It depends on the game, really... As long as a series like Mario or Zelda still has loyal fans, I don't see anything wrong with them continuing it. When a new Zelda game comes out I usually buy it, because I've grown attached to the characters and I've come to expect decent games from that series. Not that I think it'll always be the most awesome, revolutionary, mind-blowing game I've ever played, but they're enjoyable. (Granted, I have never played Wand of Gamelon or Faces of Evil. Most fans seem to pretend those didn't exist.)
It's when they start to use the franchise name to sell a mediocre product that it gets annoying. I'm more annoyed with "spinoffs" than sequels--games that are barely related to the original concept of the series and are basically just using the familiar characters to attract fans.

Pokemon Fire Red and Leaf Green are to much like Red and Blue. I played one, and it was the one pokemon game I didn't like that much.

I thought Fire Red and Leaf Green were supposed to be direct ports of Red and Blue, weren't they? Pretty much the same game with updated graphics (except they have the updated battle system of the Hoenn generation.)

FF7 is a great example It just needs to be put in the classics title and be done with it however the game was made way too unfinished and it needs a myraid of spinoffs to go into many details left out. I am suprised it was made with so many plot holes as it has.

personally I love every Sonic game that has ever come out, but honestly the newer ones I only love because there's almost nothing to compare them to, if only sonic team could rehire Ryan Drummond and bring back that old brilliance from the original Sonic games *sigh*

now how many is too many you ask? usually I would say one sequel is too many because while there are some sequels that are just amazing, there are way too many that ruin the game all together right away (I'm lookin at you condemned)

I think it depends. If the designers can make the sequels interesting, fun to play, and not a crapfest then its ok. its bad when the sequels are the same game or are so different it is nothing like the original but not in a good way.

Some games are good when there's a sequel others just keep making, but there the good and then theres the bad.

I think that sequels inhance some games like Assassins creed 2 the fist one was repettive and then the secound one was just better then the firt.

Games that take advantge of sequels are like cod,madden,and FF.Companys make so many sequels that you just want to see them just died off.

Game sequels are good when they contribute something new to the gameplay or story. If it's just the same game with a few tiny changes, it's a dumb sequel. Honestly, lots of companies make sequels when they make a game that receives great feedback. They just coast off the original and rake in the money.

I admit, zelda 2 sucked on nintendo, but look at the mario series. There are so many fun mario games out there. Resident Evil series. Halo. There are so many that are good. There are so many that suck too. There are certain ones, though, that are necessary to fill the void left by an original that doesnt quite have what i want out of a game you see?

Originally posted by Urso Fofinho

---

How could they be working on FF14? They haven't even released 13 yet.

---

They actually started work on Edea from FF8 before they started work on FF7.


Anywho, Final Fantasy is definitely over-sequeled. Megaman I'd say is too. Mario, Sonic, & Pokémon are as well. I'll have to disagree with Zelda being over-sequeled but then again I'm parital. :p

If the sequel adds something new (that's fun) without changing core mechanics that worked (I'm looking at you, Sonic Storybook Series,) then it's good. If the sequel builds on the last game with an enthralling new story and tweaks that perfect the system of the last game, then its good. But some just go too far. The Pokemon games are an example. The originals were great. They were new, they were fresh, they were different. Then the second generation, the Johto games, added enough to make it better. The next generation, Hoenn, tweaked it enough to make it decent. Then there came the DS games. Diamond and Pearl weren't awful, they were just recycled. They were dumbed down and too easy. I like the new Sinnoh pokemon (the legendaries are epic) but there's too much emphasis on Wi-Fi events (Arceus is still only obtainable if you or someone really bored or really stupid that you can get Arceus off of went to Toys-R-Us during that week when they gave the special one away). Platinum improved it some with harder gym battles and Elite Four (but easier Champion?! give me a break!) and the new rematches where the gym leaders/elite four and champion get upgraded parties, but the DS titles only had two noticeable gameplay tweaks: internet capabilities and easier battle menus through use of the touch-screen. And don't even get me started on the Pokemon Ranger series, or the console battleground series. I'm glad they put a new adventure mode in Colosseum and XD, but the others are only useful if you have the games that work with them, and the sing;e-player isn't even that fun. Then, there's Sonic. But you've heard enough about him from other posts that I can end my rant now. Except for one thing. If there are two series that deserve to live on forever, they're Mario and Zelda.

sequals are made because of stupid fanboys/girls that will buy anything with the Mario/Pokemon/Final Fantasy/Zelda/Sonic etc. name attatched to it. Game developers put in half the effort and still make a bunch of money. Do you think they care that the games are "ruined" in a few people's opinions?

It's much easier to make another mario game than it is to make a brand new game that will sell as many copies as Mario will just for the sake that it's Mario.

Originally posted by geeogree

---

sequals are made because of stupid fanboys/girls that will buy anything with the Mario/Pokemon/Final Fantasy/Zelda/Sonic etc. name attatched to it. Game developers put in half the effort and still make a bunch of money. Do you think they care that the games are "ruined" in a few people's opinions?

It's much easier to make another mario game than it is to make a brand new game that will sell as many copies as Mario will just for the sake that it's Mario.

---

True.. but there are certain developers and producers out there who hold the integrety of the gameplay more important than mass title production. Games such as COD, Uncharted, FF etc.

Sometimes they ruin great games with sequels, but sometimes, they make GREAT games like the Mother games.
Games that end properly don't need seqels. Pretty much sums it up.

You don't have to worry about Mario sequels because one game could suck really badly and nobody will care and then they come out with a whole new game and it wins epically.In my opinion,I'd say Sonic has horrible sequels.Like Sonic Heroes,it simply has horrible dialogue and the story is just uber-random.

tell me about it the final fantasy was to long zack and cloud were probobly the only reason it careyd on.

It's not the fact that there are too many of them, if a company can actually manage to make 13 sequels to a game that are all good, then good for them, but what usually happens is that they try to do something the same way but better, so they work on the faults of the last game, but forget about the parts that made it shine and the faults of fixing that faults, which more often than not leads to a bad sequel.

For example, Starfox's 1, 2 & 64 were all good games because they stuck to their guns and didn't try to be innovative. Then along came command with it's new style of play and where is Starfox now?

In the end, the only reason people want a sequel is they want to play more of the original, which is what a sequel should be, not like what Mario is trying to do (Trust me, at this point they are only getting by on namesake alone, with the exception of the New Super Mario Bros. Wii, which if you noticed went back to the original format and was AWESOME).

Now I'm not saying that you should just slap a new storyline on the same game and ship it out, because that's also boring, but if you notice, the only things that changed in the original Mario games and the New Super Mario Bros Wii were things that didn't effect the CORE of the game, they just made it more fun to play.

Wow. Sorry for ranting

I think some series do well with their sequels (Zelda and FF). The only one that seems to falter in this is Sonic. Though I admit I do like Shadow the Hedgehog...he's the only character that seems to have depth and a reason for his actions.

Now whoever said FF7 is a flop must be high on something....though I do respect you, whoever you are....FF7 was the crown jewel of the FF series for like....ever...until FFX came around and blew it sky high but anyway....FF7 was the game that gave the rpg genre a much needed phoenix down to revive it (ha ha....i made a funny). xD

I don't see how you can actually say that final fantasy has sequels. Each of the games are completely different from each except for a few small things that connect them together (chocobos, a guy named cid, ect).

I hate it when they make sequals but the games end up changing so much over time that they are unrecognizable from the first one. Like resident evil 4 and 5. Sure the fourth one was maddly addicting to play but where the hell were the zombies? That's basically what the whole series was about, not some parasite that takes control of your body.

Well I believe sequels are good upto the point where your "stretching a story too much and just pointlessly dragging it out". Too many good games and movies are ruined by this when they just try to add useless BS to it. You know your finished when the story has pretty much concluded. Its just useless to add on to something thats already good. Why fix it if aint broken......Check out my EGG, click him, he likes it---------->