What decides when a game are a sequel and when is it just milking a franchise?


  • Global Moderator

    I would say the biggest examples of milking a series tend to come with the concept of side stories or "Gaiden" stories.

    For me milking of a franchise requires a few things, first it has to be popular, second, the output has to be mostly irrelevant to the central games.

    The assassins creed side scrolling games are good examples, they tell stories that do weave into the main plot, but are really more set dressing than anything else. Other more infamous examples include Konami's shameless conversion of their franchises into pachinko games.

    The criteria I put out aren't the sole means of judging a game's milky-ness, and I'll admit that it's a complex alchemy sometimes



  • Mobile Spin-offs.


  • Global Moderator

    personally I sometimes feel like they can add some "cool new features". However the story adds absolutely nothing and that makes me stop playing after a short while! Like with Halo 4, there were some really cool new looking enemies, weapons, enviorments etc.. however the more I played it the more I just thought "but the real conflict has already finished, this is kinda dull".



  • What really helps long running franchises is a do-over button. A fresh start that doesn't require a reboot. Zelda and Final Fantasy do this by abandoning continuity. Elder Scrolls games do this by placing each game in a completely different setting with a new cast of characters each time, despite holding continuity with their predecessors. Those are also all decidedly perennial games, as others have mentioned.



  • SImple, when sequel is simply more of the same things we had in previous installment. No innovation, no new mechanics, no twists. Just "new setting" or "new story" or "new maps" isn't enough to be a true sequel in my eyes. Of course, even if you do add more stuff to it, but you keep releasing them year after year, with no truly game changing stuff, it's just milking the same cash cow. This is why even when it was repetitive at the time, AC4 felt like a true sequel, because of the focus on naval combat etc. then series took step backwards with unity, and now the franchise finally took a break.



  • Does the game NEED to be made?
    That is how I felt about Assassins Creed Revelations, Batman Arkham Origins, almost every Treyarch made CoD, Dark Souls 2, and probably a bunch of other shit I'm forgetting.


  • Global Moderator

    @El-Shmiablo said in What decides when a game are a sequel and when is it just milking a franchise?:

    Does the game NEED to be made?
    That is how I felt about Assassins Creed Revelations, Batman Arkham Origins, almost every Treyarch made CoD, Dark Souls 2, and probably a bunch of other shit I'm forgetting.

    I agree a lot! AC Revelations I really had to force myself through, by the end I had no interest in the characters or why I killed the ones I did, I simply did it to progress, I have only been bothered with the Black ops CoDs, this due to zombie mode, however my girlfriend LOVES each new part and almost have a yearly standing order on each new one.

    On the other side of the coin, with Dishonored, I really feel that with the sequel they could litterly just given me a new/bigger setting and a couple of more knock out tools and I would still be there day one, even though I have played it through both on PS3 and PS4 + all the DLC.



  • In worse scenerio of milking if game become yearly iteration like assassins creed and call of duty.

    even if my fav franchise like deus ex and half life become yearly iteration i will start hating it.



  • I'm a big Ass Creed fan but I'm very relieved that I'm not going to see the next part of the story this year.

    Franchise fatigue can seriously kill interest. Game publishers or whatever table is deciding to push for more should not take this lightly.

    I'm sure Call of Duty is still fun but after losing interest with Black Ops it's just difficult to want to go back to it.



  • Milking a franchise exists if the sequels become progressively worse each iteration.

    Like everyone's Ass Creed example, I think AC2 was the pinnacle. All of the AC2 sequels just added garbage that ruined the original gameplay (call in buddies to trivialize content, some stupid tower defense garbage). Changing locales weren't interesting either, as AC3 was pretty bad imo, especially with such a drab character.

    Then comes AC4, in which they get it when it comes to changing up the gameplay. The Pirate ship part made AC4 so unique and cool while the assassination takes a more sidelined approach. Then back to boring, uninspired garbage in AC Unity and 5.

    It's only milking if you're just putting out poor effort after the peak.