This is my first thread thanks to JayWood2010 who told me how to do it otherwise I would always be limited to posting in other threads and never make a thread of my own.

So I work for a gaming website illgaming.in

I recently wrote an article regarding sequels I want you guys to read it and give your own opinion and what do you think about annualization.

Here's The Link

http://www.illgaming.in/2014/03/is-annualization-killing-creativity/

Enjoy and don't forget to share it with your friends

I think very few franchises manage to actually add on to the world with sequels. Final Fantasy, for example, would practically reinvent itself with every iteration. Not anymore.

But I disagree that this is a recent problem. All Mario games and Pokemon games (or most Nintendo games) have hardly changed from their first appearances. I think that contradicts your statement: "If you are a gamer from 80′s you might remember those days when sequels barely existed and you were always treated with new IPs then and now."

I don't think that was ever the case.

Sequels were not rare in the 80's. We had PacMan, Ms. Pacman, Baby Pacman, Pacman Jr, Super Pacman. Galaga, Galaxian, Galaga '88. Donkey Kong, DK Jr, Mario Bros, SMB, SMB2, SMB3. The big games always get lots of sequels.

I will say that annualization is negative. In particular, in the case of COD which consumes such a large part of the market it is negative. In the past you could release a title in year Mario or whatever was not coming out and be the star of the show. Annual titles mixed with very large budgets is making it at least a little bit tougher for new ideas. But we are still seeing new games. Eventually a new style will probably push shooters down a little, like platformers and fighters in the past.

ohh I see but during 80's sequels were not dominating new ips I believe and many of them innovated

Big games get sequels but I think problem of innovating is a big problem nowadays. Yes few games in 80's did not innovated but we got to see new ips.

You would need give a source for that, or at least back it up with an example. I don't disagree that many of them innovated, (like Zelda 1 & 2 and Donkey Kong & Donkey Kong 2 ) but I can think of many others that were almost exactly the same game.

I still liked the article; just had a few issues.

Will try to explain my point better next time thanks for the suggestion always looking to polish my skills

It depends how big a fan of the series that is being an annualized is I know if I had the option of some of my favourite extinct series either coming back and be annualized or staying dead I’d probably choose the latter since I wouldn’t want to get bored with them like I have some other annualized series and can still play the older games in series.

I also think annualized games that are forced out by publisher’s will obviously suffer from lack of innovation and creativeness but at the same time if you didn’t give them a time frame where’d end up with more vapourware which is just as bad if not worse. With that being said I think the sweet spot for development time is around the 3 year mark, since that’s enough time to come up with some new ideas for the next game in the series but not so much time that the developer gets overcome with a lack of a deadline.

Yes, it is.