Relax, you're reading way too much into my posts. I'm not having a charged reaction, I'm not pissed, angry, upset, or ready to form a lynch mob. I'm not against a Witcher 4 sequel. I'm not for Witcher 4 sequel (I haven't played the games so I can't comment). I'm not for or against sequels in general. I'm not worrying about hypothetical scenarios; the example was just meant as an illustration about how some people react when they hear their favourite company is working on a new title instead of a sequel.

What I am is simply curious: some people seem to fanatically want to see a sequel for their favourite game. They're willing to accept it even if story/setting/gameplay/mechanics and whatnot are completely unrelated just as long as the name is same. And I am genuinly curious why they'd think making such a sequel is better than making a completely new game altogether.

EDIT:
OK, I read my post that you quoted. That "you" wasn't meant to you; it was a generic you. And the example as I said was just illustrative: I wasn't didn't mean that would be the general reaction to the hypothetical announcement, but just wanted to show what kind of people I had in mind.

So, re-read that post as:
"That's an example of what I've written above. Why would someone want a game with none of the characters and a completely different universe to be called Witcher 4? I can't see why some people would react happily if Witcher 4 was to take place for example in a parallel universe called Erba 200 years in the future, but be disappointed if the same game was called Hero of Fire instead? It's the same frikin game."
Better now?

No. No more: "Plow the elves", or "Death to the sister-fucker"! Even the best of things somewhere have to end. Excessive milking and unnatural prolonging is one-way ticket to watering down the quality and sure to dim out the legend. 3 titles are perfect for a great series like this one! And with all DLCs in the picture, too; the 2 episodes of main game 3, equal to a full game of the length, playtime and proportions of witcher 2 itself!

Ah, ok. Here's my take on that then.

Some games give us good experiences, some bad experiences, some great experiences, and some a mixture. If a game gives me a relatively good experience and I'm happy with what the developers produced then I'm going to generally be happy to hear of them working on a sequel to the game, because my expectations are always going to be that they'll produce future products as good or better than what I've already experienced, so I look forward to seeing what they have to offer that builds upon what I've experienced already.

Some other people see things very differently, such as through a mindset that if something was fantastic, then it can not possibly be improved upon and that even attempting to do so is very risky and not worthwhile to even try. They essentially conclude ahead of time that something will be garbage before it is even completely thought of yet, so they resist the idea of it ever being produced because it wont live up to their expectations. There is no right or wrong way to think about this stuff though, everyone's experience is different and that's ok.

I for one prefer my approach over the latter approach because if a game sequel actually gets produced, then there is a possibility that it too will be awesome and I'll have yet another great gaming experience. It doesn't even have to be "better" than every previous experience, just as long as it is still a great enough experience to me. But if it turns out to be terrible, bad, or just meh, then in the worst case it may have cost me a few bucks - a small price to pay for a gamble on a sequel to a great game or game franchise. However, if I were to think the other way - assuming that a sequel can't possibly be good or that it risks being bad by having to live up to higher than ever expectations and is doomed simply based on that, then if the company feels the same way about it they may never actually bother to make such a sequel and nobody can or will ever actually KNOW whether a great sequel could have ever actually happened, and the world may have ended up robbed of another amazing experience simply due to some combination of developer/publisher/gamer fear.

I'd rather fear and popular opinion not be the basis for how games are developed. I'd rather the creative process be the basis for a game's development, and if a game development team thinks they can continue a story in some manner or another that will be exciting to pursue that path if they think they can accomplish something worthwhile that they'll be proud of and which they believe their fans will largely enjoy.

Worst case we get if a game sequel is bad, is that it is bad. Worst case we get if there never is one, is that we'll never actually know, and we may very well miss out on even greater experiences. Philosophically - "It's better to try and to fail, than to have never tried."

Sadly, emotions and corporate bean-counter-think kick in on top of that with fear etc. and so some games never end up getting sequels no matter what demand there is for them. (ie: Portal 3, Half-life 3)

For some people there is comfort and enjoyment simply from the familiar, and an existing successful game series is quite familiar. We can grow fond ties to games, movies, TV shows, and their characters, their lands and their stories. The thing with new ideas and new stories, is that they don't need to replace existing stories or ideas, but that they can have mutual co-existence. A new story with new characters has to prove itself from scratch and it may be the next greatest thing or it might be a big huge flop. I look forward to Cyberpunk 2077 for example because it looks and sounds rather interesting and I trust the guys at CDPR to make another great game and I think the risks will be low for them for a variety of reasons. But I don't think things like this always have to be a decision of only-A or only-B if they can be A and B. So I look forward to CP2077, but I'd definitely like to see a Witcher game sequel after that also, and to comfortably wait as many years as it might take for it to happen in the mean time, and if it does happen I don't have any preconceived thoughts as to what a future sequel should be other than for them to surprise me with something fantastic.

For the record, I also would like to see another Duke Nukem franchise sequel also. :) I know many people do not feel this way, but I personally enjoyed Duke Nukem Forever like ~= 69% of the rest of the gaming world did (according to Steam's Overall ratings for the game since release) so I'd like to see someone make another sequel. If they do and it is great... awesomesauce. If they make one and it sucks, oh well not a big deal. :)

OK, thanks for the reply. I appreciate the detailed response.

Just some points:

... is not strictly true. It would've been if the company had unlimited resources and could work on as many title as it wishes.

Worst case of a bad sequel is not that it's bad. I don't really mind that much: if it's bad I just ignore it. Worst case of a bad sequel is that the time spent developing it, could have been spent developing a new game, which otherwise we might never see, so as you said "we may very well miss out on even greater experiences".

Exactly my feelings. Only in my case it need not be a sequel. Substitute (A)"a sequel to the game" with (B)"a completely new game" and I'm happy too. Yet I personally know a quite a few people, who are ecstatic when they hear (A) and furious when they hear (B) and it's this kind of people whom I don't understand. Not only that, they'd be happy if a sequel is made by a different company, for which the "I-love-what-they-made" reasoning no longer applies, just because it's a sequel.

People like sequels because they want more of a product they loved. However sometime they don't realize what is it exactly in a product that they loved.
Let's say a company makes a game that is part of a new franchise that's called Superdragon. Now this game has two features:
a) It's a completely new franchise never seen before.
b) It's part of the Superdragon franchise.
Players love the game. Therefore they want more of it. However both (a) and (b) are features of the product they loved. If a sequel Superdragon II is made, it's only going to have feature (b). How do you know it's not feature (a) that made it great?

And finally, there are those franchises that could always use a sequel. Duke Nukem or James Bond come to mind. However there are franchises whose core is a great saga, like Baldur's Gate. And a great saga should have a good beginning and an epic end. If a story is turned into a neverending franchise, that "epic end" part will be missing. By definition. Every saga will feel unfinished if you know anytime a new part might come along and revive it. "Play Superdragon III to find out the ultimate fate of the hero"? Except that this statement would ring false if I know there is no "ultimate fate" because Superdragon IV could come along and change all that.

Anyway, I do like sequels. I just don't feel that they are something that should be blindly applied to any saga. I would love to see Half Life 3. I'd love to see a continuation of Icewind Dale, which I felt could use more of a story. If someone likes to create new Faerun games, why not work on that instead of Baldur's Gate 3?

If we assume that is true for the moment, then why would it only be true with sequels? It would seem to reason that if it were true with sequels that it would be just as likely to be true with brand new original works that are not related to pre-existing franchises as well.

In other words, every game ever made assumes risk. There is always a risk that a game will flop, or that ideas or concepts in a game will be ill received. Those risks are no different in a sequel to an existing franchise than they are to a brand new work.

The reason sequels are appealing to make, whether it is video games, movies or other entertainment, is because the creator of the work knows going in how well the customer base has received the previous title(s) in the franchise and can draw from that valuable knowledge. Likewise, the customer is likely to buy a sequel to a game/movie/whatever if they really enjoyed the previous one(s) in the franchise. We're hard wired this way. If you eat carrots and like them, you're likely to buy them again, and if you watch the first season of Game of Thrones and really enjoyed it then you're much more likely to watch the second season also. The same holds true for video games.

Continuing a story, or creating new stories within an existing franchise capitalizes on this fact, that if people enjoy an entertainment product then they're likely to come back for more. It's a repeat business thing.

While there's no guarantee that any new creative work will be a hit or not, knowing what people like about an existing product can greatly help to extend that to new products in a franchise. There is no guarantee that the people in charge of a sequel will be in the same mind space as those who created the original or previous works in a given franchise, nor that they have the same sets of skills, nor that they understand what elements of the product/story/gameplay/etc. made it a hit - but they do have the data, and if they interpret it correctly and decide to make another product in the given franchise they have part of their work done for them already. As long as they feel there is more story to tell, new experiences to give, etc. and that they're totally capable of putting such together and feel there is a big enough market for it, then it's entirely within the realm of possibility to happen.

Sequels aren't always good, but the way I look at it is if I've personally enjoyed an entire game series, movie series, TV series, book series, etc. then I might very much like to see it continue and will assume it will continue to be enjoyable up until it stops being enjoyable, or until a story completely ends.

For example, Star Wars ended long ago, but now they're making new movies in the franchise. I'm a pretty big Star Wars fan personally, but like most of the planet I was quite interested to see how the new Disney film would go over. I saw it and like the overwhelming majority of people out there, I thought it was fantastic. It did not surprise me that it broke box office records. There will be people that hated it too of course or that never wanted to see it created, or that can go on and on about how badly it sucked or whatever (in their opinions), but none of that matters because the majority of people out there who watched the movie enjoyed it as can be evidenced by the size of Disney's bulging wallet. :)

So I look forward to a Witcher 4 even though some might oppose the idea. Incidentally, I look forward to the future upcoming Witcher movie(s) as well.

As for brand new games/franchises, they'll happen too and if they look appealing then I'd potentially be interested in them too. I don't see it as something to have to choose one over the other exclusively.

CDPR is currently expanding a second studio in Krakow up to 500 employees. We'll see what becomes of that in the coming years. :)


Sure, I just want enjoyable entertainment products. Whether they are completely new or extended franchises doesn't really matter to me if it is interesting to me. However if I previously enjoyed something very much then I'm most likely going to be more excited to hear of a sequel based on past experience with the given franchise. Having said that, I've never played Cyberpunk before and don't know much about it at all. I'm excited about that new franchise simply because CDPR is working on it and the teaser video they did worked. :)

Indeed, like The Witcher series! I'm glad we agree on that! hehehehe :oP

They could easily do exciting sequels to The Witcher I think, and as long as they don't put out a game like "The Witcher vs. Aliens vs. Freddy: Arena Combat VR" then I think we'll be ok with it. :P

i don't think that cdproject would not make new witcher adventures, there so much money to get from a new witcher game. just have some patience.