Variety Friday: Sequels
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 1:02AM Jake Livak 
E3 is just around the corner, and I could be doing another one of those “E3 Prediction” articles which are all over the internet as this week’s Variety Friday….well I’m not. Instead I am going to talk about a more general topic, Sequels, how they can be good, and how they can be bad. Seemed appropriate with all the sequels being announced in the next week.
As far as sequels go, you can pretty much classify them into three categories, ones that are made solely by studios for money, ones to continue a story in a trilogy or etc., and long overdue sequels. So, first I will talk about the sequels which are mostly done for money. In my personal opinion, these include Call of Duty, and even Assassin’s Creed. What makes this type unique is how there is nearly always a new title every year, and how the mechanics usually don’t differ that much.
The reason these are generally made is because they are a well known IP and the developers, and more importantly, the publishers and investors, knows that they will make money. Why these are bad for the industry is that these types of games can only advance so far, add so many features before they pretty much are reskinning the same game over, and over again. Also, as more and more of the same, repetitive game comes out; the market will grow less and less, an example being Call of Duty. I’ve been talking to a few friends who aren’t getting MW3 because they have had enough of the same repetitive game, and I agree with them. But I have also talked to other people who are buying the game solely because it is a Call of Duty game. Basically, COD is no longer just a shooter, but more of a sports game, because a new one comes out yearly with small changes and a large fan base who buys every game.
The second type is games which require sequels, such as the Mass Effect and Half-Life. What makes these games different is how people want the sequels, because they advance the story and the game, or in other cases, the lore of the world. But, unlike the previously mentioned sequels, these have more room for innovation and changing the game, such as in Mass Effect. The original was a lot more RPG based, while the 2nd one was more shooter based and open to other gamers, and it worked to bring more into the series. But, it doesn’t always work, like in the case of Dragon Age 2. They tried to open the game up to more players, but ended up screwing up all the hype there was for the game, and not delivering on bring back the lore of the original Dragon Age.
As long as they don’t overdo these games, or completely screw them up, they can make great games and series’ and they really show what sequel should be. They should be an expansion of the original game’s world, focusing on the story and the lore. These are good for the industry as they help not only advance in forms of innovation, but story telling. Yet, they can be very bad when you screw up a pre-existing series, a good series.
The third type can either end up as great or horrible games and there usually isn’t that much room for a middle ground. These are series to games that were released years ago and have been in large need of a new game, these are usually great hits because fans have been dying for more, and not only is there much more time for development and polished, but also a lot of time and advances in technology and ways of doing things in the industry. New examples are Duke Nukem, and Deus Ex: Human Revolution (since Invisible War doesn’t count as a sequel, in my opinion). These types of games can almost be as good for the industry as new IPs. Because they pretty much reinvent great games, and usually/hopefully, become another great game. But the problem results in if the revamped game becomes a success and then they start milking it for money. What makes it successful is it being one great sequel to a great game, and either quit there and wait a few years before making another game, or just taking years to make sure you make one great game.
Though there can be combinations of two of these sequel types. The Assassins Creed series is a mix of yearly releases along with having an advancing story. Or Ghost Recon which is similar to the Call of Duty method, but is more story based and does have more innovation. There are also mixes of progressive story games and long needed sequels, such as The Witcher, the first game came out 4 years ago, and the second recently came out continuing the story, but also advancing on basic elements such as combat. Even games like Batman Arkham City and Prototype 2 fall into the category of continuing the story and lore, but not being instant sequels.
So to recap, I’m not necessarily saying one type of sequel is superior to the other (but the COD type is not) I am just pointing out that the COD version will only hurt itself in time. Older games need to come out with well made sequels, and trilogies need to continue to be what they are, as long as they are good. Next week’s Variety Friday will probably have something more to do with E3, and we will see what that is.
Reader Comments (1)
Really impressed! Everything is very, very clear, open is a description of the problem. It contains the information.
-Louis Vuitton Black Murakami bags from china
UBB