This is almost old news, but as you probably know, Activison (or should I say Activision Blizzard) has released a statement confirming the development of Guitar Hero IV and Call of Duty 5.
Now, I'm not the type to complain about video games (unless it's REALLY bad), but the industry is turning into overkill. Seriously, do we really need Guitar Hero IV? Can't the industry move on to different IP's?OK, before you spam up the comments list below, I know that it's not the whole industry that is making ten of the same game, and I also know that the publishers just want more money. But if you are going to make an upwards of 4+ games (I consider 3 games in a series to be fine, as that's a good amount of story, game play, and tolerance level for a few years), at least add something new to the game play. Case in point: while Guitar Hero 3 is a great game, did we really need it? What new concepts did it introduce? All it did was update the graphics and add new songs. Couldn't we just have added the new songs? Neversoft didn't have to make an entirely new game to have the same concept behind it. They could have just released all of the new songs in a pack for $20 or $30. Harmonix was really smart, and added the whole band experience in Rock Band onto what they had already built in Guitar Hero. I wouldn't complain as much if more games actually did change something major in between games.Going back to Call of Duty, it all depends on how they approach it. If they add some awesome multiplayer (like CoD 4's) and have some really cool features, then I won't ramble on about it. But if it seems as if they just made some maps and stuck them into the same engine with better graphics (Call of Duty 3), then yes, I will bitch and moan about it. Who wouldn't?What I would like to see the industry do is to have an unwritten limit for the number of sequels you can create in a particular series. Look at the Final Fantasy games. They are on game 14. 14! They are good games, but don't you think that Square Einx should put it down and put all of their efforts into their new projects?I think of an excellent example of keeping a game alive without dragging it out, but at the same time adding something new each game (Episode) is the Half-Life series. It adds at least one new thing each game, and every time it is fun. One example of a series that has been pulled out over the 4 limit is the Elder Scrolls series. But those don't really feel like sequels, or even the same game. They are so different, that it's a completely new experience each time.I argue that releasing episodes or changing gameplay, or even releasing song packs would be a win-win situation for all. Publishers and Developers could still make money from the packs/episodes, and the gamers wouldn't have to pay as much all at once.Well, that's enough rambling for tonight; I have to wake up at 6:00 tomorrow for school and it's already 11… *sigh*
The final fantasy games are new projects. There is really is no plot that follows each game. At this point, the spells, items, and enemies that do come back make us feel nostalgiac instead of bored.
I think Zelda and Metroid's been my pet peeve as of late when it comes to this issue. Mainly because it's the same weapons/items every game since the days of the NES or SNES. If you're going to use the same universe, can't you at least come up with an entirely new set of weapons or gameplay devices?!
Final Fantasy has more than 14 games if you count branch-offs - the name was so powerful early on (and still is today) that the original Mana game was released on our shores as Final Fantasy Adventure. There is no reason for Square to drop the series name now - its an assurance of quality, mostly. FF12 could have been considered a fairly different project - people love Ivalice thus far, after all, enough to make Tactics Advance the setting for 12, and if I am properly informed 11, and subsequently Renevent Wings - but i doubt it would have done as well without the name. And, really, looking at FF7, I think its more like each NUMBER is becoming a series (12 has two games now, 11 has a fair number of expansions, and 7 has everything but what I need to get into it - a good way to get into 7 that doesn't cost an arm and a leg for those of us who didn't own a PSX. They keep denying a remake, but it sounds like something Square has nothing to lose by doing).
so while they're up to FF *13,* if i recall (i guess they have admitted to working on 14 already, haven't they? but thirteen isn't even out yet… in fact, last I heard the whole thing was a mess), don't expect them to give up on "sequels" to that series any day soon.As for Call of Duty, I'm not really target audience there, and I hate the song lists in guitar Hero. Sorry, rockers, I play DDR… which I will agree needs more than the minor innovations they make in their annual variations, fun as it is to have new songs.Basically the only related Final Fantasies are FFX and FF-X, oh, and that one FFVII remake, but the rest have completly different worlds/systems/story
How many FPS have been made since Castle Wolfenstein?
2 many.Tony Hawks Skateboarding
They add barely anything and call it an off spin sequel"Hey look, how I can get off my skateboard and walk around!"To put it simply they'll stop making sequels when people stop buying them.
And when will that happen, eh? Never, unfortuanately.
I have to disagree about comment #2, 'Troiding and Zelda have continually introduced new ideas.Mario.
End of story.