Sequelitis: When Games One Year Are the Same the Next
Editorial | August 6, 2010 5:10 am
By Lord Aldemar
As a 360 owner since late 2006, I can say that I have played my fair share of games. However, in the past four years I have played numerous games. There's only one problem with this, and that is how many are actually entirely different titles. This has become a problem with the gaming community, and general consumer base of the industry as a whole. There's too many damn sequels and not enough new games. Arguably, some sequels boast new and better features than their predecessors; but the bottom line is the seemingly endless wave of sequels is crushing the hopes and aspirations of original titles.
For the month of June this year, the sales figures were as follows:
Of the games on this list, one is not a sequel. Just Dance. Of ten top selling games, one is not a sequel. All nine other top grossing games are. For the year of 2009, the top ten were as follows:
Wii Fit, and Wii Play are the only two top gorssing games that are not sequels for the entire year of 2009. The entire year. Nine of these top games are sequels. So why is it that the sequels are choking out the competition?
Familiarity. Publishers bank on this, and it is exactly what sells. We, as gamers, are not comfortable with unknown and untested gameplay. Once in a blue moon, however, we do try something new and say, "Hey, you guys. Do this some more!" More often than not, we are okay with the same cookie cutter game, rebundled with updated graphics and features. Demonstrating this, ranked among the top games for 2009-2007 are: Call of Duty: MW2, Call of Duty: World at War, Halo 3: ODST, Halo 3, and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. The projected top sellers for this fall are: Fable 3, Halo: Reach, Call of Duty: Black Ops. More of the same, essentially. I am going to say this, however. These games are fun and can be somewhat refreshing at first. However, their novelty wears off quickly. What better way to refresh that novelty with some more multiplayer maps? Oh, but you have to pay ten to fifteen bucks a pop. Yeah...
But why is it, other than familiarity that we are being inundated with sequels and spinoffs? Other than the fact they made ridiculous money in their first iteration, publishers are more likely to give larger grants to games that are proven, than games that are not. Sales figures back this up. But just because a game has more money spent on it, does not make it better. For instance, MW2's multiplayer was broken shortly after it launched. Numerous patches over an eight month period and still all the glitches have not been removed. Compare this to the Summer of Arcade Hit, Limbo. A smaller game, based around solving puzzles, was relatively cheap to produce. Arguably shorter than MW2, but arguably better in the sake of gameplay mechanics and finesse. However, it is likely this game will be forgotten by November when the bigger, sequel titles have arrived and blown every other sale out of the water.
But there are more reasons than this that sequels are being shoved at us. Another reason such as the fact that consumers have a limited supply of money. Sequels are marketed better than fresh IPs, and thus will have higher purchase rates within the general masses. As much as some of us would like to consider our contributions important, it is the masses that generate the most pull. Games cost sixty to seventy dollars, depending on where you live. Numerous games come out in a month, and it becomes a question of, "Do I want this new Halo game (that I know I have liked the previous ones of), or do I want this new R.U.S.E game (which I'm not sure about, since I haven't seen too many ads for it)?" More than likely, the consumer will pick what they know will be fun.
The bottom line is, we play games for fun. We also complain about being inundated with sequels. The only way to change this, is to change the way we think about our purchases. Take a risk with a new IP, if you don't like it you can trade it in. But it has come time to show developers and publishers that we are not content with the cookie cutter games year in and out. It is time to show them that we want variation.
For the month of June this year, the sales figures were as follows:
Quote by NPD Sales Analysis:
1.Red Dead Redemption (Xbox 360): 582,900
2.Super Mario Galaxy 2 (Wii): 548,400
3.Red Dead Redemption (PS3): 380,300
4.New Super Mario Bros. Wii (Wii): 200,900
5.Just Dance (Wii): 174,800
6.Wii Fit Plus (Wii)
7.Toy Story 3 (Nintendo DS)
8.UFC 2010: Undisputed (Xbox 360)
9.LEGO Harry Potter: Years 1-4 (Wii)
10.UFC 2010: Undisputed (PS3)
2.Super Mario Galaxy 2 (Wii): 548,400
3.Red Dead Redemption (PS3): 380,300
4.New Super Mario Bros. Wii (Wii): 200,900
5.Just Dance (Wii): 174,800
6.Wii Fit Plus (Wii)
7.Toy Story 3 (Nintendo DS)
8.UFC 2010: Undisputed (Xbox 360)
9.LEGO Harry Potter: Years 1-4 (Wii)
10.UFC 2010: Undisputed (PS3)
Of the games on this list, one is not a sequel. Just Dance. Of ten top selling games, one is not a sequel. All nine other top grossing games are. For the year of 2009, the top ten were as follows:
Quote by NPD Sales Analysis:
1.Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (Xbox 360) / Infinity Ward, Activision
2.Wii Sports Resort (Wii) / Nintendo
3.New Super Mario Bros. Wii (Wii) / Nintendo
4.Wii Fit (Wii) / Nintendo
5.Wii Fit Plus (Wii) / Nintendo
6.Mario Kart Wii (Wii) / Nintendo
7.Wii Play (Wii) / Nintendo
8.Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (PS3) / Infinity Ward, Activision
9.Halo 3: ODST (Xbox 360) / Bungie, Microsoft
10.Pokemon Platinum Version (NDS) / Nintendo
2.Wii Sports Resort (Wii) / Nintendo
3.New Super Mario Bros. Wii (Wii) / Nintendo
4.Wii Fit (Wii) / Nintendo
5.Wii Fit Plus (Wii) / Nintendo
6.Mario Kart Wii (Wii) / Nintendo
7.Wii Play (Wii) / Nintendo
8.Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (PS3) / Infinity Ward, Activision
9.Halo 3: ODST (Xbox 360) / Bungie, Microsoft
10.Pokemon Platinum Version (NDS) / Nintendo
Wii Fit, and Wii Play are the only two top gorssing games that are not sequels for the entire year of 2009. The entire year. Nine of these top games are sequels. So why is it that the sequels are choking out the competition?
Familiarity. Publishers bank on this, and it is exactly what sells. We, as gamers, are not comfortable with unknown and untested gameplay. Once in a blue moon, however, we do try something new and say, "Hey, you guys. Do this some more!" More often than not, we are okay with the same cookie cutter game, rebundled with updated graphics and features. Demonstrating this, ranked among the top games for 2009-2007 are: Call of Duty: MW2, Call of Duty: World at War, Halo 3: ODST, Halo 3, and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. The projected top sellers for this fall are: Fable 3, Halo: Reach, Call of Duty: Black Ops. More of the same, essentially. I am going to say this, however. These games are fun and can be somewhat refreshing at first. However, their novelty wears off quickly. What better way to refresh that novelty with some more multiplayer maps? Oh, but you have to pay ten to fifteen bucks a pop. Yeah...
But why is it, other than familiarity that we are being inundated with sequels and spinoffs? Other than the fact they made ridiculous money in their first iteration, publishers are more likely to give larger grants to games that are proven, than games that are not. Sales figures back this up. But just because a game has more money spent on it, does not make it better. For instance, MW2's multiplayer was broken shortly after it launched. Numerous patches over an eight month period and still all the glitches have not been removed. Compare this to the Summer of Arcade Hit, Limbo. A smaller game, based around solving puzzles, was relatively cheap to produce. Arguably shorter than MW2, but arguably better in the sake of gameplay mechanics and finesse. However, it is likely this game will be forgotten by November when the bigger, sequel titles have arrived and blown every other sale out of the water.
But there are more reasons than this that sequels are being shoved at us. Another reason such as the fact that consumers have a limited supply of money. Sequels are marketed better than fresh IPs, and thus will have higher purchase rates within the general masses. As much as some of us would like to consider our contributions important, it is the masses that generate the most pull. Games cost sixty to seventy dollars, depending on where you live. Numerous games come out in a month, and it becomes a question of, "Do I want this new Halo game (that I know I have liked the previous ones of), or do I want this new R.U.S.E game (which I'm not sure about, since I haven't seen too many ads for it)?" More than likely, the consumer will pick what they know will be fun.
The bottom line is, we play games for fun. We also complain about being inundated with sequels. The only way to change this, is to change the way we think about our purchases. Take a risk with a new IP, if you don't like it you can trade it in. But it has come time to show developers and publishers that we are not content with the cookie cutter games year in and out. It is time to show them that we want variation.
Keywords: None
Out of the 'Big 3' coming out this fall I won't spend money on any of them, well maybe and a BIG MAYBE I'll end up getting CoD but I highly doubt it since the last one was so damn broken. Only new IPs that have came out recently that had great success and I really enjoyed would be Dead Space and Assassins Creed and AC's already going into the 3rd game(more if you count the PSP title) and Dead Space 2 comes out in January(which looks great). Fable 3 can go eat an ass and so can Bungie 
One of my fav games this year was Just Cause 2 so I want me a JC 3 now.
.
