More Reviews
REVIEWS Resident Evil: Revelations Review
While 3DS gamers have been enjoying the franchise's best game in years for some time now, does the experience translate for Resident Evil fans on console?

Donkey Kong Country Returns 3D Review
Gamers have gone bananas for Nintendo's 3DS, but can this port of Retro Studios' 2010 Wii game make the jump to your portable?
More Previews
PREVIEWS The Last of Us Preview
With Naughty Dog releasing a new IP in just a few short weeks, we got hands-on one more time. But don't worry: This is a spoiler-free preview.
Release Dates
NEW RELEASES GRiD 2
Release date: 05/28/13

Fuse
Release date: 05/28/13

Remember Me
Release date: 06/04/13

The Last of Us
Release date: 06/14/13


LATEST FEATURES Being A Console Is Actually Xbox One's Worst Asset
Microsoft's newest console has lots of different features, but video games might hold the device back from the software giant's true intentions.

Everything I Learned About Call of Duty: Ghosts Last Week
I wasn't allowed to talk about the new Infinity Ward game last week when I met with Activision, and I don't have much to say now that Xbox One spilled the beans.
 
Coming Soon

LEADERBOARD
Read More Member Blogs
FEATURED VOXPOP Bras
On the future of some gamers
By Bras
Posted on 05/22/13
Before Microsoft and Sony do something regarding their future in the video game business, I wanted to write, and I've wanted it for a long time now, but other things kept getting in my way, and fearing that tomorrow might be too late, today will have to do.  ...

MEMBER BLOG

schimmel schimmel's Blog
PROFILE
Average Blog Rating:
[ Back to All Posts ]
Sequels of the Year
Posted on Monday, November 30 2009 @ 10:01:01 Eastern

2009 will be remembered as a year the current generation of gaming took a turn; the all-arrogant Sony dropped their ridiculous $399 price tag for a system with 80 gigabytes of memory for a smaller $299 tag, and with it they increased the overall hard drive size to 120 gigabytes.  Seeing a threat, Microsoft had to follow suit, getting rid of their Xbox 360 Pro console all together and dropping the price of their Elite console to also $299, meaning their Arcade model would drop to $199.  Realizing people could now buy an Xbox cheaper than a Wii, Nintendo also dropped their system's price to $199.  As well as the price drops, this year saw a slew of fantastic releases: games such as Batman: Arkham Asylum, Dragon Age: Origins, Borderlands, InFamous, and Brutal Legend to name a few.  With all the new IPs coming out this year you would expect an exciting Game of the Year lineup coming from any review site even if most of them haven't announced nominees yet.  Spike TV has not followed suit.

Spike TV, which I know is not actually a game review station, has announced its nominees for Game of the Year, winner to be announced at their annual Videogame Awards in a few weeks.  With the exception of Batman: Arkham Asylum, every single nominee is a sequel.  Sure, games like Modern Warfare 2 and Left 4 Dead 2 are great games, but they have already had their shot at a Game of the Year title when their predecessors (Modern Warfare and Left 4 Dead) were released in 2007 and 2008 respectively.  I am tired of seeing sequels be nominated for awards such as these simply because they are taking that chance away from a game that has taken a shot at doing something differently and starting a new storyline.

Now, I have no problem with sequels winning awards.  They have taken the original and improved on it or added some new innovative ideas that make the game different and fun again, even if it is simply rehashed gameplay from the one that came before it.  Sometimes a sequel can make the series fun to play (see: Saint's Row 2), sometimes it can take away from your fond memories of the series (see: Grand Theft Auto 4), but people always buy them and they are an easy way for a company to make money.  This is why instead of taking Game of the Year slots, I propose that there be a new category in video game awards ceremonies called Sequel of the Year.  People can vote on their favorite one still, but the only real rules to the category would be that A) the game must be a sequel, and B) if it is in this tier it is not allowed to compete for Game of the Year.  On top of making an obvious rift between the two categories that is much needed, this may also encourage more companies to make new games instead of spicing up old ones and re-releasing them for full price instead of just adding downloadable content.

Sequels are great, they expand on the original game's story, introduce new characters, and even open up the universe the game finds its self in even more so that people learn more about the areas they are in.  They are just not deserving of a Game of the Year title if they are not a new IP.  This winter so many sequels are coming out that new games such as Heavy Rain have been pushed into January so they do not have to compete with the holiday market rushing to grab the newest iteration in their favorite ten-year series whose improvements could simply be thrown online and have the player pay $30 to download everything.
Comments
  • axleblaze
    axleblaze

    Joined: Dec 2007
    Posted: Dec 17th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
    If a game is the best game you've played all year, why does it matter if it's a sequel to something? Would Uncharted 2 be more deserving of game of the year if Naughty God had just called it something else? I agree that sequels stifle innovation but not giving them arbitrary awards isn't going to stop them from making them. If sequels make more money than new IPs (which they almost always do) then they will keep making them, even if they can't qualify for some silly GotY awards. It's also wrong to assume that game aren't innovative because they're sequels. Look at the amount of generic FPSs that ape Halo. They aren't Halo and are mostly worse than Halo but if they adopted what you wanted to do they would be more qualified for a GoTY than Halo. Really I appreciate your sentiment but the solution you suggest is just silly.
  • axleblaze
    axleblaze

    Joined: Dec 2007
    Posted: Dec 17th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
    I just want to reiterate that the concept that game companies make games to win GoTY awards is simply not correct. Also I hate it when people call cony arrogant for selling a system at a price that was making them lose money on every console sold.
  • wildmario
    wildmario

    Joined: Jan 2007
    Posted: Dec 18th, 2009 at 5:01 am
    I will have to say this, axelblaze, the idea of sony selling a console @ $600 was stupid to begin with. They could have eaten less losses if they sold it at a more reasonable price.
  • killakeith123
    killakeith123

    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posted: Dec 19th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
    I dis-agree. Sony can only bite the bullet so much with losses towards an expensive and ill-selling system. Sony finally made it to the point where they can sell the console affordable and make profit from the system.
  • schimmel
    schimmel

    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posted: Dec 19th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
    Axelblaze, I don't think you read my entire post. I suggested that sequels get put into their own category to clear the way for GoTY to be given to deserving IPs coming out. Certain new ideas such as Heavy Rain had to push their launch date back because of the fact that they won't compete with sequels. I don't like that. Sequels can have their own spot. Think about it, their OWN spot in awards. The Sequel of the Year category could be regarded as highly as Game of the Year, it just isn't the same category because of the fact that the game they are following already had its chance to win. Why give the same series more than one of the same award, the only time it was deserving was the first time it was introduced. I think this idea could work, and I'd like to see it implemented. Will it be? I doubt it, but I don't want to see sequels taking up all the Game of the Year slots every year when many new games came out that are more deserving.
  • axleblaze
    axleblaze

    Joined: Dec 2007
    Posted: Dec 20th, 2009 at 10:30 am
    okay first it AXLE. Two people in a row got that wrong. Geez... Secondly I did read your whole post and I think your misunderstanding me. I guess why you want sequels to be seperate and make GotY into "best new IP". Most gaming websites already have a best new IP catagory. The simple fact is if no new IP is better than a sequel, why should they win? A sequel has just as much of a chance to be bad as a new IP. If someone goes above and beyond with a sequel and makes a game that trounces all new IPs, then the new IPs need to work harder. The Game of the Year should go to just that: the game of the year. You're acting like Sequels are the same exact game, but that's not true. Alot of hard work often go into them and to punish that hard work because you feel new IPs need a handicap. If the new IP is worse than a sequel, then it shouldn't win
  • axleblaze
    axleblaze

    Joined: Dec 2007
    Posted: Dec 20th, 2009 at 10:35 am
    I also want to note that this will pointlessly punish sequels that do innovate. With this criteria, Haze would be more qualified to win a GoTY than Fallout 3. Of course you could than say that if a series truly innovates than it could qulaify but than you have to quantify innovation, which I think would be impossible to agree on in the end. You also claim that "sequel of the year" would be just as good as "game of the year" but it wouldn't be because it didn't compete with all games. Game of the Year is an award that should go to all games that came out that year. All games that come out should qualify. That's the point of the category. Redefining it would do nothing but let a new IP make a "game of the year" edition they otherwise not have made
  • JCvgluvr
    JCvgluvr

    Joined: Feb 2009
    Posted: Dec 20th, 2009 at 11:54 am
    Instead of Sequel of the Year, it should be Best Original Title. That way, both originals and sequels can still compete for GOTY, but brand new IPs can still get the attention that they deserve. Sequel of the Year isn't that great of an idea IMO, because sequels can be and often are better than most original IPs. It's the GOTY, whether that game is a sequel or not.
  • Odbarc
    Odbarc

    Joined: Apr 2007
    Posted: Dec 30th, 2009 at 9:02 am
    If you managed to purchase every sequelized game at full price, you'd easily end up paying more for the games than you did for the console. In this regard, I find that it's better to wait to see which number is the end of the series and buy that one. I'll give Megaman games a pass since they have a particular format which is both retro and classic. Games like Dynasty Warriors and Armored Core (PS2 era) had almost identical games with what could be considered patches being released as sequels. (Sprite era flash back) :: I remember back in the good old days, sequels put to shame their predecessors. Graphic improvements, bug fixes, balance, game-play additions and a fully loaded "revenge of..." / "return of the..." powered up super boss(es) come to remind you that their new rule or destroy the world schemes will put your old skills to the test! Granted, back then, you also got hosed with some very bad games (AVGN anyone?) so it's not like your getting any LESS for your money.
  • astrowabbit
    astrowabbit

    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posted: Dec 31st, 2009 at 10:47 pm
    They should have 1) best new original game & 2) Game of the year. It doesn't matter if it's a sequel. Sequel of the year sounds dumb. For the Oscars the have best adapted screenplay and best original screen play. 13 of your top "A" games are sequels and are the game of the year in their respective year. Fallout 3 is one of the best games as was Oblivion. So sorry you can't accept that. Unlike movies most software sequels improve. I am right and I rock!

Post a Comment
LOGIN or REGISTER to post a comment or rate this article.
 
More On GameRevolution