Once again, this is a requested topic, but I like the sound of it, so here goes. Sequels seem a pretty popular thing these days, especially if you work for EA, though I think those are more cash grabs than sequels. I don't think highly of EA in case you can't tell. Anyway, point is, when making a sequel you always have a tricky balance to strike, if the game is too similar to the old one, why would anyone want to buy it? But if you change too much, you're going to alienate the fans. This applies to more than just mechanics mind you, so I'm probably going to touch on that a bit too. Now, example time!
Halo and Halo 2 are, I think, examples of sequels done well. Halo was a good game. Halo 2 was a better game. It kept the same general gameplay, removed health (I think) and added dual wielding. All in all, good changes, it was a natural evolution of the game that re-worked elements that didn't work (a health system which arguably punished mistakes by making the next attempt harder) and added in new elements to improve the core game. Now, my memory goes a little hazy at this stage, but I'm fairly certain it also re-balanced certain parts of the game, so that the multiplayer was generally more fun. Plus, touching on the story for just a moment, it was a natural continuation of the story, it expanded the universe in a way that didn't feel forced, and gave you more of what you expected.
Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 are examples of how I think sequels shouldn't be done. Mass Effect was a very RPG-heavy game, the levelling system was huge, with lots of different things to spend your points on, the gear upgrades were detailed, and the plot was indicative of a huge, galaxy-wide disaster. It was a truly epic space opera. Mass Effect 2's levelling system was watered down, the gear selection was arguably improved, in that it was no longer super pointlessly fiddly, however it was replaced with a tedious resource gathering chore, and the plot was a much more personal exploration of a few squad members, most of whom you'd only just met. Now, don't get me wrong, Mass Effect 2 is a good game. However, it's a bad sequel. It removed the mechanics that didn't seem to work (the gear system and the levelling system) and replaced them with similar, but overall different systems. It didn't feel like an improvement, or a refinement, but rather an entirely new game with tie-overs.
Okay, I'm probably exaggerating a bit about the transition, but I think the point was still made well enough. For a direct sequel to work, keeping the core fundamentals of the gameplay in are essential. HOWEVER, this does bring me to another point, which I'll touch on briefly. I think it's entirely okay to have indirect sequels with completely different gameplay. Halo Wars is an example. It's not a good example mind you, but still. In fact, I think these types of sequels are lovely, and I want to see more of them.
Anyway, I probably did a terrible job of this, but whatever, my thoughts on what makes sequels good or bad.
Pudding Earl.
P.S. Release this week is questionable due to personal life stuff.
You did a pretty good job with your musing. I'm no fan of EA due to the same reasons, ME to ME2 felt like completely different games. DA:Origins to DA2 felt like they took all the mechanics from the first game and literally reversed them. Not to mention EA has a reputation with treating their employee's poorly. I will say though that they did do good on Dead Space and Dead Space 2. DS3, however, could have been better, but it was still pretty good. Anyways, keep up the good work and enjoy yourself! No need to rush anything.
ReplyDelete