Sequel Opportunities

Editorial by: Maverik


Many years ago, there were no video games whatever. And then, someone came up with an idea for a game, and it was done. And a little later, someone else thought up another game idea, and it too was done. Granted, these ideas weren't much more complicated than moving a dot or a line on a screen, but this was progress. And over the years, new ideas for games were created, one after another, growing in complexity as technology improved. It's a nice story.

But one day, someone decided to retain a game idea, and create another game based on the same premise. This was the first-ever game sequel, and presumably it was shown to be such by having the number '2' placed after its name. Naturally, the new game raked in plenty of money and required considerably less effort than coming up with a whole new concept. And (we're getting to the point now) nowadays, there seem to be more sequels than original games. After this lengthy introduction, I now propose to consider this growing trend, and whether it's a Good Thing or a Bad Thing.

Firstly, a lot depends on what you'd call a 'sequel'. There have always been a number of popular characters and franchises - take the Mario series of games, for instance. There have been countless Mario platform titles featuring the agile plumber, spread across all of Nintendo's many game consoles. While a great many of these have been platform games utilising Mario's traditional 'jump on enemies and collect powerups' style, Mario has also been involved in non-platform games, such as the fighting game Super Smash Brothers; the sports titles Mario Golf and Mario Tennis; and the minigame-filled Mario Party games. While all these games do feature Mario, I certainly wouldn't refer to them as sequels of any sort. Rather, they merely use the Mario franchise to add colour, character and interest to the specific game style they represent. And I have no problem with this: it may be said that continually using Mario, rather than creating new characters, is a bit of a cop-out by Nintendo; but equally, the plumber does have a familiar appeal, and his appearance is usually a clear sign of a quality title. It helps to make the game more 'mainstream', and I don't think there's any problem with it.

A slightly more contentious issue revolves around more and more games based on the same characters or situations, in the same genre. Turning again to Mario, and his many appearances in strictly platform games, most of these are definitely of the same style. His most recent platform title, Super Mario 64, still borrows heavily on the elements of his first platform adventure, Super Mario Bros for the NES. The lead character himself; other characters, such as Koopas and Goombahs; the main baddie, Bowser; and Mario's standard jumping attack all feature, and the general look and feel of the game is undeniably similar. This has been common to just about all of Mario's platform games, even though there have always been new features added as Mario changes from console to console.

So, is this a problem? Again, I'd have to say 'no'. Not really. Distinguishing this situation from true sequels, which we'll come to in a moment, the idea of taking a game idea - if it's a good one - forward as technology improves is a perfectly sound one. Provided that developers actually make proper use of the advantages conferred by a new console and advance the game idea as it should be, then such pseudo sequels are also a top idea. There's no sense in scrapping a perfectly good idea after creating it, if a later game on a more advanced machine could make an even better game. Mario 64, for example, may have had much in common with just about every other Mario platformer, but it was a brilliant game, which really revolutionised the genre. The familiarities were vastly outweighed by the new ideas, and the game really triumphed. Whether you call this evolution of ideas a 'sequel' or not, it's still a sensible, and eminently worthwhile, practice. Countless other examples of pseudo sequels can be found - for instance, Starfox 64, F-Zero X, WarCraft II on the PC, and so on. All of these games had their basic roots in earlier titles, but went on to improve and change many of the limitations of these earlier games.

Lastly, I want to consider the most obvious sequels. By this, I mean using the same ideas in a new, and not substantially improved, game. And it's here that the most criticism can be levelled. Using the exact same ideas - often for game after game - can make those ideas grow stale very quickly, and usually there's not much justification for it. Sports games often pull this stunt, such as the numerous FIFA titles, or all the various wrestling games for consoles. If you can call wrestling a sport. But I digress.

Mostly, true sequels are a bit of a waste of time, but there are exceptions. I'd have been the last to complain, for instance, if the sequel to Super Mario 64 had indeed been released for the N64 instead of being delayed for the Gamecube. And I thoroughly enjoyed the excellent Banjo-Tooie, despite it being hugely similar to its predecessor. And let's not forget the other excellent NES Mario platformers which followed the first one. Or the Brood War expansion set for StarCraft on the PC. Or the Zelda 64 sequel, Majora's Mask. Whether or not a sequel succeeds depends largely on whether the original game was revolutionary enough, refined enough, or just addictive enough, to leave gamers hungry for more of the same. In those circumstances, a second game based heavily on the first can minimize development time, while still producing a perfectly good game which is as fun for those who own the original as it is for a new player. If not, then perhaps the developers really ought to think up something that will work.

Tangycheese's response:
For the most part with computer games, it's fair to say that sequels don't tend to be nearly as good as the originals - take, for instance, Extreme G and XG2. That said, there are a few notable exceptions to the rule - for instance, Quake and Quake 2. The real key to sequels is to know when to stop. When the idea is no longer original, and you're left just pumping out the same stuff, don't keep going. Simple as that. Case in point is the film Jaws - admittedly not a computer game, but they should have stopped after the second one. As a result of their continual rehashes, they've actually made the first one look a lot worse, somehow. Sports games in general have a longer life than most others in terms of sequels - ISS has spawned a couple of times and is still going strong - but look at FIFA and how poor that has become. But before we go too far in badmouthing the art of the sequel, let us not forget that were it not for programmers effectively being paid twice for the same job, we wouldn't have all the famous characters out there, such as Mario, Donkey Kong and so on. So let us be ever-grateful to them. Viva la sequel!