Wha? Too Soon?

So, Elder Scrolls 5 and Mass Effect 3 were announced.

Here's my problem. Assassin's Creed Brotherhood was good (see below), and they took what we loved from AC2 and improved it.

So, I liked Mass Effect 2. Liked. I never said loved. It was a good story, good gameplay. The DLC's made it seem very "beaten-horse-esque", but it was a good experience. Had it only been a year since I last experienced Mass Effects ways, would I have said I liked it as much? Probably not.

That's to say that sometimes too much of a good thing is too much, and too much of an ok thing is horrible.

Now, Elder Scrolls 5? Of course it will be wonderful. It's been long enough that it deems another go around. Especially when the heavies are sayin they won't come out with a next-gen system for another 5 or 6 years.

It's time.

Below are a list of games that don't need a sequel just yet.

Army of Two
Bayonetta
Red Dead
Just Cause
Resident Evil
Lost Planet

Ok, so what's this? It's a list of games that I'm pretty sure at least one will be turned into a new game in the coming years. They're all games that existed in one form or another before the current title, but the most recent current title isn't making huge enough waves to warrant a sequel.

So what does this all mean?
Well, Mass Effect 3 will go over like Unleashed 2 or Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. It'll be good, but it won't be earth shattering.

Should a gaming company make a new game every year? No. Should they wait a certain amount of time between titles before they release another one? Not necessarily.

You either rush and end up with Unleashed 2 and Fable 3, or you delay and you get Gothic 4 and Duke Nukem: Forever.

No, now that I think of it.

Fable 3
Gothic 4
Duke Nukem Forever
Medal of Honor
Dead Rising 2
Crackdown 2


Whats this? These are all games that may or may not have had enough time between titles, but still flopped. Yeah, flopped. DN:F will flop.

Should games be an epic release? Anticipated for years and planned for for months and months? No. That's annoying. Should they be released annually? Sure, if they're good.

But I have a stack of Madden 09 next to a stack of Madden 10 that would disagree. And if you don't like the sports analogy, I have the same size stack of Modern Warfare 1 and 2.

Go back, and play Mass Effect 2 again, enjoy it? Probably not. It's a one-time event, after you play each of the classes. Think in under a year you'll be ready to play through it again? Probably not.

But they don't care. It'll sell like crazy, I'll buy a copy.

Games like Batman, Bioshock and Dead Space, from companies who are openly admitting the things they didn't like about the original games? Those are sequels I'm excited for.

Improve the game, don't just expect I loved the first one so much that I'll buy up the next. Give me a reason to want to suffer through what I know the next game will contain. Mass Effects combat is something I see quite often, from the same company. Elder Scrolls is a time-tested combat system that's enjoyable and fresh each time you play.


For some games, it's hard to not think of them as the same song and dance, just a year later.
This ain't twilight, this is resource mining, and I'm already bored with it.