Is the gaming industry becoming as dependent on sequels as Hollywood? It certain feels like repetition is becoming standard... becoming standard... becoming standard...
Hollywood is close to being creatively bankrupt. You don’t have to look too far to see that the majority of film releases for the year are sequels, franchise reboots or remakes of foreign/older movies. The lack of originality is fiscally justifiable by the fact that these seem to be big money-making endeavours for studios; safe bets. And in the words of V from V for Vendetta, “Well certainly there are those more responsible than others … but again truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.” By continuing to pay the price of admission for these films, we are also admitting to Hollywood that this practice is okay.
The same is true of the gaming world.
For every hotly anticipated Brink or RAGE, there’s a multitude of other choices that have numbers or subtitles after their already well-established franchise names. A quick glance through the titles I have written down to look out for the rest of the year reveals F.3.A.R., Red Faction: Armageddon, Duke Nukem Forever, Dungeon Siege III, Deus Ex: Human Revolution… and the list goes on.
Last year, I was flown out to Los Angeles for the first multiplayer press event for Call of Duty: Black Ops. It was awesome. And when it was released, I played many dozens of hours of the game; its shelf life greatly extended by many Nazi Zombie matches and countless competitive multiplayer sessions. But then one day, inexplicably, I got over it. But why?
I didn’t have to think too far to make sense of it all. Single-player aside, the issues I had with Black Ops were simple: a lack of innovation and the associated risk with a seeming reluctance to stray too far from the tried and proven formula. Theatre Mode was cool, but hardly necessary. Wager Matches were great, but hardly revolutionary; particularly not to PC gamers who were familiar, at the very least, with Gun Game from Counter-Strike days. And beyond that, what else was on offer? New maps, new weapons, a dive mechanic and an in-game currency system… hardly the stuff of sequel wet dreams.
Black Ops is an easy mark, but the reality is that a lot of sequels, particularly those that have lasted more than a few entries, fall into the trap of evolution over revolution. Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood is the most refined version of the series but, in many ways, is Assassin’s Creed 2.5. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is the same deal when compared to the original Bad Company, and you only need to have a look at my ‘Devolution: Real-time strategy’ piece to see my thoughts on StarCraft II.
Earlier in the year at the Dead Space 2 launch, I had the sequel discussion with a colleague who pointed out an interesting revelation. To him, a sequel can be broken into equal parts: one-third same content, one-third tweaks and improvements, and one-third new stuff. As hard as I argued against this logic, the more I could see the truth in it; at the very least in terms of how it seems to be evident in many developers/publishers approach to sequels.
It’s certainly necessary for successive franchise entries to retain some of what attracted people to previous entries and it’s also important that they show evidence of responding to the criticisms of preceding titles. But that leaves a whole lot of room for innovation that, currently, seems to be coming more from smaller independent titles than from the juggernauts of the industry that should be leading the charge of genre and gaming innovation. After all, they’re the ones with the budgets that can support taking such risks.
I’m over getting excited about sequels that essentially boil down to some new maps, kit options and tweaks that should have been implemented in patches for the preceding title; or, hell, should have even been put in before the game hit shelves. Where do you stand?
Issue: 137 | June, 2012