Anyone else dislike being buried under sequels?

I can't be the only person who looks at games lists and wants something original, something not seen before, not based on safe characters/scenarios/stories that people already know.
Do they have to be the same titles every year or so?

I know its not all games, it is just all the big ones. And I realise there are original games made, they are just buried under all the copies of Fifa and Cod.

Never ending series are just a bugbear of mine. Very few of them get better as they age (and don't get me started on graphics)

I remember buying games in the past and having no idea what game was like before I got it home... sequels would make sense in a pre internet world where all you have is the game name to work out if its good or not. Now its just lazy, there is no reason for endless regurgitation. As long as you don't believe the hype and look at videos of the game after release, you should have a fair idea if its worth buying or not.

I do have to admit the game I enjoyed the most in last 20 years was a sequel but I never had the original - Diablo 2 - but for a long time there wasn't a 3rd part and its only now we may get 4 (if its not a mobile game) amd the last 2 really aren't the same game as the first two. Like how GTA changed... as did Wolfenstein & Fallout change from 2d to 3d

Am I only one?


Community Manager
Staff member
As more media companies merge or consume each other, I do find that the safe bets tend to win out. Just as it is with the film business, these companies want to guarantee some return on investment, so rehashing proven IP just makes sense.

I do agree that it's a real bummer to see the majority of risks coming out of small studios with minimal chance of really breaking through the noise to ever be discovered.

It's not hopeless, by any stretch, it just takes passionate gamers using word of mouth to promote studios doing interesting and exciting work.
I think it's a bit short-sighted to dismiss just any sequel as safe, lazy and predictable. Sure, you know exactly what you can expect from the next Fifa or Madden game and they do little to justify their existence as full-blown sequels rather than simple DLC roster updates, but for every terrible new sports game there is a sequel out there that is vastly better than any game that came before it. A lot of series do actually get better as they age.

Let's dream up a few examples. How about Super Mario Bros. 3? That is a sequel from a time when the internet wasn't really a thing yet and video game magazines weren't too prevalent either, so you could argue that this game was a 'safe bet' because it could rely on word of mouth to sell copies. However, it was much more than a safe sequel. It further perfected the original's tight platforming gameplay, introduced an overworld map riddled with secrets and pushed the hardware of the NES to its limits.

Another great example would be Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. It's the 14th(!) entry of the classic franchise, but few would argue its merits. This is the game that introduced the non-linear level design, the RPG elements and provided the basis for some of the best video game music that blessed the gaming world up until that point. The metroidvania genre would never be the same after this game.

There's plenty of more modern games that better their predecessors, too. Mass Effect 2? How about God of War for PS4? That was a sequel which took the franchise in a bold new direction and in doing so became the best game of the series. Or what about The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild? That is a sequel. It is also the new gold standard by which every open world game will henceforth be measured.

I could think of a million more examples. Final Fantasy VII. Super Metroid. Pokémon Gold & Silver. Half-Life 2. So many sequels that did so much to justify their existence and push their respective genres or video games as a whole in new and exciting directions. These games would all qualify as interesting and exciting to me.