Back To Special Features
By Contributing Writer Mike Bean I've been getting deja vu a lot lately, and it usually takes the form of "Haven't I played this game before?" All it takes is one stroll down the game aisle in the local store, and you'll see that it's choked with sequels, re-releases, and expansion packs. Am I missing something here? Is it so difficult to actually create games that don't have numbers in their titles? Last year's PC game of the year wasn't a sequel. Half-Life has received awards from many different gaming publications, and it must have paid for its own development a few times over by now. Clearly there is still a demand for original games, but how does the market respond? Within six months, we have two re-releases (Half-Life: Game of the Year Edition and Half Life: Opposing Force) that are out or coming out in the near future, and of course, a sequel is already in development. Admittedly, sequels make a lot of good business sense. After all, sequels already have name recognition before their development even begins, and in an industry where it costs publishers large amounts of money to get their products on store shelves, name recognition counts for a lot. In theory, if the first game in a series bombs, the developers can learn from their mistakes and make the sequel more like the original game was supposed to be. They already know what pitfalls they should avoid. And if the first game was a success, then the developers already know there's a demand, and there is probably some more milk left in the cash cow. Don't mis-understand me; I don't hate sequels. I have spent many joyous hours with quality sequels. Some games, by nature, demand it. There are always new features to add and rosters to update in sports games, making it natural for developers to make a new one every year. The Wing Commander series only became richer and more interesting with each passing game (well, up until Wing Commander 4, anyway). Some games like Alpha Centauri tell stories that their predecessors didn't. Alpha Centauri's core gameplay was very similar to Civilization 2's, but anyone who didn't notice that they weren't on Earth anymore wasn't paying much attention. I have nothing at all against a worthwhile sequel. To me, the true test of whether or not a game is a worthwhile sequel is this simple question: "What does this game add to the series?" All too often, the answer is, "Not much." Video game developers should remember that what's important is not what your product line can do for you, but what you can do for your product line. On any given month, take a look at the release calendar. You can bet good money that the majority of what you're going to see will be a re- release, sequel, or expansion pack. On the PC alone, there's Railroad Tycoon 2, BattleZone Gold, Flight Unlimited 3, NHL 2000, a MechCommander expansion pack, NASCAR Racing 3, Close Combat Trilogy, JetFighter 3 Classic, Prince of Persia 3D, Spec Ops Gold, Armored Fist 3, Dragon's Lair 2, Rage of Mages 2: Necromancer, Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear, Age of Empires 2, and Panzer General 3D. Heck, even Hollywood makes fewer sequels than this! How many of these titles are truly worthwhile sequels? Curiously, there is a demented idea among developers that sequels can encourage buyers to go back and buy the original game. Even if this is true, good luck finding the original game at most video game stores. I'd still like a copy of original System Shock... Hypothetically, if Id Software had developed Quake 3: Arena under any other name (with equal care and effort), I seriously doubt that it would be received poorly. Developers and publishers can usually guarantee themselves at least some return on their investment if they make a sequel to a game that has a reasonably large following. Why build a new path when you can take one you've already traveled? Does "Enhanced graphics, more levels, yadda, yadda yadda" sound familiar to you? What's really ironic is that if developers used even a portion of the effort that goes into the development of sequels and used it on original titles instead, it would lead to more successful original titles, and thus, more material for future sequels. I'm losing interest in keeping an eye out for the latest and greatest sequels, and I hope that one day, original games are the norm rather than the exception. In the words of Die Hard's John McClane, "How can the same exact thing happen to the same person twice?" I don't know, John, but why don't you ask Lara Croft? She's bound to have some theories by now... Send your thoughts on this editorial to mike@mastergamer.com
© 2001 ivan@mastergamer.com