Too many sequels?

[Maynard]

i must be thinking of a different game then...my bad....but still, if it was such a great game then why didnt people play. people dont choose not to play great games just because they are a new ip

If koa was a new IP then so was LA Noire, RDR, and countless others that i dont care to name.

game developers just like to find something that works and keep pounding it out for cheap dollars. they could make new titles, but they choose not to because they dont have to

[Maynard]

I don't know what "top down scroller" is.

It was a 3rd person RPG with the open world/do what you want questing aspects of an Elder Scrolls game and combat similar to an action game like God of War.

And 38's business practices are not the point. It seems like you're arguing with me here but I don't know what or why. All I was saying is that even successful new IPs rarely sell extremely well, so of course companies are more likely to focus on sequels. In my opinion, Skyrim and KoA are basically the same level of quality, with each doing things better than the other in certain ways (combat, story, KoA, world, graphics, Skyrim) but Skyrim sold a shitload because the Elder Scrolls is a known property.

sorry if it sounds like i am arguing....im seriously not. i was mentioning their business practices to counter the point you made that their new IP couldnt save them.....which was your point to why companies dont like to make new IPs

i disagree with that. i think companies dont make new IPs simply because they are too cheap to do it and the risk may be to high. they can ride the success of a previous game.

and now i think its going to go one step further. there was a game that came out not to long ago, and now the developers are making a new game that takes place inside that original game. Cool concept i suppose, but also a very cheap way to make a new game.

imagine building a 2nd game within the world of mass effect. i totally different game, but still within the same world...maybe the 2 games overlap at times too.

[SethMode]

i must be thinking of a different game then...my bad....but still, if it was such a great game then why didnt people play. people dont choose not to play great games just because they are a new ip

If koa was a new IP then so was LA Noire, RDR, and countless others that i dont care to name.

game developers just like to find something that works and keep pounding it out for cheap dollars. they could make new titles, but they choose not to because they dont have to

I agree. Again, I get the feeling we're saying the same thing. There are so many sequels because if it's a successful franchise game companies know that they can iterate and it will be more cost effective and probably sell better than anything new that they make.

And I think that there is a difference between a new studio making something completely new, and a studio like Rockstar making "new" IP that heavily iterate on their old IP (and Red Dead was not new IP -- and the studio that made LA Noire no longer exists due to going bankrupt).

[jms493]

i must be thinking of a different game then...my bad....but still, if it was such a great game then why didnt people play. people dont choose not to play great games just because they are a new ip

If koa was a new IP then so was LA Noire, RDR, and countless others that i dont care to name.

game developers just like to find something that works and keep pounding it out for cheap dollars. they could make new titles, but they choose not to because they dont have to

FYI throw out comparing RDR and LA Noire....they are from the makers of GTA (one of the greatest games of all time).

IMO the game DID sell well for a new IP action RPG. It sold 1.15 million copies in 2012

to compare Dark Souls sound 1.6 million as a sequel since 2011....

[jms493]

and again 38 studios was about the MMO and not so much KOA.

[Maynard]

why throw out RDR and LA Noire? does a new IP only apply to new studios? no it doesnt. sure rdr was built on the idea of GTA so i can see throwing that out. but what was LA Noire based on?

you yourself had it in your list of new ips so im not getting your point

[jms493]

38 Studios (never made a game before EVER)
vs
ROCKSTAR......

Are they both new IPs.....yes....is there a difference YES.

I buy anything that Rockstar puts out..........I don't care what it is.

[jms493]

you yourself had it in your list of new ips so im not getting your point

Ill take it off....

[Swarley]

and again 38 studios was about the MMO and not so much KOA.

Actually KOA:R 2 was in the works as well as the MMO.

[Maynard]

38 Studios (never made a game before EVER)
vs
ROCKSTAR......

Are they both new IPs.....yes....is there a difference YES.

I buy anything that Rockstar puts out..........I don't care what it is.

ok.....38 games isnt the discussion though. that was a side point. your using 38 as part of entirely different point.

i agree, companies like rockstar will have more success with a new IP then a new studio like 38. But i dont think 38 failed because their new IP didnt sell. I think its been shown in various threads and news articles that curt shilling is a shitty business man

[jms493]

But i dont think 38 failed because their new IP didnt sell. I think its been shown in various threads and news articles that curt shilling is a shitty business man

Correct....the game sold well and they failed. Therefore there were other reasons.

1. Should not have bought Big Huge Games
2. Should not have moved the company to RI for the loan....although I think they had to.
3. Should Stay out of the MMO market....but that is now and not then.

[SethMode]

why throw out RDR and LA Noire? does a new IP only apply to new studios? no it doesnt. sure rdr was built on the idea of GTA so i can see throwing that out. but what was LA Noire based on?

you yourself had it in your list of new ips so im not getting your point

I don't want to be all technical here, but Red Dead Revolver came before Red Dead Redemption. Obviously Redemption is the one everyone remembers, and Redemption is pretty different than Revolver, but it isn't a new IP.

The overall point is, it's harder for a new studio to make a new IP than one that has droves of fans that will buy anything they put out. Hell, Amalur tried to basically do that and it was still had to pull off (big Elder Scrolls developer as lead, popular fantasy writer writing the lore, popular artist doing most of the artistic design work).

Again, all I'm saying is, it's harder and more expensive to make new IP, and it's less likely to be a profitable slam dunk than a sequel. Some companies can pull it off based on their past successes, but if it's hard for a well known developer to make a successful new IP, it's just that much harder for an unknown.

Another way to look at it is, all of the new IP is coming out in the form of stuff like XBL, Steam, or phones, because no publishers want to risk forking over the money for new IPs in the AAA format, so these developers end up just making their shit on their own or with like a 5 guy team or something. Just all more signs of the fact that it just isn't worth it to publishers to take the risk.

[Houston]

Don't got time for all these damn sequels, Metal Gear 3 and Mass Effect were enough for me.

[JeremyHight]

First, thanks, Seth, for clearing it up that Redemption was based on Red Dead Revolver, which was released back in 2004. I was about to lose my mind when reading it posts saying it was a new IP.

Second, I don't mind sequels as long as the games keep it interesting. I don't hear many people complaining about new Mario, Uncharted, Zelda, Assassin's Creed, and many other games because they are good. In fact, I think anyone could argue that the first AC was utter crap after the first hour due to constant repetition, but since then, has greatly improved their games due to sequels. However, there are series like Final Fantasy that used to be this great, but have since stagnated. I love JRPGs, but FF is even getting rid of some of the innovations they allowed for like non-linearity in order to push a rather mundane story.

Overall, I think sequels aren't bad and can really allow for some great innovation and improvement. If not for the small successes Rockstar had with GTA 1 and 2, they never would have made 3, which was a huge overhaul. Mario has parlayed 2D success into some of the most innovative titles across multiple genres. AC has gone from mundane, repetitive action to a very action packed, beautiful game.

[Maynard]

forgot about revolver. i would base rdr more on GTA then anything else.

i dont mind a 2nd or even 3rd game in a series. But was disgusts me is companies like activision who keep churning out COD games, or GH games. even companies like EA who release the same sports games year after year with a new roster and call it a new game. then you take shooters, rpgs, mmo's or any other genre and they are all basically copies of some other game.

the entire industry is unoriginal and unimaginative. We are talking about new IP's but imo a new IP is something truly unique, not something that has been done before but was given a new name. thats why a game like watch dog gets people pumped up. it looks unique and has a fresh feel. Not to beat on 38, but while KOA may have been a great game, nothing about it from the videos i watched today make it feel unique. It feels like a rpg that we have seen 1000 times before.