Cole Smith, Freelance Writer

If it weren't for sequels, many of us probably wouldn't be here right now. If you've got older siblings, and your parents felt that they were satisfied with the kids they already had, you may not have happened.

Everyone likes a good sequel, but as often is the case, there are more bad sequels than good ones. The reason we like to entertain the prospect of a sequel is simply because we enjoyed the original so much that we believe more of the same would naturally lead to more enjoyment. The truth of the matter is that we usually like something because it's new, fresh, and original. A sequel that is too close to the original is sure to disappoint.

I believe that we can only fall in love with the same person once. Nothing is ever going to match that original magic. There are examples of certain movies and games where the sequel is better than the original but in all cases you will note that the original wasn't that great to begin with. It may have had the spark, but it didn't ignite the fire.

You can't blame anyone for trying to create a sequel. In some cases it's a guaranteed cash grab, which makes it a great business move. Some people are content to revisit a certain world, populated with familiar characters doing interesting things. In some respects, you could call a sitcom a series of sequels. Take Seinfeld for instance. Every episode is based on the same group of characters in the same location doing the same things. Yet, we don't tire of it. And that's the magic of a good sequel. The creators have altered the audiences' expectations. Not in terms of quality, but in terms of content.

I would use the phrase, "expansion pack" in reference to a lot of game sequels. A lot of these games use the same graphics, moves, and gameplay format as the original. There's nothing wrong with that, but if it's being passed off as new game then there are going to be a lot of angry gamers. I think that these games should be called expansion packs, and the price should be lowered. If the game is not new, don't charge full price for it. Let the public know what they are getting, and then nobody can complain.

Amanda L. Kondolojy, Freelance Writer

As far as sequels are considered, I can't really hate on them too much. If a series can keep itself fresh and innovative, then I really don't see the harm in keeping it alive. The trick is that each entry has to be distinctive. Look at the Final Fantasy series. Although they're all part of a series, you would never know because the games are all so different. This is also the case for games in the Zelda franchise, and even the Mario dynasty.

Of course it's easier to keep sequels on track when you talk about RPGs and other story-based games because the story keeps them all together. It's harder for arcade-style fighting and racing games to stay fresh. I mean, how many ways can you race a car or beat up your opponents? But look at console versions of series like Tekken and Burnout which consistently provide new content and features to every game that bears their franchise's insignia.

The trouble comes in when the formula needs to change but doesn't. This is really evident in the DragonBall Z series. After the critical and commercial success of Budokai 3, it seemed like the franchise was on the up and up. However, it took three steps back with the following year's release of Dragonball Z: Sagas, which was so repetitive it didn't even feel like a new entry in the series. It just felt like a hodge-podge of everything that we had seen and done before.

You can see the faulty logical succession that occurred here. Atari thought that by giving gamers the same thing that had brought them success in the past, they could replicate that success. But you just can't do that. You have to keep the things that people know and love about their favorite series, while adding enough new and cool things to them to warrant another 40 hard-earned dollars. That's what makes a series both reliable and bankable.

As far as series snuffing out new game ideas, I really doubt the validity of that statement. Just look at games like Resistance: Fall of Man, and Gears of War. They were two of last year's best games, and both with no series to back them up. If a game's good, then it's good. You don't need a name to back up true quality.

Matthew Walker, Freelance Writer

Man, it seems every time you turn around there is a new Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, or talks of a new whatever the game may be. It seems like the gaming industry has ran out of good ideas. That, however, would be a very vague and untrue statement. After all, some of the sequels we know and love had to have a ground level game to start from. If we did not have these sequels, when we went to the store to pick up a new one, it would takes us hours upon hours, more so than usual, to pick out the next game we wanted to try.

For instance, when the first God of War came out, who knew immediately that that game was going to become such a success that it would warrant a sequel? Furthermore, who knew that said sequel was going to be as good, if not better than, the first. Take a moment and ask yourself, how did I hear about this game? Most heard about it from a friend or saw a review that scored it fairly high and thought, "You know, I think I'm going to pick that game up." Most, if not all, of us. It has always been the case. A lot of new titles that do not have the clout of being a sequel tend to suffer until word of mouth or reviews for the title from a trusted source begin to surface. Which, (no comma) there is nothing wrong with, but in the beginning, most games were bought with the hopes of being what we were looking for at the time.

After countless bad buys, we finally started filling our need of video games only with the expected cream of the crop - the sequels. This is not to say that over the course of making these sequels that developers have not dropped the proverbial ball and delivered horrid messes to series we have loved. Instead, this is to say that the average gamer sits and waits for the next great title involving their favorite characters, or sometimes just the elements, to arrive just so they can immerse themselves once more into the world they love and missed. This has only grown over the past 10 years. While the story elements of games before '96 were getting increasingly better, they still lacked the drive behind the progress that began in '96 and has only grown exponentially in recent years. Because the initial games captured our minds around the story behind the game, we can easily relate and feel for our characters we play with. In some cases, the story appeals to more players than the actual gameplay. For example, if you ask anyone that has played the GTA series which of the GTA III trilogy they liked the best, more than a handful will tell you Vice City. While the general gameplay was the same as GTA III, the story is what truly drew players back to the crime-laden world of Tommy Vercetti repeatedly.

In a way, the sequels, if anything, show that the creativity to make a new game is still there. With all of the new technology available on the next-gen systems, it would be so easy to wish for a remake of a game that we either cherished or obliterated. Instead of going with an easy option that would only work for so long, developers bring us either a new story to follow with the characters we have played before, or they provide a title that carries over several elements from the title before thus increasing the desires of fans to play the next installment of there favorite series. There is nothing wrong with a sequel, as long as it is executed correctly. Therefore, as long as video game sequels do not fall into the dreaded movie sequel curse, I think we are in for many sequels yet to come, and I for one am glad of that.

Read on! There's more on the next page!