As gamers, we play a lot of sequels. It’s just the nature of the beast. And sequels can be a good thing: a good sequel, in gaming, takes what worked from the previous games and overhauls it, adding new mechanics and dynamics. “Batman: Arkham Asylum” was a classic, but “Batman: Arkham City” was even better. “Portal” was a surprise hit; “Portal 2″ was one of the best games Valve has ever released.
On the other hand, there comes a point when sequel fatigue kicks in, and not every sequel is better than the game that comes before it. Teams can rest on their laurels instead of innovating, or worse, chase trends.
So, what do you think? When should a game franchise wrap it up? Or instead of wrapping it up, should a franchise do something else, like switch developers, change focus to a new character, or other ways to keep it fresh?
![[avatar]](http://p.uproxxcdn.com/photo/569/thumb)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/gammasquadpikmin3-150x150.jpg)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/capcoms-new-challenger-tobias-funke-uproxx-150x150.jpg)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/gammasquadlegobatmanmovie-150x150.jpg)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/batman-arkham-origins-gets-a-trailer-for-its-trailer-uproxx1-150x150.jpg)
For this question I think you need to draw a distinction between franchises that are telling a single story over the course of several games (like Mass Effect or Assassin’s Creed) and franchises that keep familiar elements but can play loose with story (like Mario, Zelda, or Final Fantasy). The former should probably stick to its pre-established endpoint, though if the world is interesting enough, I’m not opposed to revisiting it, as long as it doesn’t just rehash the same gameplay. (I wouldn’t mind another Mass Effect game without Shepherd.) The latter can continue pretty much indefinitely, as long as there’s enough new elements to make it feel new.
Other than a few exceptions, story still isn’t the main focus of most video games, so milking a franchise for decades in gaming doesn’t reek of desperation as much as it does in film.
Well said. Franchises need to end either once the story is told or once the world is no longer interesting. If the story is good I’ll keep coming back for as many as they can make.
I think the banner image for this post is actually a good example of a game that still had a compelling world and enough reason to make a second game. It did suffer a bit though because the first game really told all of the story that NEEDED to be told and the second game’s plot felt a bit contrived. That said the game was very good and would have been fantastic as a stand alone title had it been the first in the series.
mudflaps —
Bioshock is a special example because the original was so brilliant in both setting and story. Rapture is one of the most imaginative and rich video game worlds ever conceived, so naturally the creators would want to return to it. But the story didn’t match the setting at all, so the whole thing felt like a letdown. Ironically, if the first game was less brilliant storywise, we’d probably still be getting sequels set in Rapture.
Say what you will about the Call of Duty franchise, but I could play Estate Takedown every day for the rest of my life without getting tired of it.
It’s impossible to answer this question with a pat easy answer. Clearly there are games that are offering us pretty crappy sequels and there are games that are making stellar ones. If the story is good in a sequel but the gameplay mechanics suck, then it wasn’t worth the effort. Likewise if you improve the game mechanics but fail on the story (Mass Effect 3), it’s also considered a letdown. I think this is one of those things that will only be apparent in hindsight.
Stars Wars: The Force Unleashed II is a great example of the second problem you mention. The first game had an interesting story and characters–it’s sad that the acting and dialogue was generally better in this video game than they were in the Star Wars prequel movies, but I digress. But the game was marred by some bad controls. Instead of fixing the controls, LucasArts made a sequel with better graphics and controls. Unfortunately, the “canon” ending (the one that doesn’t conflict with the Star Wars movie canon and on which the sequel is based) of the first game didn’t really pave the way for a sequel, so they came up with an awful, uninteresting story for the second game, and the bosses, regular enemies, and level design were repetitive, uninspired, and boring. If they could mix the graphics and controls of the sequel (minus the dual-lightsaber combat, which was a bit over-the-top imo) with story, dialogue, and gameplay of the original, they’d finally have a game that lived up to the hype surrounding the original in the first place.
I guess the moral of the story is that sequels should still appeal to gamers for the same reasons the original games did, at least to a good extent, while also adding to or improving on the aspects of the originals.
In my opinion (obviously), there are a few requirements that must be met before you start churning out sequels. The combat and base mechanics have to be good. The world should be interesting, with individual plots that can be addressed in each game and overall plots that take many games to flesh out. Also, not just focusing on one character, or a specific area definitely helps. Fallout is a good example. Each game has a new protagonist in a different environment. Individual stories, with an overall plot that adds to the games lore. Warcraft is a good example of this for an RTS. It told the story of Azeroth. From the orcish invasion to Arthas taking his place on the frozen throne. A bit off topic, but world of warcraft was the worst thing that ever happened to Warcraft fans. The series is essentially over and if it ever comes back who the hell is going to recognize it if they never played WoW?
Games can also get caught up in trying to add to a sequel when its not necessary. I’m looking at you Assassins Creed and Dragon Age 2. Remember as Leonard Nimoy said “A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.” (thats a civilization joke and a good segue to my next point).
Innovation. Games can and will grow stale if they don’t innovate. Take Civilization for example, as much as everyone loved the stacks of doom in 4, you have to admit that there wasn’t much depth or strategy to sticking 50 units on a hill and pounding a city into submission. So you have to have a certain respect for the developers when they change a fundamental aspect of the game because they know in the end it will be better for everyone. Without that change I’m sure the developers saw Civilization 5 as the first game that would lead to the decline of the series.
As for when a game should wrap it up. They should wrap it up when there is no more story to tell or the sequels have little to nothing in common with original, again I’m looking at you Dragon Age 2.
Executive Summary:
- Good base (controls, fundamentals)
- Good story (individual and overall arcs)
- Innovation, but not innovation for the sake of innovation
- Zip it up and zip it out
- If you read all that, I thank you.
If the sequel comes out within 18 months of the previous game, it’s going to probably be the same repetitive game and story (Sports games and COD, I’m looking in your direction).
Yep, although the Assassin’s Creed games all manage to be pretty solid (imo) despite their narrowly staggered releases. But they are exceptional in that.
Hot Damn! Good points all.
I really dont have much to add other than to say I would love to see Bioware revisit the Mass Effect universe but I know EA will just water it down into another 3rd person shooter cash-grab. Which is a shame because after finally going back and playing the first one (I finally jumped into the series about a year ago) for the first time, it really shocked me at just how much of the more innovative parts of the Game’s world was chopped out at the expense of the re-tooled powers and combat. And also, I’m sure, to shorten the development time so EA could push it out faster.
The writing and the overall story really became quite different (ie: lazy, derivative, hole-filled, etc) and the difference between Bioware Pre- EA takeover and Post made me really disappointed in regards to how much richer the sequels could’ve been.
On the opposite end of that is one of the reasons I have such love for Rockstar. Over and over again I hear things from that studio like Dan Hauser (co-founder) saying “I think we succeeded precisely because we didn’t concentrate on profit… If we make the sort of games we want to play, then we believe people are going to buy them.” -(Famitsu Oct 2011)
This attitude couldn’t be more opposite of what companies like Activision and EA are about and I have a lot more respect for them because of that.
Here’s the CEO of EA talking about their strategies to nickle and dime the shit out of you:
[youtu.be]
I can’t come up with any hard-and-fast rules, other than that a game should only get a sequel if there’s another good story to tell, whether it’s a continuation of the same story with the same characters and everything, or just set in the same world (hopefully a world that’s special in some way). No, wait, that would rule out the Mario games. Okay, keep that rule, but only apply it to games that are actually story driven.
Hmm.
You know, I’m not really as opposed to sequels as some people are (or claim to be). It’s an unfortunate reality that sequels almost always do better financially than completely original titles, and I’m overall okay with that. Publishers can do what they’ve gotta do in that regard. And as I keep trying to think of rules to make here, I keep shooting them down as bullshit. So, I’ll just be simple by way of vagueness: if you release a sequel that doesn’t change anything significantly from its immediate predecessor (level design, gameplay mechanics, quality of writing; graphics don’t count unless we’re talking a whole new console generation or something), then you’re not allowed to release another sequel until you do come up with such a change.
No, dammit, that’s not right either. If they can tell good stories game after game or maintain top-notch level design, then change isn’t really necessary to justify sequels. I mean, it’d be nice if good level design or writing got put to use in new franchises instead of sequels, but again, I accept the fiscal realities there. So, simpler, vaguer: if you make two bad games in a row, you’ve gotta shut the franchise down for at least 5 years. There, I can live with that one.