<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Malstrom's Articles News]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[seanmalstrom]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/author/seanmalstrom/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Definition of sequels are about retreading old&nbsp;ground]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>People are trying to change what a sequel is. If a video game is about Unicorns and pancakes, sells very well, then the sequel is expected to be &#8216;more Unicorns and pancakes&#8217;. If the game is changed into &#8216;Giraffes and bananas&#8217;, then it is not really a sequel.</p>
<p>You either make a sequel or you make a brand new game. It&#8217;s either-or. The advantage of the sequel is that there is already an installed base of ready buyers which removes the risk. A brand new game has to win an audience all over. If you want the market security of the sequel, you have to give up doing &#8216;whatever you want&#8217;. Sequels are about delivering a consistent experience to the predecessor, not re-defining that experience.</p>
<p>What we&#8217;re witnessing is game companies want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the security of the sequel with the freedom of the new IP. But it doesn&#8217;t work like that. All you do is piss off the fans and destroy the franchise.</p>
]]></html></oembed>