Sequels and copy cat games, good or bad?

After reading a news post on 360 Gamer about Will Wright saying sequels aren't that good, it got me thinking...

It seems that it’s preferable to play it safe rather than be creative. At the moment, this seems to work. But for how much longer? Besides, there are simply too many games on the market. As a result of this, many great games go straight under.

I sort of agree with this as many great games go under, completely overlooked by the mainstream because of the influx of crap out there, but I don't think that this is always means sequels are bad. Take the classic Nintendo series' Mario, Zelda or Metroid, games that only got better as the series progressed.

When they are good

A lot of the big enhancements these games came from improvements in technology, more memory leading to bigger environments, faster CPU leading more intelligent enemies, better graphics leading to more believable (or stylised) visuals, and so on...

These improvements can only help game developers/designers realise the potential in the games they are creating, or at least give them the ability to do so. Which brings us to sequels, things that simply couldn't be in the first game might be able to in the second because of the level of technology available, is this a bad thing? No, not in my opinion.

In terms of games copying other games, I don't see this as too bad a thing, often in a new style of game, it can't encompass everything. Only after other games copy the initial ideas and take it to the next level you see amazing results. Take Tomb Raider for example, one of the first 3rd person games, that hit it big, then look at Splinter Cell, you can see that a lot of the game is taken from the core tomb raider started with (3rd person, running around from a to b, shooting things, etc... ) but it takes it in a fantastic direction, using shadows and stealth to create a great game.

It's not to say Splinter Cell wouldn't exist without Tomb Raider, but is is derivative of the style of game, improving the genre and diversifying it.

When they go bad

I only really have to mention EA, the amount of series that they've destroyed in unbelievable. Why? just to milk cash out of fans of a series. Just look at their sports games for example, in fact they sometimes get worse as the series progress just making a quick update for a new season adding some random new and pointless feature then releasing the game.

It makes me sick.

If you look at some of the franchises that EA have taken over and 'milked' you see why this is bad, games such as Burnout (The series continually added new and impressive features, 3 being the peak of the series, and it's just going down hill now), the Battlefield games, and how they are milked through their expansion packs, that are just a few new maps and weapons...

Another example of sequels being bad, is final Fantasy (wait before you stone me!), while the core games are generally great, recently they've been doing spin off's just to cash in on the name, take Dirge of Cerberus or Final Fantasy X-2.

But which is it? Are they good or bad?

Well, it depends, a lot of the time you get quick cash ins on successful games or lazy clones of existing games, other times you get incremental improvements, and occasionally, you get amazing re-imaginings of the original. IMO, sequels are generally better but you do need to be careful of those cash-in that can sour the experience. If you liked a game and you've seen a sequel I'd recommend you read up on it just in case.