OXM Debate: Should Every Sequel Be a Game-Changer?



Evolution is the way for me as long as it is meaningful and significant evolution. The Halo, Gears, and Mass Effect series exemplify this to me. Each game is very distinct, but not so different as to turn off old school fans. There is progression and growth. The game franchises that pump out sequels every year however, like assassins creed and CoD fail at significant enough evolution to warrant purchase, imo. Each game may have some new environments or new weapons and enemies, but at their core they are exactly the same. In Halo or Gears there is an obvious adjustment in strategy and gameplay from sequel to sequel. Cod and Assassins creed lack this. When a sequel comes out it should be so evolved that if you attempt to go back to a predecessor you react: 'wow, this isn't as good as I thought'. That is how i felt about halo 2 after halo 3 came out. Halo 2 is one of my favorite games and I never loved a game as much at the time as I did Halo 2, but after playing Halo 3, it just could not hold up. I experienced similar things when attempting to go from mass effect 2 back to mass effect and from gears 3 back to gears 1. Again, Cod, assassins creed and most games on a one year cycle fail to do this for me. I can go from modern warfare 3 to mw2 and feel as if I am still playing the same game.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.