Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Do Video Game Sequels Suck?
I'm back again, to discuss video games! Marmar posted his top 6 games of all time; my list is considerably longer because I play more video games than marmar, and I also have played a lot of PC games whereas Patrick is relatively new to the scene. I promise you that list is still coming. For now, I'm going to address the more important question: Do video games sequels suck?
First let's look at the evidence. Doom 3 was terrible compared to Doom 1/2. (Doom 2 was basically an expansion pack, so I won't count Doom 2 as it's own game). Half-Life 2 wasn't terrible, but it wasn't the leap that Half-Life 1 was. Homeworld 2 was mediocre compared to Homeworld. Deus Ex 2 was also mediocre compared to Deus Ex. Knights of the Old Republic 2 is not living up to its predecessor, apparently. Wind Waker, Majora's Mask, Super Mario Sunshine. Sims 2, Halo 2, Mario 2, SimCity 3000/4 to name a few.
Of course I am being pessimistic. There are several examples of sequels being better than their originals: Civilization 2, SimCity 2000, Warcraft 2, Mario 3, Morrowind, Grand Theft Auto 3.
And then there are those that manage to keep the pace: Warcraft 3, Smash Bros. Melee, Wing Commander 3, TIE Fighter, Diablo 2, Gran Turismo 3.
This isn't an all inclusive list; if you can think of more, I'll gladly post them. Or just make your argument in a comment. Anyway, the list points to the fact that any given sequel has a 50% chance of being worse than the predecessor, and only about a 25% chance of being better. I'd say those odds agree with what I've seen.
Things I've noticed:
-If the game is truly revolutionary, it's pretty hard for the sequel to top it: Half-Life falls in this list, as does Mario 64, and arguments could be made for Zelda 64, Doom 1, Homeworld, and SimCity 2000, and I might give a nod to the Sims; even though I personally got sick of it, it really did revolutionize the industry. When a game really does things that are totally new, it becomes hard to duplicate: awesome ideas only come around once in a while, and it's just a matter of odds that it would happen twice in the same gaming line.
-Raised expectations: This is sort of tied into the first point, but it's hard for a game to live up to the hype. Half-Life 2 would be considered a great game by almost any standards, except for Half Life 1. Instead it is merely a good game. Doom 3, however, would suck, even if it had been called "Monsters on Mars". The fact that it was Doom 3 made it a colossal letdown.
-If it ain't broke, you've still gotta fix it rule: This is a really tough one. People learn to stick with what got them there. Unfortunately, the video game is still an incredibly quickly evolving art, and what worked 2 years ago usually doesn't work anymore. So it's tough to balance to give what the fans want, while also innovating enough to step up the genre. Look at Half-Life 2. Other than the physics engine, was there anything at all new in that game in terms of gameplay? No, not really. It was still just a "run through the maze and shoot" game. Doom3 was still a "run through the maze and shoot" game as well, and a terrible one at that. Almost ALL the games on the 'worse' list were just graphical updates of the predecessor. That isn't going to get you to transcendent status.
-Don't hope that one gimmick will differentiate your sequel from any other game: Half-Life 2 had its physics, Doom 3 had its flashlight, Halo 2 had dual-wielding weapons, Majora's Mask had time travel, Mario 2 had multiple characters. The same game plus one gimmick usually is an easy recipe; you can see why lots of games follow this path. But it isn't going to get you to transcendent.
So how do you make sure you stay revolutionary? Well, it helps if your name is Blizzard. In fact, Blizzard has now cemented its status as the ONLY company that live up to the hype. It helps that it's a giant in the industry, and it also helps that it has a dedicated group of fans that will buy its games no matter what. But you know what? They've earned that status. Warcraft 2 was much better than Warcraft 1, Starcraft was much better than Warcraft 2, Diablo 2 was better than Diablo 1, and although I won't go so far as to say Warcraft 3 was better than Starcraft, they did a good job of evolving the genre and taking risks. World of Warcraft has no predecessor, but it's widely believed to be the best MMORPG (massively multiplayer online role-playing game) out there, and this is their first attempt at one. Blizzard just knows how to make games, period.
For all the non-Blizzardites, (and of course there are some other high quality development studios out there: Bioware, Maxis, to name 2), what can they do? They can't take the risks that Blizzard can, because a flop for many of the smaller studios means going out of business. And if they do manage to strike gold with a first one, it's easier just to rehash the original, and make money off the original's name. That way you can stay in business long enough to perhaps make another game.
Some games can survive the mere graphical update. Those games are rare: Smash, Civ 2, SimCity 2000. The thing with these games is that the gameplay is SO good, that the only thing there is to do is improve the graphics. It's like tetris; how can you improve tetris? You can't. Attempts at 3D tetris, or super tetris have failed miserably. You'll know if you come up with a game like this, because people won't even be able to copy it.
So the answer is no. Not all sequels suck. Any other games that break the rules I've laid out?
First let's look at the evidence. Doom 3 was terrible compared to Doom 1/2. (Doom 2 was basically an expansion pack, so I won't count Doom 2 as it's own game). Half-Life 2 wasn't terrible, but it wasn't the leap that Half-Life 1 was. Homeworld 2 was mediocre compared to Homeworld. Deus Ex 2 was also mediocre compared to Deus Ex. Knights of the Old Republic 2 is not living up to its predecessor, apparently. Wind Waker, Majora's Mask, Super Mario Sunshine. Sims 2, Halo 2, Mario 2, SimCity 3000/4 to name a few.
Of course I am being pessimistic. There are several examples of sequels being better than their originals: Civilization 2, SimCity 2000, Warcraft 2, Mario 3, Morrowind, Grand Theft Auto 3.
And then there are those that manage to keep the pace: Warcraft 3, Smash Bros. Melee, Wing Commander 3, TIE Fighter, Diablo 2, Gran Turismo 3.
This isn't an all inclusive list; if you can think of more, I'll gladly post them. Or just make your argument in a comment. Anyway, the list points to the fact that any given sequel has a 50% chance of being worse than the predecessor, and only about a 25% chance of being better. I'd say those odds agree with what I've seen.
Things I've noticed:
-If the game is truly revolutionary, it's pretty hard for the sequel to top it: Half-Life falls in this list, as does Mario 64, and arguments could be made for Zelda 64, Doom 1, Homeworld, and SimCity 2000, and I might give a nod to the Sims; even though I personally got sick of it, it really did revolutionize the industry. When a game really does things that are totally new, it becomes hard to duplicate: awesome ideas only come around once in a while, and it's just a matter of odds that it would happen twice in the same gaming line.
-Raised expectations: This is sort of tied into the first point, but it's hard for a game to live up to the hype. Half-Life 2 would be considered a great game by almost any standards, except for Half Life 1. Instead it is merely a good game. Doom 3, however, would suck, even if it had been called "Monsters on Mars". The fact that it was Doom 3 made it a colossal letdown.
-If it ain't broke, you've still gotta fix it rule: This is a really tough one. People learn to stick with what got them there. Unfortunately, the video game is still an incredibly quickly evolving art, and what worked 2 years ago usually doesn't work anymore. So it's tough to balance to give what the fans want, while also innovating enough to step up the genre. Look at Half-Life 2. Other than the physics engine, was there anything at all new in that game in terms of gameplay? No, not really. It was still just a "run through the maze and shoot" game. Doom3 was still a "run through the maze and shoot" game as well, and a terrible one at that. Almost ALL the games on the 'worse' list were just graphical updates of the predecessor. That isn't going to get you to transcendent status.
-Don't hope that one gimmick will differentiate your sequel from any other game: Half-Life 2 had its physics, Doom 3 had its flashlight, Halo 2 had dual-wielding weapons, Majora's Mask had time travel, Mario 2 had multiple characters. The same game plus one gimmick usually is an easy recipe; you can see why lots of games follow this path. But it isn't going to get you to transcendent.
So how do you make sure you stay revolutionary? Well, it helps if your name is Blizzard. In fact, Blizzard has now cemented its status as the ONLY company that live up to the hype. It helps that it's a giant in the industry, and it also helps that it has a dedicated group of fans that will buy its games no matter what. But you know what? They've earned that status. Warcraft 2 was much better than Warcraft 1, Starcraft was much better than Warcraft 2, Diablo 2 was better than Diablo 1, and although I won't go so far as to say Warcraft 3 was better than Starcraft, they did a good job of evolving the genre and taking risks. World of Warcraft has no predecessor, but it's widely believed to be the best MMORPG (massively multiplayer online role-playing game) out there, and this is their first attempt at one. Blizzard just knows how to make games, period.
For all the non-Blizzardites, (and of course there are some other high quality development studios out there: Bioware, Maxis, to name 2), what can they do? They can't take the risks that Blizzard can, because a flop for many of the smaller studios means going out of business. And if they do manage to strike gold with a first one, it's easier just to rehash the original, and make money off the original's name. That way you can stay in business long enough to perhaps make another game.
Some games can survive the mere graphical update. Those games are rare: Smash, Civ 2, SimCity 2000. The thing with these games is that the gameplay is SO good, that the only thing there is to do is improve the graphics. It's like tetris; how can you improve tetris? You can't. Attempts at 3D tetris, or super tetris have failed miserably. You'll know if you come up with a game like this, because people won't even be able to copy it.
So the answer is no. Not all sequels suck. Any other games that break the rules I've laid out?
# posted by Stuart @ 10:40 PM 
