2008: The Year of Sequels? Too Much Risk?

While compiling a list of games to respond to a user question on the TD Gaming Podcast, I’ve noticed something about this years gaming lineup: their mainly all sequels! Are there any new franchises taking a risk in the market or just more of the same? Some are not really “sequels” but spin-offs of the same franchise.

A few examples of some October time frame titles: Fable 2, Far Cry 2, Gears of War 2, Rock Band 2, C&C: Red Alert 3, Saints Row 2, Rayman Raving Rabbids 3, Tekken 6, Call of Duty 5, Guitar Hero World Tour, Tom Clancy End of War, Sing Star Vol 2 and others.

There are a few original titles: Afrika for the PlayStation 3, Little Big Planet (PS3) and Huxley (360 and PC). Most of the original franchise creations seem to be PlayStation 3 related, probably because the console needs some major hits to spur more sales.

Is the market so competitive and risky that new franchises are becoming a rare breed? Last year we saw Assassin’s Creed and before that Viva Pinata and Gears of War exclusive on the Xbox 360. Consider Viva Pinata a “slight” failure in terms of excitement and Gears of War a success, that’s 50/50 in terms of risk vs. reward.

We’re going to see sequels for both of these new franchises (Viva Pinata: Trouble in Paradise and Gears of War 2) with no word yet on Assassin’s Creed 2. Perhaps E3 will show off some hype for a brand new franchise but the chances are great we’ll be bombarded with part two and part three all the way to part six to known game franchises.

It seems the 2008 holiday season is going to be filled with “safety net titles” in terms of risk vs. reward. It’s hard to argue Gears of War 2 in terms of sales and profit, making it a great safety title, but where is all the brand new titles? We can’t look towards Nintendo to produce anything as they’ve been kicking out Mario and Zelda titles for fifteen years, we must look towards other developers, but who?

Electronic Arts has proven to be very reliant on past titles performance when developing their next big hit. They’re the master of tagging a title with a year and releasing it (Madden is a great example). TheSims, Battlefield and Command and Conquer are a few of their known titles which get seemingly yearly franchise releases. Who can we look towards to take the risk?

Microsoft and Sony are the most likely to kick out a brand new franchise as it would make the title exclusive to their console and, considering the money the spend on marketing their consoles, they’ve got enough money to deposit in risking a new franchise in hopes for a hit.

Although we’re all happy to see yet another release of TheSims, Fable, Far Cry, Rock Band and other hot titles, it’s also nice to see something new and creative hit the store shelves. Apparently we have to stop buying into the sequels (i.e. GTA IV) before we’re going to see any real change, forcing developers to risk their reputation for the next great game innovation.

0 thoughts on “2008: The Year of Sequels? Too Much Risk?”

  1. hmmm, made me think if having one too many sequels could only cause players to get tired of the game.But if it showcases something new why not. Sometimes, you don’t like the first release but loved the sequel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

Wrath of the Lich King – Dazed and ConfusedWrath of the Lich King – Dazed and Confused

It’s tough playing an expansion when new updates have changed a few ways the system works. I’ve also had some troubles because most of my addons do not function in the Lich King beta. There are a few quests that have left people confused and screaming “how do I turn in the horse quest?” when the repeated response “press 1 to turn in quest!!”

Along with new terrain comes new questions and new solutions, many World of Warcraft gamers are used to the areas found in Azeroth and throughout much of Burning Crusades content. One of the fresh new experiences of an expansion is being able to play the game you love, but with new experiences not simply “more experience.”

It took me roughly fourty minutes to figure out how to get on my mount and ride off into the sunset. Because they’ve changed a bit about how the mount is placed in your inventory, instead being in the “pet” tab in your character profile; this new addition was a slight adjustment to my usual method of play.

Although information is growing on Lich King and its content you’ll find the general chat the best place to get answers as others have already experienced much of the introduction areas once or twice; some folks are on their third iteration of their best Death Knight.

Thus far, the introduction areas are a great way to exercise the powers of the Death Knight and best understand your abilities. You’ll find yourself gaining epic amounts of experience with ease, pushing 12,000 experience for a basic quest. When you’re at level 55, you’ll need a ton of experience to level up so the newbie areas tends to doll out tons of experience to give you a clue how the game mechanics.

Initially, you’ll probably be wondering what runes are, runic powers and what the talents the Death Knight holds under his/her black cape of doom.

(more…)

Sony Says Competition is GoodSony Says Competition is Good

It seems the console maker who’s trailing in sales typically says how great competition is and how it’s great for the consumer. Sony’s not leading the console race, as of now, and Sony Computer Entertainment Europe president David Reeves stated in a recent interview:

The winner, he said, is the consumer. “That’s why we are not going to slag off Microsoft or Nintendo at all,” he said, “because again it’s rather like the trainer market: one year it’s Reebok, next year it’s Nike, and then suddenly it’s Adidas; it’s cyclical, but in the end everyone wins in five to ten years.”

Sony continues to speak towards their “10 year plan” and how they’re increasing momentum in the market. They’re not winning in sales but with a ten years to go, this is just the beginning. Had this statement come from Microsoft it would be a chance to worry, but Sony has proof to backup their statements.

The PlayStation 2 is going strong as a nine year-old and doesn’t seem to be letting up in game releases. Sony’s press conferences always cover the PlayStation 2 in their talks with the PSP and PlayStation 3 for three big reasons: it’s worth bragging about, it distracts from lower PS3 sales and it separates them from the competition.

Where is the GameCube or classic Xbox in Nintendo and Microsoft’s press conferences and number crunch reports? The fact is, the companies have given up on both products retiring them as “last generation” (translation: poor sales). What better reason to buy a PlayStation 3 than knowing the company is in the game for the long haul?

It might be bit cheaper to buy an Xbox 360 but who’s to say Microsoft isn’t going to announce their next generation console tomorrow and kill off the Xbox 360? Obviously, Microsoft will deny those claims but there will always be doubt without a proven track record.

On the other hand, Microsoft hasn’t seen the success in the classic Xbox and Nintendo hasn’t seen nearly the fervor over the GameCube as compared to their current generation consoles. So, that begs the question, why would they halt all that for new console announcements?

Until they’ve had more time in the market, we cannot be 100% certain what Nintendo and Microsoft are going to do when it comes to next-generation announcements while Sony’s been very clear in each press conference. As Kaz Hirai said to Eurogamer earlier:

“We certainly don’t do the consumer the disservice of basically saying that the consoles have gone by the wayside because we have a new one. Right now, a prime example? PS2 is nine years into it. Where’s the Xbox? Where’s the GameCube?”

If one console maker is looking for a way to stand out and explain their slow sales figures, Sony’s got the PS2 and its long history in their back pocket.

Now, if we could only get those game designers to continue to take it seriously and not put all their eggs into the PS3 basket.

Diablo 3 Doesn’t Look Right, Dev Says Yes Sir!Diablo 3 Doesn’t Look Right, Dev Says Yes Sir!

There has been many debates on the graphic level of Diablo 3 and how it should be different. Finally a developer comes out and says “um, no.” Their reasoning is fairly simple, it’s one thing to photoshop up a screenshot with some filters but it’s another to get the texture and lighting to run at that detail on a standard computer.

How do you argue with that? Personally, I think the graphics look wonderful, brilliant, vibrant and professional. Diablo 3 game designer Jay Willson said:

“The key thing to remember here is that this has been Photoshopped. This isn’t created by the engine. Though it looks really cool, it’s almost impossible to do in a 3D engine because you can’t have lighting that smart and run on systems that are reasonable. If we could do that, we probably would in a few of the dungeons.” (slashdot)

Non-developers seem to forget that the colors, cameras and lighting don’t come free on a video game. Everything has limitations and, although the limitations change over time, today’s graphics for a standard machine are capable of running Diablo 3. Blizzard isn’t making a game that only hardcore PC gamers can play, this game is for everyone.

Building a video game is a lot of smoke and mirrors to make a virtual object look “real” to normal gamers. Immersion and definition is important, grainy dark graphics do set a mood, but they also frustrate many players. Remember DOOM 3? Some people could barely see the “epic graphics” of the last DOOM sequel, it’s time to mature and show off true colors.

Darkness usually is used to hide imperfections, Diablo 3 has nothing to hide.

(For a high resolution photo, checkout MTV Multiplayer Blog)