To avoid disappointment

[Sidez]

It doesn't matter too much if F-Zero, Starfox 2, VO Marz and SVC turn out to be crap as I have F-Zero X, Starfox 64, VOOT and CVS2.

It was a shame that Metroid Fusion, DMC2 and Wipeout Fusion turned out to be awful but it doesn't matter as I have Super Metroid, DMC and Wipeout XL.

Anyone else feel the same? I personally don't need multiples of what is essentielly the same sort of game. If a sequel is a letdown then that in no way detracts from the original so it's no great loss but a wasted oppurtunity. More people should think like this

[Saurian]

I'm like that ^^

I LOVE Starfox64 SO MUCH!!!1!1 - I try to play it as much as possible and I seriously doubt I will ever get bored of it. I hope the new Starfox turns out to be someth8ing special ^^ but if it doesnt I still have the proper Foxy. Starfox64 is like playing through a truly wicked anime with a perfect high score challenge system attached.

Same with F Zero X and Soul Calibur - I still rinse them out as if they are new, I have full faith in AV to deliver a classic with F Zero on the Cube. I'm not that fond of any of the new 3D Sonic games - but Sonic CD's time travel, wicked music and atmosphere still has me hooked ^^

Some sequels truly overshadow the entire series with their quality (most notably VF4 Evo) but some dont. Even if the new Ridge Racer is not to my taste I still have Ridge Revolution, R4 and RRV (Which I adore ^^)

[Concept]

I think it's a little different for heavy narrative-based games though. MGS 2, for example, messed up MGS for me when I went back to play it recently because of the bearing the way the two plots implicate each other. MGS 2 almost seems to trivalise MGS's message.

But perhaps I'm being negative. Personally, even though the likes of FF8, 9 and 10 bored me to death, none of them have impacted on the sheer enjoyment I experienced with FF7.

Sometimes it's games that are interconnected and are follow-on continuations (in terms of storyline) that bug me a touch when they mess up.

[Xexex]

It was a shame that Metroid Fusion, DMC2 and Wipeout Fusion turned out to be awful but it doesn't matter as I have Super Metroid, DMC and Wipeout XL.

And yet I thought Metroid Fusion was great, and Super Metroid wasn't as good. I played Fusion first, and that's something I've generally found - a lot of recent sequels which are loked down upon are as good as their prequels, but they don't exceed them - so they seem worse since they lack the nostalgia element.

Tim (tm)

[Moodmon]

I find that with latter games, the more important aspects, the memorable ones, keep repeating, and tarnishing your opinion. I played the Zelda games in this order:

Awakening, OoT, MM, Past, WW

And my favourties?

Awakening>OoT>MM>Past (Haven't finished WW yet, but it doesn't look good)

Or maybe in Nintendo sequels the puzzles are exactly the same.

[delb3k]

The sequel has to offer more than its predeccessor for me to consider buying it 90% of the time. There have been occasions that I have bought some games just to get `more of the same` but that rarely happens. As long as you have the version you want and you enjoy then thats what matters really.

[metal_mutley]

Considering that games as a whole are generally getting better as time goes on we are naturally going to expect 'more' in terms of product with each update or sequel. But I reckon that we'll soon get to the point where these advances can't be taken for granted. Once a level of graphical complexity has been reached, and involving storylines can't get much more sophisticated improvements will come about much slower. When we get to that point, or near it, will we still expect greater things from each update. I certainly don't expect this year's best films to be any better than those of 1, 5 or 20 years ago, so why should I expect it from games?

Delb3K says that the sequel generally has to offer more for him to consider buying it. I, however, would definately consider buying a Zelda sequel (to pick a name) that was considered to be no more refined than WW.

Some day games are going to mature and we won't see the kind of revolutionary leaps seen in the past ten years. When this happens will the industry die out as people refuse to buy original product in favour of the retro scene? I don't think so. They will always want to sample the latest product from their favourite software house. How else do you explain Capcom's mainstay since the early nineties for instance?

[Concept]

I certainly don't expect this year's best films to be any better than those of 1, 5 or 20 years ago, so why should I expect it from games?

Because games are in a constant state of evolution, both on a technical and design level. The quality of titles today on the whole is higher than it was 20 years ago. You can't really compare games and movies on the same level in this respect. Videogaming has no stable platform. The industry is in a constant state of metamorphosis. It's true to say with the advent of CGI, the movie industry has also evolved technically...

But the actual delivery (the cinema screen) can't be compared to the delivery of videogaming. Our selection of choice and diversity in terms of hardware and content has forced the industry into one where games are unqiuely tied to the context of the technology they are designed on, and at what time...

Some day games are going to mature and we won't see the kind of revolutionary leaps seen in the past ten years. When this happens will the industry die out as people refuse to buy original product in favour of the retro scene? I don't think so. They will always want to sample the latest product from their favourite software house. How else do you explain Capcom's mainstay since the early nineties for instance?

It's already happened. I doubt there'll be quite the revolution on the same scale as from shifting the majority of game development from 2D to 3D. There's console online gaming of course, but that always seems to be just around the corner, in some kind of still-born state. Of course, evolutions in the way we interact and play with games are going to occur, but it's natural for people to hope things are going to be better in the future.

Otherwise if we knew gaming had already reached its peak, why would we be still playing? People who go and see films now have a right to hope that what they see is better than what they have in the past.

Just as videogamers do. If you accept things aren't going to get better, then surely there is nothing left to aspire to?

[metal_mutley]

OK, I probably mis-specified what I meant about my expectations for games. I was thinking in terms of a kind of steady-state of technology. When we get there (as you remark we may have already arrived) we'll not see significant leaps in technological or scriptwriting ability. So commenting about not expecting things to improve in 20 years was badly put.

About developments such as CGI, I appreciate the advances that they have made and such improvements have had a great impact on certain types of film. However, that hasn't necessarily made films better. My personal top movies haven't got a technology bias, so I don't expect that they will necessarily get better. Godfather 2 is, and is likely to remain my favourite film, no matter what special effects mastery can be conjoured up.

Now that the leap from 2D to 3D had been made, we have probably witnessed one of the last great changes in terms of the layout of games, and you're right to say that future improvements will come about through the way in which we interact. My point though was that when these leaps have been made, and that adding more polygons and particle shaders ceases to add value we won't be able to expect advances as a matter of course.

Of course, evolutions in the way we interact and play with games are going to occur, but it's natural for people to hope things are going to be better in the future.

Bang on! This will certainly be the final frontier of games development. I suppose that reading and watching performances haven't really changed much in a long while, but digital interactive forms have.

It's the automatic assumption of new being better that is likely to change over time as technology becomes irrelevant.

[dataDave]

My opinions...

Metroid Fusion > Better than Super Metroid
Perfect Dark" > Better than Goldeneye (By miles and miles and miles and...)
F-Zero Advance > Better than F-Zero (Even better than X!)
Nothing > Better than Zelda: Link to the Past.

Ready?

Mario Kart 64 > BETTER than Super Mario Kart!! (4player on big telly in RGB = more fun)

No, I'm not stupid enough to say Sunshine is better than 64 - because it's not.

Considering I played all the latter games first. I don't consider nostalgia when rating games, that's unfair, unless of course I'm playing a game for it's story rather than the actual gameplay which is how I rate the Biohazard games.

Bring on the updates. I want more.

[Concept]

About developments such as CGI, I appreciate the advances that they have made and such improvements have had a great impact on certain types of film. However, that hasn't necessarily made films better. My personal top movies haven't got a technology bias, so I don't expect that they will necessarily get better. Godfather 2 is, and is likely to remain my favourite film, no matter what special effects mastery can be conjoured up.

No, but my point was that it's caused a technical revolution in the movie industry. So it's not quite reached a technical limit yet.

Gaming is very much in the same boat, but far more in its infancy. Hence we should expect better games...

Movie-lovers too should also have expectations. But those expectations boil down to things like acting, direction, production etc. Videogaming has true few stars of personel that we can relate to in comparison... And consequently our main hopes are still generally rooted in how technology can be best exploited the further this medium advances.

[Concept]

For example, just take a look at the raving that's currently being done over the recent Halo 2 in-game trailer. That particular trailer achieves what it achieves through best exploiting the XBox.

[metal_mutley]

OK, I'm the same then. I do still expect better games. I'm virtually a full time gamer, and I'm not about to give up hope. I was mainly responding to the idea that in order to play a new game it has to be better than its prequels and/or anything gone before it.

Yes you are right to say that CGI has impacted on the movie industry, and it is certainly helping holywood. However, for certain types of film this doesn't really apply. For them the technology is irrelevant.

I enjoyed a whole load of recent games more than their predecessors, and not necessarily because of the graphics (freedom, a by-product of graphics is probably more important). I was considering the state of play when next-gen is no longer an issue. When games that are better than what came before them are thin on the ground, will we still be gamers?

I know I will.

[Smeghead]

To Avoid Dissapointment...stop hyping everything up as the next big thing, take it at face value. Problem solved.

[Brats]

It doesn't matter too much if F-Zero, Starfox 2, VO Marz and SVC turn out to be crap as I have F-Zero X, Starfox 64, VOOT and CVS2.

It was a shame that Metroid Fusion, DMC2 and Wipeout Fusion turned out to be awful but it doesn't matter as I have Super Metroid, DMC and Wipeout XL.

Anyone else feel the same? I personally don't need multiples of what is essentielly the same sort of game. If a sequel is a letdown then that in no way detracts from the original so it's no great loss but a wasted oppurtunity. More people should think like this

I've been thinking like this for years. This is always why I've been for innovation and developers taking chances. Imo what's the point of say the new Starfox playing identically as the old one. You might as well just play the old one. If the new direction with Starfox works, then we have a new style of game to play, if it doesn't then we still have the old one.