sequels: y/n?

bioshock 2, dead space 2, arkham asylum 2. what's ur take on sequels?

What if something is a serial rather than a sequel?

i think someone said it in another thread... maybe it was even me... that with video games, it's not the same as movies, where sequels are usually cheap cash-ins (or were before LOTR and everything became a trilogy). games often get better with iteration. you wouldn't have your precious COD4 or MW2 w/o sequels!

also, tech is always changing and sequels usually take advantage of that.

half life fuckin 2

IYKWIM

is there any serious argument to be made AGAINST sequels?

"man, by the time the series got to super mario 3, you could tell they'd run out of ideas..."

yes, namely, that it's taken so fucking long for starcraft 2 and diablo 3. !

don't think i was seriously disappointed with a game sequel until Metal Gear Solid 2, and even that was really because the story was so overloaded and silly.

the game itself was still pretty kickass.

I love sequels. It's not like the originals go away so if a sequel screws things up, it doesn't really matter.

Although an argument against sequels is that if you play multiplayer, sequels drain the pool of players, so that it's tough to find people to play the original with.

That's not to say there aren't bad sequels: SMB2 and Earl Weaver Baseball 2 both come to mind (although SMB2 is an odd kind of sequel).

jesus! if they stopped bringing out gta sequels i think i would kill myself

i think each subsequent GTA4 'episode' has improved on the preceding one; 'the ballad of gay tony' was such a traet

bioshock 2, dead space 2, arkham asylum 2

singled these games out specifically because they're very strong single player story-driven games and it seems like everyone and his dog is having a massive conniption that each is receiving a sequel

In the case of Bioshock, it really did feel like the first one was a complete & unique game. The sequel feels unnecessary, like it's only being made because Bioshock sold so many copies and games that sell so many copies get a sequel. I also happen to think a lot of people originally over-rated Bioshock & may not want to go back there. Especially in this case, as it doesn't feel like they're improving on that game, but simply going back to the well one time too many? I haven't played the other two games you mentioned yet (will get the Batman one when it gets down to greatest hits price, probably), so I can't comment on them, but some other games getting sequels where it just feels pointless (because the first games were so complete they don't need to be iterated on / can't be improved upon, but only bled dry) would include Dead Rising, Crackdown and Portal. In general, I've got nothing against sequels as some of my favorite games are sequels or serial releases. That said, it would be cool if more original games made it to release and if more games were allowed to be one-off experiences instead of properties that are run into the ground.

Arkham 2 is lame because I would rather Batman have a similar adventure in a different place.

The teaser implies that it'll be set in Gotham rather than the asylum - I suspect that they just kept the title for the sequel for branding reasons.

Well then I will play the hell out of it.

i think comparing bioshock 2 to like smb3 is a little different - games w/o any real narrative are closer to consumer products as long as the franchise title says a little about the gameplay it makes sense to keep it. newer games w/stronger stories are closer to other culture products theres an expectation of continuity.

but i mean realistically y basically always