Sequel's that are "Too similar."

[MrEco]

I'm confused about something. How come a game like Call of Duty get's a sequel and so many people rush to say that it's "the exact same" and dismiss the sequel as bad because of that and that alone?

And it's not just CoD, oh no. I've heard people say the same things about Battlefield, Crackdown, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Fallout, Skyrim, Pokemon, Mario, Metroid, Zelda, GTA, MGS, Borderlands, Mount and Blade, Left 4 Dead, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Now I can understand if you didn't like the first one, and you think the second is very similar, that of course you won't like the sequel's. But I've seen people that did like, for example, Bioshock who hated Bioshock 2. And similar cases for almost all of those series I listed. I've also seen many people who claim that the sequel being too similar is reason enough to not like any of the games in, say, the Fallout series, but say that all of the sequel's being similar is in fact a good point of a series like Mario.


So why is this? Is it only the (To use an over-used term) fanboys who cause this kind of ridiculousness? Or is there something I'm missing?

[Gunstar Green]

The real kicker is when a sequel tries to do something new people will criticize it for being, "too different." It's just the age old problem of not being able to please everyone.

The "same thing" criticism can still be fair in some extreme cases but more often than not I agree with your assessment and feel like it's a complaint levied by people who don't like that type of game to begin with.

[MrPopo]

People who dislike things are the most vocal. So some segment hates sequels that are just a rehash, while a different segment hates sequels that are different. Both of those get anonymized through the internet, and so you're left with assuming that you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[dogman91]

I feel like it's because people can see the potential for these kind of sequels, and then get disappointed when it turns out it's just a variation of the same game, rather than one that stands on it's own merit. In other words it's a wasted opportunity for something that could've been a lot better had the developers thought it through, and also that it takes advantage of that particular fan base by having them buy something (which of course, they don't have to) where the developers did a majority of the work with their other games with only slight tweaks with each new entry... the New Super Mario Bros. games being a perfect example of this. Compared to the innovations and variety seen between Super Mario Bros 3 to World to Yoshi's Island, it's painfully obvious that each entry in the NSMB series isn't the best Nintendo can do by any stretch, and I think that upsets people enough to vent about it online, even though the games are "good" in a sense. I personally don't like the idea of milking out a successful franchise until it runs dry, like what a lot of other industries do too like for example with movies/TV shows. If I want to play X game, then I would just play X game. I think the reason to "complain" about it or criticize it for being the same is so that we can basically make a stand and not just "put up" with the same games over and over again, if we can see that so much more can be done with the franchise or a new one. I'm sure all game companies would be glad to re-release Super Mario Bros. on the NES or other super-retro-at-this-point-game over and over again for as long as they can if everyone seemed perfectly happy with it... some have that happen already because sales show that they can get away with it (Call of Duty). Overall I have to say I haven't come across many examples of these kind of rehashes in my gaming so far though. I'm glad there is a main point with a good portion of game companies for there to be change with each of their games (as well as having really creative competition from other companies), otherwise all our 3D games would still play and look like Jumping Flash or we'd still be opening up a menu to select "Door" in an RPG. Not that I'm saying random internet commenters directly influenced game companies' and publishers' decisions. Coming up with new things and directions with the games also ensures the quality will stay up rather than decline and fizzle out, keeping the franchise alive in essence.

Definitely agree with the above two posts. I'm glad companies have an ear for their fans (and that they realize they're the ones who pay for their games), but it's also great when companies take risks and goes against the grain. I guess there should be a little bit both if we want both sides to be happy. The real sad thing (from previously changing it too much or keeping it too much the same) is when publishers just flat out choose to end a franchise once it stops selling rather than go back to the drawing board to reinvigorate it in some way.

[Cronozilla]

It sounds more like people using whatever excuses they can to give justification for why they don't like something ... where they should just own up and say they don't like it because it's not their thing or something. (Or they don't like it because their friends or favorite game source tells them not to)

[Menegrothx]

It's hard to keep a franchise from stagnating with out doing something that might alienate some fans. It's possible though. The real problem is that many developers/publishers want to milk a game series dry and kill it. Good developers know to move on after a few games when they realize that they cant bring any new ideas to the concept anymore, so any sequel would feel too much like a rehash of the old games.

I feel like it's because people can see the potential for these kind of sequels, and then get disappointed when it turns out it's just a variation of the same game, rather than one that stands on it's own merit. In other words it's a wasted opportunity for something that could've been a lot better had the developers thought it through

Exactly

Definitely agree with the above two posts. I'm glad companies have an ear for their fans (and that they realize they're the ones who pay for their games), but it's also great when companies take risks and goes against the grain.

That's the thing. A sequel should stay true to it's roots, but also improve upon the concept of the original game(s). You shouldn't turn an isometric strategy game into a bad modern FPS (Syndicate) nor should you stagnate any gameplay evolution for the sake of fans who want to play the first game over and over again in the form of sequels rather than just playing the original game. Egoraptor's Sequelitis on Castlevania 4 explains this phenomenon perfectly

[BogusMeatFactory]

For me there are a few different reasons as to why I dislike sequels to franchises where I enjoyed the original.

The first and foremost is when there is a sequel where I did not feel there needed to be. Some games feel good as a finished product and need no continuation of a story. Much like a sequel to a movie that needs none i.e. Fatal Attraction, Rocky/Rambo/Sylvester Stallone, Psycho, the Birds etc., videogames work just the same. For instance, I felt like the Bioshock series worked just great the first time. The second, while a solid game, felt like it was lacking the personality the first did. Does that make it a bad game? No absolutely not, but for me, it just seems tacked on to capitalize on growing a franchise. I just felt the game was done after the first and needed no continuation.

Another thing is the similarities. I always feel that games do need to grow. They need to change and innovate, even if in small ways. They need to be growing their user-base with new technologies and new ways to play games differently. I do not enjoy paying for the same game with graphical updates. I didn't do it for sports games and I didn't do it for any other game of any other genre, which is why I just don't support those games and look for other more interesting titles in that genre.

Do I hate the people who play those games? Not at all! They are totally entitled to their opinion on what is good and what is not. I have the sense to recognize that my opinion differs from others and that my viewpoint is not law and that the world must conform to my ideals. The playground is big enough for everyone and everything and I will be more than happy to play as I like.

[Gunstar Green]

It depends on the game and what you find fun ultimately. For instance I can play new installments to classic Mega Man infinitely. To me those games are almost like getting a new album from a favorite band.

However I don't feel the same way about the Dynasty Warriors franchise which I enjoy but find its sequels and spin-offs unnecessary. Both franchises play off of successful formulas that are re-used again and again but I suppose one formula I enjoy enough to welcome sequels with slight variations and the other formula I only enjoy to a point that one game is enough.

I guess my main point is there's room for both kinds of sequels, the rehash and the innovator. A good game is a good game and both styles of sequel will have their fans and detractors.

[pankakes123]

Sequelitis does not effect the Mario series and a very select few other series because those series have been so perfected people wan the same thing.

For almost every other series in existence though, most notably Fifa and CoD, fans and haters alike want to at least see some kind of drastic leap in gameplay or otherwise it is not worth releasing a sequel in the first place.

[Menegrothx]

Sequelitis does not effect the Mario series and a very select few other series because those series have been so perfected people wan the same thing.

WTH are you talking about? Super Mario Bros->Super Mario Bros 3->Super Mario World (/2)->Super Mario 64->Super Mario Galaxy
There's some major gameplay evolution right there. And then there's the spinoffs, Mario Kart, Mario RPG, Paper Mario....