Forum Overview :: Doom III :: No, the real problem is with sequels

[quote name="Commander Tansin A. Darcos"]Most sequels are often an attempt to "cash in" on the success of the existing property. In movies, books, and video games, too often a sequel - or a remake - does not come up or exceed the level of story, or content of the initial work. The few times you do see a sequel or a remake as better than the original it is very rare. <i>Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan</i> was one of those few motion picture sequels where it was actually far better than <i>Star Trek I</i>. It worked, not just as science fiction, but as fiction. You could have done the whole thing with battleships on the ocean and a nuke bomb and it would still work, because it wasn't a science fiction story about technology, it was a battle between two men. <i>Die Hard II</i> (the one where McClain tears up an airport instead of a building), is arguable, could be as good as the original, and I think it was. Some may disagree. "Grand Theft Auto III" was a real improvement over "Grand Theft Auto II", which was a 2D flat game. Most remakes and sequels suck because the ideas aren't there or they'd have made a new work instead of trying to cash in on something already there. It's a lot of risk to develop a new work - the average professional video game costs as much to make as a Hollywood movie - and game studios often look to reduce risk by either doing licensed versions of other media such as movies or possibly books, or by doing sequels of prior successful works (or possibly sequels of not necessarily successful works, which is another example of stupidity.) [/quote]