Will Wright Says: There Are Too Many Sequels

[News Reader]

Will Wright Says: There Are Too Many Sequels
Speaking with German site Stern, Will Wright has said that, well, there's just far too many sequels on the market for his liking. When asked what he thinks about there being so many 2's and 3's and even 4's hitting the shelves, he said the practice is a bad one, and is the result of a conservative games market.

Ja, das ist in der Tat eine schlechte Entwicklung. Man setzt lieber auf Nummer sicher, als kreativ zu sein. Noch scheint das zu funktionieren. Nur wie lange noch? Zudem gibt es einfach zu viele Spiele auf dem Markt. Viele tolle Spiele gehen dadurch schlichtweg unter. [Yeah, that is indeed a bad development. One would rather play it safe than be creative. Still, this seems to work. But for how much longer? Besides, there are simply too many games on the market. Lots of bad games are coming out because of this]

Interesting! I wonder if he thought like this when the fourth SimCity kicked around. Or the second Sims. Or, indeed, whether he'll still be thinking like this when we're all playing Spore 2.

Spieleentwickler-Ikone Will Wright [Stern, via Gamefront.de]




Author: Luke Plunkett
Category: Ea Electronic Arts Maxis Simcity Spore The Sims Will Wright Says will wrigt
Publish Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:20:00 EDT
Read more...

Source: Kotaku

[eion]

Ja, das ist in der Tat eine schlechte Entwicklung. Man setzt lieber auf Nummer sicher, als kreativ zu sein. Noch scheint das zu funktionieren. Nur wie lange noch? Zudem gibt es einfach zu viele Spiele auf dem Markt. Viele tolle Spiele gehen dadurch schlichtweg unter. [Yeah, in fact that is a bad development. People would rather play it the old, safe way than be creative. This still seems to work. But for how much longer? Besides, there are just too many games on the market. Because of that, many great games simply go under.

Fix'd. No idea who they had translating that, but it wasn't a great job - the last sentence was exactly wrong.

I largely agree with Will Wright's sentiment, though.

[eion]

"Great" in the last sentence could also be read as "amazing". Also, why can't we edit our posts in this forum?

[Dog Pants]

Dunno, I can I'll move it to gaming chat anyway.

I sort of agree about the sequels, but some of the greates games ever have been sequels: Doom 2, Duke Nukem 3D, Half Life 2. I'm sure the list goes on. It's the legions of bad sequels that are causing problems.

[eion]

Dunno, I can I'll move it to gaming chat anyway.

I sort of agree about the sequels, but some of the greatest games ever have been sequels: Doom 2, Duke Nukem 3D, Half Life 2. I'm sure the list goes on. It's the legions of bad sequels that are causing problems.

Now I can edit it, but I can't delete the second post I made. What a load of WILLIES!

I think that part of his point was that while some sequels may turn out to be good games, it's often at the cost of originality.

[Dog Pants]

Fair point. Darwinia is a perfect example of a good, original game suffering from lack of funding when the multitude of Sims expansions get masses of cash thrown at them.

[TezzRexx]

TezzRexx says: There isn't enough Spores on my PC yet. Stop moaning about sequels AND RELEASE THE FUDGING GAME.

[MrGreen]

TezzRexx says: There isn't enough Spores on my PC yet. Stop moaning about sequels AND RELEASE THE FUDGING GAME.

MrGreen says: TEZZ IS RIGHT.

[Killavodka]

TezzRexx says: There isn't enough Spores on my PC yet. Stop moaning about sequels AND RELEASE THE FUDGING GAME.

a game where the main objective is to create fudge. yum.

[HereComesPete]

Yeah, you like the fudge, you fudge packer.

[FatherJack]

For the most part, and I'm probably not alone, sequels are what I get most excited about.

Apart from Spore (which one might argue is the natural evolution of a Maxis game), Caek Wars, Crysis and Starcraft 2 seem the most eagerly anticipated titles around here. Oh, and Duke Nukem.

Sequels of stuff you like are almost always instant win. The Half-Life series retains a unique feel adding just a little each time, seemingly keeping it forever on my best games list. The initial transition from CS to CS:S was almost seamless, a model of polishing perfection in my view.

There have been disappointments, like Doom 3 and Quake 4 - but that's largely due to the major factors that made them so great originally were that they were the pioneers of an oft-copied game type, but also because they were so long in coming (Quake 3 didn't count) that everyone, including it seems the developers, forgot what they supposed to be about in the first place.

Sequels of shit will always be shit, but I slavishly buy the football games each year and dammit I enjoy playing them, innovation or no. By all that is rational in the universe Pokémon should be dead and buried, but a PokéDS game? A PokéWii game? Fucking yes fucking please!

Perhaps this just illustrates how the market has stagnated, and how no-one is that interested in titles without a number on the end, so they get less funding and publicity and as a result aren't economically worth making anymore.

I think the "retro" bubble is starting to burst, as more people have access to the original titles they remember so fondly from their youth, they notice that they actually suck quite badly and piss you off after about 30 seconds, so the nostalgia factor of bringing back ancient licenses isn't going to work forever.

One might think that an updated version of say Syndicate, Crusader or Little Big Adventure would be amazing, but would they? Really? Wasn't it their lo-fi isometric nature that actually made them what they were in the first place?

I suppose now games are almost as big-business as movies these days, the market drives the innovation, and until we stop buying sequels, they'll keep on making them.

I don't think we'll stop buying them just yet.

[Joose]

One might think that an updated version of say Syndicate...would be amazing, but would they? Really?

yes.

Wasn't it their lo-fi isometric nature that actually made them what they were in the first place?

no. What was fun about the game was leading a small team of super human cuborg guys with enormo-weapons, and doing things like leveling half a city just to kill one poor reasearcher. What was fun was the bladerunner-esque dystopian image of the future, the taking over the world, and the casual cruelty to random passers buy that went totally unpunished. The crappy, lo-fi isometric view had nothing to do with its success.

I suppose now games are almost as big-business as movies these days, the market drives the innovation, and until we stop buying sequels, they'll keep on making them.

I don't think we'll stop buying them just yet.

Not *entirely* true. One of the reasons more random little indipendant games (like Uplink and the like) are having a bit of a good time at the moment is that people are realising that:

1) with the internet, you dont really need publishers as much.
2) If your games company employs thousands of people, you need to sell thousands of copies of each of your games to make a decent profit on them. If your games company employs four guys, you dont need to sell anywhere near as many games to be a success.

What that means is people are more likely to make niche games than before, as they are suddenly not so much of a risk. Publishers love sequels because they are relatively low risk: Its the same reason theres so many games released that are clones of successfull games. If something has been done before, and sold well, the publishers will think that doing it again will also sell well. Us sensible people, who actually play the fucking games, realise that their logic is completely fucked, but they dont.

Parting note: im less excited about sequels than I am about new releases. Im a whore for New Things, and although im quite excited about Starcraft 2 and mildly interested in Crysis, im much more excited about Spore, BioShock, and Assasins Creed.

[Dog Pants]

I'm with Joose on this. I started playing SLA Industries (a big passion of mine for those who haven't been following the thread) because it was sold to me on the strength of being a Syndicate RPG. A remake of it might bugger up the fundamental principles of the game like so many sequels do, and make it crap. On the other hand an accurate reconstruction that captures the gameplay with improved aesthetics would still be a success, I think.

Again, I agree with Joose when I say that I'm more excited about Spore and Bioshock than I am about Crysis (which recieves a resounding 'meh' from me).