The biggest things I am excited for in video games right now are sequels. Looking at the horizon of possible video game purchases, the games that stick out are second editions of games that I have played and enjoyed. Next month, I am anticipating buying the sequel to a game that is itself the third edition of series: Fallout: New Vegas.
Looking to the future, the games that are on my radar are the sequels to Infamous and Batman: Arkham Asylum. As I was getting ready to write today’s post, I started thinking about why that is.
The reason this question comes up is because a little over two years ago, I made a change in the way I purchased new video games. Previously, I would just buy a new game, basically, whenever I felt like it. While this meant I never had an opportunity to get bored with the video games, it also meant that our bank account was continually being drained. Knowing this, I knew I had to do the responsible thing and cut back. So, I decided that I would only buy a new video game whenever I had beaten the previous one. This one little change has ended up making a huge impact in the way I look at new games.
Knowing that I only have one chance when I pick up a new game has made me more cautious in which games I choose. If I pick up a new game, there is a 50/50 chance that the game will be one that I will not enjoy. Thus far, I have been fortunate. Of the new titles I have bought, only one so far has been a dud. Obviously that is a great average. What’s interesting is that the one game that was horrible was not a sequel.
Red Dead Redemption is a game that has had nothing but rave reviews.
On the site that is the video game equivalent to Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, it has a score of 95. That means that out of 100 reviews, 95 of them reviewed the game favorably. In this case, you can lump in the 5 percent that feel the game is terrible. What’s interesting about the positive reviews is the vast majority of them mention the story. I am all for story being a key element of a video game, but if the controls stink, then the game is worthless. In this case, the game’s just plain not fun.
Sequels are generally safer. Odds are if you enjoy the first game, you will enjoy the second. Rock Band is a primary example. The first game was incredibly fun. Paul, Jennifer, Brandon, Jeff (of the bestjeffever.com) and I would stay up until late into the night, playing.
When Rock Band 2 came out, we once again resumed our Rockstar-fueled music marathons. The game took the basics of the first and just expanded on them.
Sequels are not guaranteed hits, though. Last year, I picked up the sequel to one of my favorite games of all time, Marvel Ultimate Alliance.
I expected the game to be similar to the first, with an expanded roster of superheroes and more powers. This was not the case. What I didn’t realize at the time was that this game had been made by a different company than the first. The new company, Vicarious Visions, didn’t follow the example set by the prior. They created a game that had less powers, fewer costumes, and was, overall, shorter than previous versions. That was good and bad because, although the game was less fun, it didn’t take me very long to beat.
Looking at the system I have set up for my video game purchases, I think I will probably spend most of money on sequels. Even though I may be missing out on some games that could be innovative or original, sequels have the greatest odds of being games that I would enjoy. Now, I am not completely opposed to first editions. However, unless I am able to properly research the game (using resources such as Game Informer), I won’t be spending my money outside of the safety zone.












