Sequels: Gaming’s Cancer?
December 17th, 2008 | Written by Edward Love | Topic: Industry News
Why all the sequels? Seriously. Barely a day goes by without the announcement of a new game that’s been slapped on with a numerical increment. Is our industry so money-focused that we’re forced into buying games that are essentially refinements of their predecessor? Do we really want to digest a formula that has been rinsed and repeated? It seems the masses do.
Sequels sell. Moreover, they’re a safe investment. It’s easy to stick to a formula and attend to the bits people didn’t like. Gears of War 2, for one, fixes the flaws of its older brother and makes for a readily enjoyable experience. But it doesn’t have the same sense of excitement as its sibling. It just isn’t as new.
And herein lies the problem. I’m sick of throwing down my – admittedly lazily accrued – cash and getting something that isn’t a breath of fresh air. Like my working habits, sequels are examples of indolence.
None more so than EA’s Need for Speed series. The publishing behemoth subtly chooses a new name for each installment, so instead of Need for Speed 10, you’re left with Need for Speed Undercover. An inventive trick, but hardly one that masks the repetitive nature of it all. Still, Need for Speed actually works as a cash-cow. It is, afterall, a racing game, and what more can you do than refine the formula? EA has, to their credit, squeezed out about as much material as they can. The fact that they’ll keep going is a testament to their greed more than anything else.
But when it comes to original games; well, I simply want them to stay original. If something explores a hybrid of genres and delivers a new, interesting experience, why dilute the vision? I so often read about developers who claim that a sequel hinges on the sales of the original. That, for me, demonstrates just how tacked on they are.
It takes true courage to do something once and leave it at that. Not only is the experience guaranteed to be more precious, but it shows us that the developers are trying. Take Tim Schafer and Grim Fandango. Despite a clamoring fan-base, he didn’t give in to the demands of a second adventure. On the other hand, Bioshock is being subjected to exactly what I hate. A game brimming with such imagination is the worst case for a sequel. How can Bioshock 2 reach the heights of its brother? I simply don’t know. I don’t think the developers do either.
Yes, I like refinement from time to time, but I don’t want to be slapped with laziness left right and center. If developers can’t be bothered to develop something new, why should they charge us $60? This whole franchise movement makes me sick. Given the direction that videogaming is headed – into the mainstream, I dare say – I can’t see this trend stopping. And to be honest, it’s probably best for the industry; it’ll mean that money is made and our hobby will thrive. But at what cost?
I’m yearning for developers to shy away from churning out sequels and to take longer to craft something new. If a sequel is a must, in the case of Half-Life 2, then at least ensure that the experience is a complete overhaul from the first one. Otherwise, we’re simply being slapped with more of the same.
As for the Sims? Well, that redefines cash cow.
Use Facebook to Comment on this Post
Related posts:
Comment by Edward Love on the December 18th, 2008 at 5:03 am
It just seems to me that everything hinges on money these days. Sure, money makes the world go round, but have developers lost their integrity? Really, I hate tacked on sequels. Worst of all, they're often shipped off to another dev. team to do the dirty work.
I like a good sequel as much as the next guy, and Gears of War 2 is, admittedly, a good sequel, but there are too many of them these days and the whole franchise movement seems like a real cash-in.
Comment by JacobS on the December 18th, 2008 at 8:00 am
It's incredibly easy with games to take the very same structure and transpose it upon the sequel. I mean you're essentially playing the same formula for twenty or thirty hours, so it's not something that the mind gets tired of easily. I think that there is only so much a developer can do in order to improve upon a formula, however, and so people do get tired of it eventually and want something different. Sales will fall down to earth, and a franchise can be so beaten that the developer has to move on to something else.
Sequels can be better than the original if done correctly. Sonic 2 is one example. But if a game is truly unique, then it's going to be hard to find a sequel in there. I think a sequel can work based on two conditions. 1. It's a continuation and features ideas that didn't make it in the original. 2. It's different in tone and gameplay. If a developer is going to make a strict continuation of a game that felt completely satisfying on its own, then I'd question why they're doing it.
Comment by AJMarra on the December 19th, 2008 at 4:53 am
Gaming sure does have a lot of cancer.
Comment by Daniel P. on the December 19th, 2008 at 9:35 am
So much cancer.
Comment by Danreb on the December 19th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Without sequels, there'd be no household names and the industry wouldn't come close to its current size or success.
I understand some sequels just don't live up to the hype, but it's up to the gamer to make that decision.