Why All The Sequels?

Yes yes yes, that's all good'n dandy, but everyone knows the reputation of possibly being Oblivion in a post apacolyptic setting is what made FO3 such a day-one-super-seller-smash-hit.

Bethesda fanboys who loved Oblivion was the primary market of FO3, of that I have no doubt, simply because there aren't millions of Fallout 1-2 fans out there. The only possible relationship the millions of new fans could have to FO3 is through Bethesda's previous titles, especially the one that happens to use the exact same engine.

I consider FO3 a good game by the way, so I'm not actually bashing it, nor do I consider it Oblivion with guns (it's far better than Oblivion). I was merely responding to Tragos commenting on people not buying FO3 due to Oblivion, when in reality Oblivion certainly increased the overall sales of FO3 by a lot (millions possibly).

Edit: Where did those millions of console fans come from (as far as I know, FO3 has sold roughly 3,5-4 million copies on consoles alone)? Two words: Bethesda. Oblivion.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,586
Location
Bergen
"Lack of fresh ideas" is certainly not one of the reasons. There are masses of ideas which are simply not greenlit.

IMO some reasons for the sequel flood are in no particular order:
  • Sequels are cheaper to produce
  • Sequels are much easier to market
  • Sequels have a built-in audience
  • Sequels are easier to calculate and "explain" to investors
  • The majority of the target audience wants MOTS. That's a fact.
  • Innovative games only rarely sell well.
  • Sequels are less risky due to more experience.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
7,830
Fallout 3 sold more than then the prequels because..

1.) It was on 3 different platforms.
2.) It had a larger base of gamers compared to 1997-98
3.) It was far more "accessible".
4.) It had *far* more advertising than the earlier games.

Of course you can believe whatever you like, but FO3 would likely still have outsold the prequels regardless if Oblivion had ever existed.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,337
Location
Florida, US
Re the Baldur's Gate thing, wasn't it hammered into us ad nauseam that Dragon Age is the "Spiritual successor" to BG? Although not a sequel, they sure as hell still tried to ride the bandwagon for whatever it was worth.

Btw, talking of sequels - I've been out of things the last few months, but whatever's happened to all the fanfare surrounding the supposed upcoming release of Diablo 3 ; so it's been postponed now to 2011, has it?
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
744
JDR13 said:
It wasn't marketed as ""Oblivion with guns" though, that was a phrase used by people who *didn't* like the game.
Click to expand...


Petes Hines said it's not Oblivion with guns, and some time later that it is Oblivion with guns (or it was the other way around? Who cares).

Just saying, I don't really care.
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
730
Maylander said:
Yes yes yes, that's all good'n dandy, but everyone knows the reputation of possibly being Oblivion in a post apacolyptic setting is what made FO3 such a day-one-super-seller-smash-hit.

Bethesda fanboys who loved Oblivion was the primary market of FO3, of that I have no doubt, simply because there aren't millions of Fallout 1-2 fans out there. The only possible relationship the millions of new fans could have to FO3 is through Bethesda's previous titles, especially the one that happens to use the exact same engine.

I consider FO3 a good game by the way, so I'm not actually bashing it, nor do I consider it Oblivion with guns (it's far better than Oblivion). I was merely responding to Tragos commenting on people not buying FO3 due to Oblivion, when in reality Oblivion certainly increased the overall sales of FO3 by a lot (millions possibly).

Edit: Where did those millions of console fans come from (as far as I know, FO3 has sold roughly 3,5-4 million copies on consoles alone)? Two words: Bethesda. Oblivion.
Click to expand...


Reasonable response , so F03 didn't sell well because it was a sequel to previous F0s but because it used same engine and mechanics(?) with a totally different game.
So your point is that it was a success because it was a sequel only in name?
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
1,439
Location
Athens (the original one)
It was a success primarily because Bethesda is Bethesda, and anything they develop at this point will sell millions. Similar to Blizzard.

Don't get me wrong, both of them make good games (their reputation is well earned), and their name alone will make sure a game sells.

As I stated back when we were discussing FO3 (before it was released), I honestly doubt Bethesda bought the Fallout franchise to get any free marketing or a free fanbase to begin with - their own fanbase is considerably bigger than Fallout's fanbase. I can only see one reason for Bethesda buying and developing the Fallout franchise: They actually love the setting and want to keep it alive, both by developing games in that setting of their own, and letting others do work on it (i.e Obsidian and New Vegas).
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,586
Location
Bergen
Bethesda fanbase + Fallout fanbase > Bethesda fanbase

Expanding your fanbase can never hurt.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
231
That is true, but they bought it for the sum of $5.750.000, which is a rather large sum just to sell a few extra copies. You can do quite a lot of marketing for that price, especially considering the fantastic Bethesda hype machine.

Then again, it's fairly obvious they wanted to do more than just make Fallout 3 to piss on Black Isle's heritage. They wanted to revive the franchise, bring it back from the dead, and develop it into something as massive as the Elder Scrolls. Compared to the Elder Scrolls, $5.750.000 is not as much as it may sound.

All I'm trying to say: Fallout 3 sold more copies because of Oblivion, not less, which was implied earlier in the thread. :)
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,586
Location
Bergen
Maylander said:
All I'm trying to say: Fallout 3 sold more copies because of Oblivion, not less, which was implied earlier in the thread. :)
Click to expand...

I accept that i was wrong posting against it although it is a bit of paradox that FO3 did well as a sequel of OB , i am still not sure how successful would be as a sequel of FO2 .
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
1,439
Location
Athens (the original one)
It's simple. Money. Known titles bring sales and money more easily. Making a new Intellectual Property means risk and risk is the word that many distributers don't love much.
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
1,181
Location
Sigil
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom