Blindly Purchasing Sequels. And the Growth of Stagnating Franchises.

Pxtl · 3 months

Imho, the gaming industry and gaming public needs to start focusing on the names of dev-teams.

We need to follow the approach of books, where the author is up top and the title is a subscript. It doesn't matter if it's Call of Battlefield 5, it matters who made it and left their distinct impression on it.

Otherwise, you get crap sequels that are farmed out to the lowest bidder as publishers exploit the franchise and run it into the ground.

Plus, if players were focusing on what team did what, we'd see more interest in new IP. I mean, NeverheardofitX goes from being a confusing title to "holycraplookithis ToysForBob is making a TBMMOFPRTS!"

bellybuttonrapist · 3 months

I think my worst offender is the Need for Speed series. I think NFS:Underground was the best street racing, and one of the best overall racing games, of all time. But then it started to be more of the same, and less of the good. Underground 2 was fun, and followed the Underground formula well, most wanted was... almost Underground 2. Undercover was almost Most Wanted. Then I made the mistake of picking up Pro Street. I think there is still some gold in the NFS series, with Carbon and Shift being great experiences. I don't buy them new anymore though, as I'm tired of paying 60 yen-coin just to be burned.

Git_Off_Me_Lawn · 3 months

Dragon Age 2...

I pre ordered the stupid thing and felt excited by reviews that failed to mention faults like recycled dungeons or the waves of enemies in every encounter.

I'm still getting ME3 though, because even though I didn't enjoy what they did with ME2, it didn't ruin the series like DA2 did for me. I believe that they can make a good third game in the Mass Effect series, but there's really not much I see salvageable in a DA series.

Acidictadpole · 3 months

CoD is a good example of this. The best reason I've heard for purchasing the new one is to keep up with other people playing multiplayer. That in itself is circular logic, but people seem to do it anyway.

As for assassin's creed. I would put forward that design changes in a game based largely around its narrative are not necessary each release. Bugs and issues should be taken care of between iterations, but large design changes can actually hurt the story. Halo 1-3 were pretty much the same games. Same enemies, new graphics, different skins on guns. Nobody really minded that the games were almost functionally equivalent until they finished their main story of John.

I feel the best games with sequels are ones that had a planned story from the start. I.e. Mass effect is supposed to be a trilogy, and so I'll be picking up the third because I really enjoy the story and want to play through the finale. Though if they release another one after this I think I'll consider it a lot more before diving in.

Edit: "Growth of stagnating franchises" sounds awkward >_>

John_Unfil · 3 months

I think most of the problem with EA/Activision being able to pump out endless sequels and still make billions of dollars is that professional reviewers will keep praising the game. If the game is taken in a vacuum I'm sure it would be fun, but the fact that essentially the same game came out last year definitely has to be taken into account, which I don't think a lot of reviewers do. People see these good reviews, and head out to pick up the game because they think it's good. Honestly, I don't think there's much the consumers can do about that besides voting with their wallets, specifically buying original IPs and not just blindly purchasing sequels because the first game was good.

kyborgi · 3 months

I just ordered Soul Calibur V. The previous game I bought blindly was GT5. Both are games that are fairly certain to be entertaining quality products, both series have been in my opinion the best examples of their respective genres. Usually I'm very careful with my purchases though. I almost never buy games based on hearsay only, I have to try before I buy, because I don't trust the opinions of others. Buying games based on opinions on your friends is a bit of hit and miss too. For example, some of my friends claimed Mass Effect 2 to be better than the original, which for most parts it in my opinion was not .

Alahr · 3 months

The error that I see you (and many others) making is judging your games as products rather than experiences. If you enjoy FXIII-2, awesome! The end. Maybe it has nothing to do with FXIII; maybe it is a cynical money-grab - who cares? Do you have fun with the new Call of Duty every November? Is it worth sixty dollars to you? If so, you are not being cheated. If not, perhaps you are and you should reconsider purchasing them (watch some gameplay videos, read a few reviews first).

Could you read the Mass Effect plot on a wiki and play the upcoming finale instead of buying the first two? Absolutely, but the first two (in my opinion) are excellent games with great experiences that a wiki cannot capture. If you lack the time, money, or inclination to experience them yourself, though, how is accessibility in the sequels a weakness rather than a strength? Also, Mass Effect is full of significant references to previous entries, and has been overhauled each game - not negating your point, but that example is off the mark.

I can identify with your Assassin's Creed example. I enjoyed one and two, but I do not care enough to play through Brotherhood or Revelations. This does not make them bad, or exploitative, or say anything about them (though these things could be said, perhaps) besides the only relevant, tangible quality: I am not interested in playing them - the end.

It seems like you are manifesting unnecessary reasons to dislike games you would otherwise enjoy, or assuming that criticism of a game must detract from your appraisal of it. I would argue that Portal 2 has poor writing, for example, but would I argue that people who enjoyed the writing should rescind that? Of course not, good for them!

tl;dr - Whether a given game is worthwhile is a personal, case-by-case decision that you cannot make by analyzing the overarching industry.

Lasseastrup · 3 months

I predict a lot of purchases for Mojang's upcoming game Scrolls will be made because of this.

kolossal · 3 months

I remember buying Diablo II and Warcraft III without ever caring much about what a reviewer said. I think it has more to do with how much you've followed a game. I remember following both of the mentioned games since the moments they were announced, so I knew they would be excellent games.

CDRnotDVD · 3 months

I guess it wasn't totally blind, but I purchased Starcraft 2 on release day because I loved Starcraft: Brood War. I still prefer brood war, but I'm probably going to buy Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void no matter what.

Catman789 · 3 months

Honestly, pre-ordering games is just silly.

Most people (see 99%) that preorder have no clue if the game will actually deliver. It's a stupid business decision, so stupid that it influences the market by rewarding creaters of shitty sequels because the money that preorders gives them is just too good.

So if it's a stupid business decision, why do people keep buying promises? It's all about the marketing (hype).

Not to mention that purchasing PC games 6-12 months after their initial release is so much cheaper, not only in game prices but also keeping your hardware up to date to be able to play these games at reasonable settings.

Marcob10 · 3 months

The only sequel I buy every year is NHL games but I never felt screwed over cause I know exactly what to expect. The game hasn't changed much for years. I mainly pay for updated rosters and following the online community. I know what I'm getting into. I like up to date rosters and playing with lots of people online enough to pay 60$ every year.

As for other franchises, there's really none that I purchase blindly except for Mass Effect. I'm super excited for ME3 and I'd still buy it if every review scored it under 5/10. I still haven't bought many popular sequels from last year cause they weren't worth full price to me.

Drakengard · 3 months

I've been pretty good about CoD. But not perfect. I let my friends talk me into getting MW3. Played about 40 hours just to get my money's worth out of it. Haven't played it in a good month and not sure I ever will again.

I didn't get Blops. I didn't get WaW. But I gave in and wasted $60 and I will not do it again. I've managed to avoid AC by just downright hating the game series core design aim and what I deem a rather poor writing.

And when it comes to FF, I avoid all of the games that are made by the 'A' team. They've made nothing but utter **** since FFVII. Only IX and XII have managed to make me fall in love with the series again so I just automatically know now based on who is making it whether I'll even have a chance of liking the end product.

And Skyrim, well, I learned everything I needed to know from Morrowind to Oblivion. It wasn't going to get better. It was just going to progress down the same path I hated. They're not going to fix it so I didn't buy it and won't until there's a GotY version and tons of mods have made the game...not suck as much.

It is bizarre how I've enjoyed the middle-class games far more this gen (at least mostly) than the huge AAA ones. Singularity, Alpha Protocol, Mirror's Edge, Demon's Souls, WotS 3, Nier, Majin, etc. Those have been the highlights of this gen for me. Sure, Batman, Bioshock, MGS4, inFamous and Uncharted have been good, too. But I guess there's something to be said about finding the gems hidden in the dark and dusty corners of the shelf.

Anyway, I've done it. We've all done it. And we should all learn from it. I think the bigger problem is that only the big games sell enough. Marketing is more important than anything else and that leads to stagnation as companies whore out franchises since it's just easier to do than coming up with something that's actually new.

bongo1138 · 3 months

I blindly bought Mass Effect 2, which turned out okay because I loved that game ( ~~it's honestly the best game I've ever played~~ ).

EDIT: Scratch that, Metroid: Prime is the best game I've ever played, but ME2 is my favorite.

crazindndude · 3 months

Battlefield 3

Pre-ordered because I loved BF2 and BC2, and it looked fantastic. I even played the beta and I think the rose-tinted glasses made it seem great. Once I got it though, I realized the problem.

I was playing BC2 in college, when my commitments consisted of about 3-4hrs/day of classes and minor other things. I had lots of time, so I could play and keep up on unlocks. Now that I'm working 9-5, I get about 2hrs/day free time, so I fell drastically far back in BF3. Now I hope into a game with my M4 and get immediately destroyed by someone with a max level gun, all the upgrades, etc.

Also, fuck mortars.

Jasboh · 3 months

I think most people can see the danger of us as consumers investing in "Stagnant Franchises".

So the question is, How to change that? I personally have not purchased the regurgitationware that came out this year. And have bought some indie games.. other than voting with my wallet what else is there?

IMO we will never slay the beast that is EA/Activision, we just need to make sure there is fertile ground for new contenders to flourish in.

Harabeck · 3 months

I typically end up reading about any game before I purchase it, even if it's a sequel to a game I loved. In the past, it wasn't about making sure the game was worth buying, I just couldn't wait for the release to learn something about it.

Lately however, I have been checking out games just to make sure they're worth buying. I don't know if it's a change in how sequels are made of if I'm just becoming more discerning, but I refuse to buy any game blindly now. Bioware epitomizes this trend for me personally. For instance, despite loving DA, I knew from the demo alone that DA2 wouldn't be enjoyable to me. I also loved ME1/2, but I probably won't be touching 3.

basically · 3 months

Dark souls (because of Demon's Souls) - I was actually happy with this purchase, but that doesn't change the fact that I didn't look at any reviews/listen to what any of my friends had to say.

Gran Turismo (because of developer/genre) - I am a very heavy offender of this. I buy it every single time... and nothing changes every single time. The car damage in 5 was laughable (and not even applicable to every car, it had to be a "special" car to have car damage), and there seemed to be less content per normal Gran Turismo games.

I think the age of the sequel is here, Battlefield 4 will sell 1824971983791703785091789305 copies, and pretty much be a carbon clone of Battlefield 3. There's only so far you can go with your "twist" on a genre before you should just crank out another original game.

TrandaBear · 3 months

I'm a huge offender of this. COD, Metal Gear, Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy, Pokemon, God of War... the list goes on.

What I've realized is that I'm a fan of the series'. Whatever they're doing, in my mind they're doing it right. So I don't mind shelling out for the latest sequel because I know what to expect. I enjoy that kind of security. The only time I feel stagnant is when I played a singular genre over two or more series. I beat the hell out of Onimusha on PS2, but by the time I got half way through Prince of Persia, I was just bored with it.

Neato · 3 months

Sequels make my skin crawl. I'm always super wary of how the studio has cashed out or screwed the game up by changing everything. Pretty much every sequel ends up being this way with a few exceptions. Sequels in the games industry as in the movie industry quickly became about low-risk cash-ins on consumer good will.

bellybuttonrapist · 3 months

Is there really a problem of more of the same? I like the continuation of certain things, like the ES Sequel last year. My problem is more so with the pricing models of these games, they charge me like they're a brand spanking new game but in reality they're a re-skinned expansion pack.

Also when it comes to FPS games too much innovation has made me hate a ton of games cause they all seem gimmicky trying, nothing annoys me more when I hear kids go oh man this killstreak is sooooo badass or some variation or the other. What happened to good ol you pick up a gun you get your self a secondary and a knife and you go around with your team shooting shit up, wtf do we need perks or landmines for. The last innovation they should've gone for are weapon attachments. Maybe I just miss my old CS days (I'd go back but I'm too used to recent graphics) but everytime a predator missile or hind kills me in MW3 I scream in anger.

nimchip · 3 months

Zelda, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil. No more MGS for me since the series ended (though I will check out any future iterations before I buy - I'M LOOKING AT YOU GAIDEN OR W/E YOUR NAME IS).

These are my top 3.

I hated FFXIII with a passion. I will no longer blindly follow this series.

I loved RE5's gameplay as an action shoot-em up. Story-wise it was TERRIBLE and didn't live up to RE1, CV or 4. Reading reviews for 6 when it comes out before I buy (hey zombies are back so who knows).

Zelda has never dissapointed me yet, but we will see.

kah-boom · 3 months

1) There are no human stars in the gaming industry as there are in Hollywood. I like Jenifer Hale's work but her name won't drive me to buy a game.

2) Titles are the stars in gaming. BioWare was trading in on the good will Knights of the Old Republic built as it was on Star Wars name. Diablo is a star at the Blizzard dream factory.

3) That good will can be lost quickly is mismanaged. Just like Tom Cruise or Arnold Schwarzenegger , Tomb Raider and Duke Nuke 'Em abused their fame and lost good will. They may never get it back, but they are trying.

4) It is hard making a new star. For every Portal there are tons of titles that do well but not enough to stick in a communities mind. Easier and cheaper to build off an existing titles good will. There may have been better actors to cast in Total Recall, but Arnie's name recognition brought people to the box office.

DyceFreak · 3 months

I do this very same thing with Serious Sam titles ever since the first classic. 2nd encounter? k, Serious Sam 2? looks cartoony, hope it's good, bought it. Oh they are remaking the original in HD? Bought both 1st and 2nd encounter twice one for my main steam account one for my alt. Serious Sam 3? Sign me up.

Worst part is I have less than 10 hours in each game :S

wizardneedsfood · 3 months

I blindly bought Fable 3 almost as soon as it came out...and boy, did I regret that decision. I played 1 and 2 around the same time, actually (as I never owned an original Xbox before the 360 came out), and while neither game was without its flaws, they were more than enjoyable enough, and 2 made enough improvements over 1 that I thought 3 would surely take more steps in the right direction.

Nope.

I suppose they did try to innovate/streamline the game to some degree, but it seemed to me like they thought "streamlining" and "removing features" mean the same thing (No expression wheel, no Inventory screen, 2 magic attacks at most, WORST MAP EVER). Not to mention the lack of innovation where it was most needed (e.g., magic attacks are still "PRESS B TO WIN").

I still played it once through for the story (which was the best of the three, IMO), but compare that that to the 2 playthroughs of the first, and the 4 or 5 of the second, and you see where the problem lies.

Anyway, that was the game that finally taught me my lesson when it came to blindly buying sequels...or maybe not, as I still bought Arkham City and will buy ME3 sight unseen. So maybe I'll never learn.

As to the "buying the last installment only" thought...that may be, but if a game's story is good enough (see again Arkham City and Mass Effect), I really don't see playing the game and reading the story as having the same effect...especially in a franchise like Mass Effect, where the decisions you make in one game have ramifications, however minor, in the next. I've built an emotional connection to my Commander Shepard over all these years ;)

TelstarGlitch · 3 months

I don't buy on impulse anymore, even with franchises I know I'll love. Halo Reach burned me bad, and I can't purchase a game now without extensive research and waiting for reviews.

HydroV2 · 3 months

I, many times have bought Games on Impulse due to the face that it is part of a Chain of games. (I.E. CoD, Halo, Mass Effect, Diablo, Etc, Etc.) The only Thing that REALLY Disapoints me is when they don't change...a..single....thing..Like CoD. All they do, is make new characters, and "New" Weapons. Halo, Diablo...Atleast they change things(Halo3-Reach, they added Suit Specifications.) So, i Will but a game on Impusle..but only if it has added content.

Snizza · 3 months

I bought the relatively recent Wolfenstein game blindly the day it was released. I was a HUGE fan of Rtcw; played hours of multiplayer each night, had a clan, etc. The single player of the new one isn't bad, but oh boy... the multiplayer is an abomination. Never again will I buy a sequel without researching beforehand

hamlet9000 · 3 months

This applies to movie franchises, too: The opening day box office of the current movie (and often the box office as a whole) is more reflective of the quality of the LAST movie in the franchise than of the quality of the actual movie itself.

vertice · 3 months

Last game I did that with was Spider-Man 3, because I enjoyed spider-man 2 and loved ultimate spider-man.

all the same developer, but it was obvious no3 was rushed.

Maxpayne5th · 3 months

The problem with the industry is that money is not as easy to come by. One slip up and its curtains for most companies. There are very few out there that could fail and come out OK.

When the financial crisis hit, Acti/Blizz loss a bit off their shares, going from ~$17 a share to ~$12. Yea, a bit of a hit. EA was even worse off at about $60 a pop, now down to $18. Companies don't have the luxury of taking risks in a volatile market at the moment, where one slip up will be your doom.

So what does this have to with Stagnating Franchises? Well companies aren't feeling game to spend money on ventures that don't pay off, so they stick with things that make money. WHy do you think they pump CoDs out every year? Because it sells. FIFA/Madden? Sells. Its a very common thing nowadays that rather than take gambles that could put their very jobs on the line, they go with safe bets that will make them loads of cash.

So why do these games get popular? We follow the same rule of thumbs as companies. We buy what we percieve to be good, and trust brands that have provided us loads of entertainment. When money becomes tight, we only buy games that we are sure will be awesome games. Would you be willing to spend your only $60 on Completely Different FPS, or would you buy BF4/CoD9 with that $60? Most people would go with the latter, because they know the brand is worth the price. They have no idea about the brand new FPS that hit the scene, and will wait for friends to try it out before they buy it.

Blindly Purchasing Sequels, and the Growth of Stagnating Franchises are because of most people being strapped for cash. Maybe when the economy becomes better, and we have cash flowing out of our ears, perhaps we can give new and exciting games a try, instead of BF4/CoD9.

TheBlackSpank · 3 months

I suppose I'm a perpetrator in the "impulse sequel buying" sense, with some exceptions. I have played most of the COD franchise, but I avoided Call Of Duty 3 and World At War, because I've played more than enough WW2 shooters. I'll admit to blindly buying the Modern Warfares and Black Ops, even if not much has changed. I do genuinely enjoy the single player campaign, though, and of course if all of my friends are playing the most recent COD, it doesn't matter if I'm fine sticking with "last year's model". The majority have moved on, and I wanna be in that party.

For the most part, though, when I buy a sequel without waiting for some reviews, it's because I know what companies I like, and that even if they falter in their run (Final Fantasy has fluctuated in the quality of their games forever), I will usually still get my money's worth.

I will blindly buy any Bethesda game, because with the combination of Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, and Fallout 3, they have sucked away months of my life (in a good way), and I give them the benefit of the doubt. But that only goes so far. Obviously, if they develop a racing game, I'm not immediately jumping on board. If the company I like is doing what I think they do best, I don't need much convincing.

MartokTheAvenger · 3 months

The last sequel I got without knowing anything about it was God of War II. I enjoyed the first so much I grabbed the second as soon as I could. I almost got the special edition of the third, despite not having a PS3. Finally managed to get it this Christmas, but we had to fix the car with the PS3 money :(. I don't regret having it on the shelf though, even though my friends have said it's not as good.

I agree with some of the other posters though. I don't think franchises should be trying to innovate with sequels, but refining instead. If a game is fun enough, you should want to play the whole series, rather than the latest one.

iiSaviour · 3 months

I blindly bought Fable 3 after shoving many days of my life into the first and second game. Never. Again.

AmuseDeath · 3 months

Th few times where I thought it was justtified in buying a sequel was Street Fighter. Of course Capcom has an update problem, but at least when you look at SF2>SF3>SF4, each edition had been spaced out and play significantly different. The only thing redeeming about MW3 from MW1 il the ability to play online with 2 players. I can justify a singleplayer game having sequels as I believe their worth is related to their stories. But multiplayer game does not need to be redone if a simple patch can add a new feature.

Catman789 · 3 months

Metroid other m. I beat and loved each and every other one except the handheld ones and the very first one. It will alway be my favorite franchise. Still, other m was disappointing. I don't give a damn about samus's character. It was just too much redundant action and not enough creative puzzles.

Another thing, almost all of other m was set on a ship. The setting got redundant. The other games traveled through different biomes, and i would stare in amazement with every next room i entered.

Deafiler · 3 months

All the Assassin's Creed games I've played have had very significant changes (and, of course, the continuation of what I feel is a quite enjoyable story). The first game was the first, II was a MASSIVE improvement in the platforming, along with better weapon selection, world involvement, and gameplay variety, and then Brotherhood took everything II had and improved upon it with more, better missions, a better DNA replay system, secondary objectives, more easily tracked collectables, and all sorts of other fun stuff. The design stays roughly the same, but go back and play the first game (I'll wait), and it should be incredibly obvious how much things have changed.

13143 · 3 months

Maybe this has already been mentioned, but companies pump out sequels because they bring in revenue. But even more so, people will buy COD MW3 because most people will:
1. Believe that it is somehow better then 2, and
2. Because they believe that everyone will no longer be playing 2, and will have moved on to 3. When 4 comes out, everyone will assume that no one is playing 3 and will move on to 4, and so on.

I think this is really apparent in the Madden series, and similar sports sims, that pump out titles each and every single year. They don't really change anything, besides updating the graphics and rosters, but people consistently purchase new titles because they assume the new title is what everyone else will be playing, and they don't want to be left out.

mike413 · 3 months

I got sucked into two disappointing sequels. Should have been more cautious after the first one.

I really enjoyed Dungeon Siege, and didn't have any problem with Dungeon Siege II.

But then I blindly bought Space Siege thinking it would be similar but it was SO dumbed down and dull, I didn't even finish it.

Ok, so even though I threw away good money on a bad game, I didn't learn. I bought Dungeon Siege III when it came out on Steam... but wow, they just screwed it up. Disappointing.

JonTheAnt · 3 months

Yes, the games in the Ratchet and Clank series. Bought every one at launch. Love of the series, love of the gameplay, love of the developer, all factors. Basically if a game has such a huge impact on me I will jump at a sequel. If that is as good or better (See: R&C: Up Your Arsenal) I will stick with the series because I know what the developer can do.

And it helps that Insomniac tries to change enough gameplay elements to make each game unique while still having the same overall play style.

So bottom line it's the developer that I trust. If Insomniac (god forbid) passed the title onto someone else I would at least wait for some reviews before giving it a go.

Ovyx · 3 months

Silent Hill 4. Most disappointing game I have ever blindly bought. Loved the first 3.. Why are you saying Innovation in gaming is slowly stagnating?? I don't know the future but 2011 wasn't a bad year for gaming to me, so I really don't see why you are saying this. Sure Battlefield 3 and COD MW 3 came out, but that doesn't negate the merit of every other game that came out this year.

DocFreeman · 3 months

AC: Revelations was where I finally drew the line on that series. I really like the universe and want very much to know what's going to happen next to Demond and the Assassins...

BUT I WILL NOT BUY ANOTHER REHASHING OF AC2. It's really gotten absurd. Like Brotherhood, I was willing to tolerate it even if just a little. Multiplayer, Rome in all its glory, assassin training system, ok whatever. But having see AC Revelations there was NOTHING NEW AT ALL.

MoltenMustafa · 3 months

The only franchises I blindly purchase are Nintendo games (Like Mario and Zelda), because I know they will at least be decent quality, and provide lots of entertainment.

jmarquiso · 3 months

I would say that video games are a rare exception where games can be better (I said "can", I'm not saying "is"). A proven new IP tends to get more investment in technology and polish by its publisher.

Also, by sales, sequels tend to do better - which means that the customers didn't buy the original, but buy sequels on hype. It is less a question of creativity, and more marketing.

Technohazard · 3 months

I just impulsively bought Final Fantasy XIII-2 while sitting in my morning class.

This is why these bad sequels get made. People still buy them. Stop buying them, convince other people to do the same, and they'll stop getting made.

shadow1515 · 3 months

I tend to blindly purchase titles in a series until I'm disappointed, then I stop and don't buy any more until reviews/demos convince me. For example, I didn't enjoy FFXIII that much. I bought it on release because I had yet to be disappointed by a main series Final Fantasy title. Now that I've been disappointed, I will most likely not buy another for a few iterations. Similarly, I'm reading reviews and watching Youtube videos before buying another Mario game ever since NSMB.

I also agree with Pxtl's comment about focusing on dev teams going forward. Things shift around enough that I'm going to start paying more attention to names of people instead of names of games. For example, I've been following Quantum Conundrum quite closely because of Portal (same lead designer for those unaware) and I bought Lost Odyssey without knowing a thing about it except that Hironobu Sakaguchi was in charge. That game felt more like what I had hoped FFXIII would be than FFXIII did, and it's not surprising when you follow names in the industry instead of franchise titles.

whoshotgr · 3 months

As a gamer over thirty with limited time to play these days, I pretty much only play sequels to the games I played in my teens, with few exceptions. Zelda, GTA (& Red Dead), Civilization & Elder Scrolls/Fallout. I guess it's probably nostalgia. Playing in a familiar world feels easier than getting sucked into something new. Now that I think about it, I've actually had BioShock - a game that I really wanted to play based on reviews - for years now, but have never actually put it in the machine. As for mindlessly buying sequels, I'll probably stop when it's no longer any fun for me. And then maybe I can get around to playing BioShock.

Teroc · 3 months

I finished The Witcher and I instantly pre-ordered the 2nd episode. Best decision ever.

On the contrary, I loved Dragon Age, and thankfully, I tried the demo of DA2 before I made a decision. Hated it.

I also bought Splinter Cell Conviction on a steam sale expecting something like Chaos Theory. I was hugely disappointed.

BarkingToad · 3 months

I blindly purchased ME2, and now I'm blindly purchasing ME3. I tend to do this only for the games that excite me the most, though.

The only other recent games that I've done it with are Dawn of War II (major disappointment), Civilization V (awesome), and Space Empires V (which was okay). So I guess my experience is a bit mixed.

yougurt87 · 3 months

Although I would agree with you that many games do have this problem, I can safely say that FFXIII-2 is not one of those games. I have played it pretty much every moment I have had since I recieved it yesterday, and so far the entire story is a perfect continuation on the first one.

While I understand what you are saying about changes and shifts, why would you want to play a completely different game from the previous entry, when the reason you are playing the sequel is because of your fondness for the original. Sure it would be great if they added new features and modes in every game, but sometimes it just doesn't make sense. COD for instance, the reason so many people like it is because of its tight gameplay, multiple modes, and what some people would argue is a better story than some shooters. When you are the best selling game year in and year out, why would you want to change up what you have going for you?

Laniius · 3 months

I only blindly by sequels if it advances the story of previous titles. Right now that is basically Dragon Age and Mass Effect. Other than that, I couldn't care less.

ryopyon · 3 months

There's a few things I'll purchase blindly, and it's all based on development houses. Anything from Platinum is pretty much guaranteed to be awesome, I'll definitely won't think twice about getting CD Project's next game. After Fate/Unlimited Codes and (Ultimate) Marvel vs Capcom 3 any new Eighting-fighter also is a guaranteed purchase. As is anything Valve make.

I don't feel bad about any of these the way you do though, but then lack of change definitely isn't a problem with any of those studios, even when it comes to direct sequels like in the Witcher series. I'm simply completely confident that I'll enjoy anything these people make in the future at least as much as their previous efforts.

DinofarmGames · 3 months

Have you ever blindly purchased a title based on a previous iteration?

Not since I was a little kid, since doing so would be a stupid use of my money.

VVarlord · 3 months

I blindly got skyrim, but I already knew that was going to be good. Did not expect the kind of explosion following it got though, I expected something more like oblibion tbh.

Also blindly got space marine, but that's only because I'm a huge 40k fan.

Besides that, I never blindly buy any game. The least I do is look at gameplay videos.

sbartok45 · 3 months

I actually like the way Assassin's Creed sequels have been going. With each game, they add features (although they may be miniscule in some areas) and continue to build upon it with each coming game, making the features stack. Although I don't find Revelations to be my favorite Assassin's Creed game, I do believe that this is the most polished and broad. With the addition of bombs, there are so many ways to go about completing objectives. And the ways to assassinate a target seem to expand with each coming game. So although they may appear the same, at least they are continually building upon the game and not going backwards.

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login