The Round Table: 06/27/2010

[The Round Table is designed for gamers to come together to debate the real issues. No silly format wars here. Bring your best debating equipment, set up camp and let the discussion fireworks fly. Let’s make progress, let’s come to a consensus on the biggest issues since our realization that games can be something more. We won’t be debating ‘games iz art’ as that’s now pretty much a ‘yes’; we’re going steps beyond and into harm’s way. This is very touchy territory. There are now real rules to debating in The Round Table, other than one – be nice.]

It was 4-2 to Germany. They were a very superior team, I accept that, but that goal should have been allowed or at least properly moderated. How dare they do that. Germany played one of the best matches I’ve seen and England played one of the worst, but anyway, enough about football/soccer/can’t we just call it “Kicky the ball.”?

Maybe next week we’ll have something sports-themed, or sport-game themed or something. Something! For now, let’s have a ruddy good discussion about a question that has haunted me for the past few months. One that I can’t tackle with my essays, yet, and it’ll be something that could be double-edged.

A world without franchises or sequels. Yes, no? Why?

Half-Life 2, Mass Effect 2, GTA San Andreas, Shadow of the Colossus (to an extent) all stem from ‘sequelitus’, a condition where new innovations are built upon a steady foundation. It’s hard to describe a good sequel, but it’s easy to describe a bad one. Franchises running out of steam are aplenty, just take a look at Sonic, and it’s not exactly good for the industry when our treasured icons start dying like flies.

I don’t know what to answer, but it’s got to be a no. All great films stem from a common foundation, even directors themselves keep their thematics turning and spinning through their works. Maybe if I said yes to this question, I’d be denouncing my favourite film and game at the very same time.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,