's going for another 5 years.
On a side note, I don't mind sequels. I've enjoyed every Animal Crossing game I've played, even City Folk. Every Mario game I've played I've enjoyed, (SMB SMB2 SMB3 NSMBWii). I'm not against sequels at all, except when they're "Look CoD: WaW sold well, lets make it again and stick a few things that won't change gameplay, new guns and some new tiny change in multiplayer."
First off, I am not horrible at English. Secondly, can you learn how to type before insulting me? Thanks.
Blade, how long have you even played Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops? One hour? I don't really think that's long enough to tell the differences in all of the CoD games. Might I add that MW2 added a new game mode called Spec-Ops. That was something entirely new to the series. I could tell you a lot on how CoD is not a "copy and paste job" but I think that you guys wouldn't even listen to all the facts I say anyway. I didn't mean to start a whole war here. I was just backing up one of my favorite franchises, that I have played for years. If you've played a game long enough, you can tell it's differences in it's sequel.
Not when it's call of duty. The game series is a joke when it comes to innovation. All of the series' "innovation" was done earlier by other games. Even if it's not directly copying the last CoD, it still is just copying from other series and calling the features that it copied as Innovation. Plus, I am correct. The correct way to say something is better in being fun is more fun, not funner
Games that refuse to use Gameplay effectively to do anything are like films that refuse to use cinematography in film to do anything.
NNID: Lord of Grape Juice /PSN: Nderbert/Steam: Harmonius EX
Can't stand CoD. My brothers play it, all I see them do is the same thing over and over again. With a few new guns. Does a silencer make a difference to gameplay? No. It makes your gun quiet (as far as my friend told me anyway). I just watched them for an hour, went downstairs and picked up my laptop, then I carried on building my roller-coaster in Minecraft. Whereas, Ninty will add new powerups, levels, baddies and much much more in every Mario game. Notch will add more stuff in Minecraft 1.8 then CoD will add at the rate it's going for another 5 years.
On a side note, I don't mind sequels. I've enjoyed every Animal Crossing game I've played, even City Folk. Every Mario game I've played I've enjoyed, (SMB SMB2 SMB3 NSMBWii). I'm not against sequels at all, except when they're "Look CoD: WaW sold well, lets make it again and stick a few things that won't change gameplay, new guns and some new tiny change in multiplayer."
The silencer on cod does change gameplay its lowers the guns accuracy but makes it so when you shoot you dont blimp up on the enemy radar.But everything else is correct I wished for cod that they kept the time between releases like cod1 (2003)cod 2(2005) but somewhere after that they got money hungry Stopped caring about honoring the veterans and just started making each of their games more like a action movie and making them dirt easy by taking away health kits and just added regen health meaning you can just blow right though the campaign.
I don't mind sequels at all but when they start to become the rule and new experiences become an exception that's when things become a bit worrying. What we have to remember is that Gears of War 3, Far Cry 3, Uncharted 3, Mass Effect 3 and Battlefield 3 all started as developers taking a chance and creating something new. There was once upon a time a beginning to these franchises which is why new games are important.
However I understand that developers want to play it safe with games that they know that will sell, Kingdom Hearts 3 no matter what it contains is already guaranteed sales but a new game has to prove its worth.
You still don't get it. Besides your horrible english( it's more fun, not funner) Considering that no one that I know in Person plays the single player, It is a copy paste job in the multiplayer. You say that they added new modes and guns and that makes it worth it's $60 price tag, when Valve basically gives these to players for free. Plus, being the first in a series to innovate isn't good. You want to be the first in an industry to innovate. your just backing up your statement with your opinion, while I have solid facts and the opinion of several actual gamers that I know in person.
see, Blade agrees with me
Yeah and you didn't punctuate or capitalize your sentence. Does that mean your bad at English? Probably not, but you just had to find one error in my post and keep on trolling about it. That's mean Lorn N.
Yeah and you didn't punctuate or capitalize your sentence. Does that mean your bad at English? Probably not, but you just had to find one error in my post and keep on trolling about it. That's mean Lorn N.
Anyways, I see you've given up on your stance that call of duty innovates.
Games that refuse to use Gameplay effectively to do anything are like films that refuse to use cinematography in film to do anything.
NNID: Lord of Grape Juice /PSN: Nderbert/Steam: Harmonius EX
I think when it comes to sequels, it really needs to blow the original out of the water, while allowing the predecessor to keep it's own charm.
I think CoD2 and CoD4 follow this. CoD4 blows CoD2 out of the water, but CoD2 also keeps its simple appeal (the lack of customisation and stuff like that). CoD2 also wins in Campaign, IMO.
Then you've got Super Mario Galaxy and Galaxy 2. Super Mario Galaxy 2 was great, but just not great enough to make the original feel defeated for the most part.
I reckon a good sequel (even though sequels only work in storyline, so that makes think the whole topic is derp) is one that takes things to the next level, but still lets its predecessor to keep its uniqueness. I'm expecting Pikmin 3 to be somewhat like this.
First off, I am not horrible at English. Secondly, can you learn how to type before insulting me? Thanks.
Blade, how long have you even played Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops? One hour? I don't really think that's long enough to tell the differences in all of the CoD games. Might I add that MW2 added a new game mode called Spec-Ops. That was something entirely new to the series. I could tell you a lot on how CoD is not a "copy and paste job" but I think that you guys wouldn't even listen to all the facts I say anyway. I didn't mean to start a whole war here. I was just backing up one of my favorite franchises, that I have played for years. If you've played a game long enough, you can tell it's differences in it's sequel.
MW2 for 3 days and Black ops also for 3 days. That's just more than enough I need to tell that these games are complete copy and pasted bull sh**.
