Extra Consideration

Extra Consideration
The Good, the Bad, and the Sequel

Extra Consideration | 29 Aug 2011 18:00
Extra Consideration - RSS 2.0

As publishers and gamers become less willing to embrace entirely original properties, sequels have become an inevitable fact of life in the videogame business. But do they deserve our scorn or our praise? To find out, we asked three of our contributors to discuss the issue over email.

imageYahtzee Croshaw
Well, why don't I kick this one off by saying that sequels often represent a lot of what I hate about the games industry today. Too often the decision to make one is rooted entirely in business than any consideration of whether or not the story demands it. There has never been a case of a sequel being better than the original if the original had an entirely self-contained story and no sequel hook, unless (in the case of games) there's a significant technology upgrade between titles that allows for stronger gameplay. And that's just gameplay, not story.

Sequels are a symptom of a larger problem within the games industry, which is that the fans latch onto franchises rather than developers. It's a result of an increasingly corporate culture that designs more and more games by committee and has less and less emphasis on exposing or crediting individual creators. Most people tend to go "Oh, another Gears of War, I will check it out because I liked previous Gears of War." Rather than "Oh, a game by Cliffy B. I will check it out because I enjoyed Cliffy B's previous works." It shackles creators to single properties rather than giving them opportunities to explore their other big ideas. And this doesn't seem to happen as much in the film industry. Everyone knew that Inception was by Christopher Nolan, and everyone went to see it because The Dark Knight was good.

I'll admit upfront to being kind of an "easy lay" for the whole sequel/franchise concept - I'm exactly the sort of organization-fixated nerd that LOVES my fiction in movies, games, TV, etc to have some kind of running continuity so that I have THAT much more of a reason to obsess over it.

But that's more on the movie/TV side. Sequels in gaming are kind of a different beast altogether, aren't they? Because it's not 'just' story-continuity that's the selling point, but also "setting" and overall design-scheme. In fact, when I look at gaming it's all pretty arbitrary whether something is a "sequel" or a "spiritual successor" - Bioshock pretty-much IS System Shock 3, even though it's not called that officially.

What's frustrating is, I see sequels - even "in name only" - in gaming as a GREAT way, maybe even the BEST way, for a developer to get new, fresh, even experimental ideas out into the marketplace... but often it leads to the opposite result. In theory, the fact that putting the title of a previous game that sold well plus a number 2 on your game will probably garauntee you a certain solid baseline of sales should be LIBERATING for a developer: "Sure, we can afford to try out this risky new gameplay idea - it's Blankety-Blank Whatever TWO! We're gonna sell a billion units on the name alone!" But instead, you tend to see the opposite happening. I feel like that "ideal" approach used to be more common back in the early console era - i.e. the first Castlevania being a basic platformer and the second one is an open-world side-scrolling action-RPG. When was the last time someone looked at a garaunteed-seller sequel as the place to take a risk? Wind Waker? And even then the overhaul, however massive, was purely visual.

On the other hand, the "forced" cranking-out of a lot of sequels can - under the right circumstances - have the effect of refining a formula. Why do people still hold Mega Man in such esteem, aside from the fact that Capcom has been continually making sequels to it since the early-80s and by now are really, REALLY effing good at it? You look at something like Mario Galaxy and wonder, "how did they make something this big, with this much variety, so damn tightly-constructed?" Well, the answer is that those guys have been making 'Mario' sequels one after the other nonstop since 1984 - Galaxy basically had a 25 year development cycle.

I can agree up to a point with Yahtzee re: "franchises" getting too much focus - or, rather, developers not getting enough... though I wonder how you go about "fixing" that problem. I hear people in and around the games business often talk of wishing there were more "name-brand" developers or "superstar" developers; but I'm not sure that's THAT much better - game-development being such a heavily collaborative process, is following one "name" (like Peter Molynuex, for example) from game to game so different from following Master Chief or Sonic?

imageJim Sterling
I'll say one thing for videogame sequels, they have a better track record than movies. This is, of course, because a game can still be great despite having a weak story. Yahtzee seems almost to underplay that fact, but I think it's very important. These are, after all, videogames, and while I consider gaming to have potential as a superior narrative medium, one cannot deny that a good game is a good game -- if it's fun, it's aaaaaaalright. In this regard, technological and graphical enhancements can lead to games becoming superior with further iterations. I'd argue this even holds true for story as well -- as franchises grow and make more money, studios can afford actual writers, as opposed to cobbling together a shitty story themselves. Let's face facts -- Resident Evil 4 is far better written than the original Resident Evil. It's still camp, for sure, and it's very silly, but it is at least coherent, which is a big step up for the series.

I have to disagree with the notion that there have been no superior sequels to self-contained stories. The original Silent Hill, despite typifying the "psychological" brand of survival horror, wasn't all that great, and its dialog was on par with the original Resident Evil ("What's going on with that radio?"). It was a pretty self-contained story, too. Silent Hill 2, however, is my favorite game of all time. Superbly written, gorgeously depressing, just a beautiful game all around. Of course, it existed in a narrative bubble itself, which helps, but the direct sequel, Silent Hill 3, was also better than the first. An engaging lead character, an atmosphere that was more disturbing than anything else seen in the series, and a really unique story propelled by an intriguing villain. Far more enjoyable, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree that we can go too far though, and some stories are best left alone. BioShock 2 was a great game to play, but it was a story that didn't need to be told, and the retroactive exposition was incredibly unbelievable (I can't buy Sophia Lamb as an important Rapture resident when no reference to her is found in the original). However, BioShock Infinite is exactly the kind of thing I wish more games would do -- in which the name of a series is continued for obvious business reasons, but the story is entirely different. This was a formula that Final Fantasy became quite famous for, and it's something I wanted from BioShock the moment talk of a sequel started. I want a sequel that carries the name brand and some running themes, but has a self-contained narrative that doesn't screw with the original.

Comments on