Sequels, threequels and beyond... are they bad?

[Steve]

Here's a topic to get you chatting. What are your thoughts on sequels?

I'm gonna dive straight in with my opinions, starting with a look at some GREAT sequels.

Take Half-Life 2. It has graphics to blow Doom III away. After all, HL2 actually has edges and corners! The gameplay is great, it makes the best use of physics ever seen in a game and the story line is good. Of course, it had a lot of expectant gamers to please and for the most part it succeeded. You have to ask yourself, though, was it better than the original Half-Life? My thoughts are no. I might be biased, however, as HL was the first FPS I really got into, so I hold it close to my heart.

Let's move away from FPS and onto space combat sims (something we don't see enough of any more if you ask me!) Freespace is my second favourite game (HL grabbing the top spot.) In fact, both Freespace games are my second favourite game. Why? Well, Freespace introduced me to the concept of blowing up things in space. That alone rocked my world. Tie that with a superb plot and Volition had a winner. Then Freespace 2 came along. Volition had increased the polygons, create a new plot, new weapons and so on. The game, however, was essentially still Freespace. So why do I still think it's good if it was 'another Freespace'. Well, Volition took everything great about Freespace and left it perfectly intact within Freespace 2. Gamers who wanted more Freespace got just that... and it looked better than ever before. The plot was, again, fantastic.

HL2 and Freespace 2 - both good. HL2, perhaps not quite living up to HL in the eyes of some (including me,) but FS2 manages to be as good, if not better than the original FS.

Splinter Cell. Uh-Oh. The first was such a great game. The second felt exactly the same. How can that be bad after what I've just said about FS2? I think it's down to the game itself. With SC, you start with a "wow" at the realism and the concept of the game, but the limitations of the concept mean there's not a lot you can do to built upon it. Plots and new moves/weapons/graphics will only take you so far when the gameplay itself remains pretty limited. SC3 is supposed to be better, but after playing the demo I wasn't impressed so decided against getting it.

This takes us nicely to the 'magic' number: three. What happens when you get the third in a series of games? The way I see it there are three things that can happen in a series of three games.

1. You build upon the previous version, making a bigger, better, more hyped version. This is pretty much where HL2 went, and HL3 will probably do the same (if we see it.)

2. Things go a little awry in the sequel, so the third instalment seeks to recover some of the lost faith, ensuring the 'best bits' of the original are in there somewhere.

3. You follow a story, each instalment is a progression of sorts. The game itself isn't hugely different, just updated to keep in line graphically with the sort of capabilities current PCs have. Freespace did this with FS2 and would probably have done so with FS3. Sadly, there will be no FS3.

Final example for today is Doom III. Take it on its own and it's a reasonable game. The graphics are good (despite the lack of edges, something which, for some reason, really annoys me. Yes John, your lovely game engine can do curves really well, but for God's sake, and I know the inhabitants of Mars have daemons to worry about, but I'm sure they could have survived a few tables with actual corners!) Ahem... the gameplay is reasonable and plot is... there. Still, not as loved as Doom and Doom II.

The closing thoughts from me are that sequels and beyond are a dangerous thing to play with. So easily can it go wrong. So easily can a game become boring when it's just a name with an incremented number next to it. Sometimes a golden formula can be cut short, however (Freespace.) Other times a game simply has too much to live up to (HL2?) Bottom line: I think game developers should be careful about sequels and beyond. A hugely successful game might not produce a good sequel by default.

Now it's your turn

[mike_w]

Sequels never stray too far from the original formula - after all, the reason sequels are made is because the previous game was so successful, so people rarely change a winning formula. The best sequels build upon what was in the first game, and some sequels are better at that than others.

Examples? Unreal Tournament was great, UT2003 was iffy, UT2004 was a return to form and (in my opinion) surpassed the original, especially with Onslaught and the vehicles. So, in this case, sequels can result in an improved game, but not always.

Another example is Red Alert 2 - it is instantly recognisable and playable from the first, yet it builds upon the foundations and adds some extra stuff, and is ultimately a good game. The same applies to Warcraft III - nothing revolutionary, but still a great game and worth the extra money over the previous games.

In some cases, I have played some great sequels while never having played the original i.e. Morrowind, X2 - The Threat. Had a sequel never come out, I would probably never have played any in the series, so in that respect sequels are good.

Of course there are cases where sequels aren't really anything new (Jedi Academy and Medieval: Total War spring to mind, having played the previous games Jedi Knight II and Shogun: Total War respectively), so really aren't what I would consider good sequels.

So are sequels bad? No. Without sequels, I would never have played any X games, or any Elder Scrolls games. Sequels have let me enjoy games such as Red Alert 2, Warcraft III and Unreal Tournament even more, without just being identical. And, best of all, sequels brought us Dungeon Keeper 2, a game that is, without a doubt in my mind, the best sequel ever. What I mean is not that is the best game ever (although it could well be in my experience, I've yet to decide), but of all the sequels I've ever played, Dungeon Keeper 2 refines and improves on the original the most, and makes it all the more enjoyable.

[Norky]

Maniac Mansion and Day of the Tentacle remain among my Top 5 favourite games ever.

I think Burnout is the only game franchise that has got massively better with each release

[varkdm]

I strongly disagree about half life 2, i thought it was a huge dissapointment.

Most of the videos released showing epic and clever gun battles with intelligent AI, were just scripted or rigged sequences (in my oppinion the AI of your squad and allies was exceptionally poor, with them constantly getting stuck on scenery and losing you - if you want to see a game that does AI properly, see Republic Commando best AI ive ever seen, truely satisfying to play that game because of it). The graphics were OK, ran smoothly and did the job, but they were not a patch on Doom3's, not even close.

The physics engine in Half life 2 was impressive, but unlike you i feel that it was exceptionally poorly applied, with pointless and almost endless dull puzzles, designed purely to show off this new engine and add almost nothing to the gameplay (actually in my oppinion detracting from it and slowing it down). Its also a good point to note that Far Cry's physics engine was about right, doing enough to add nice touches to gun fights and alternate ways of defeating opponents, but not forcing you to spend time piling bricks onto a platform in order to get it to move. In some cases the physics was just plain wrong (swimming big plastic air filled barrels underwater and then releasing them under a submerged ramp to get it to raise up?!?!?!). The game designers spent too much time trying to be clever and forget to actually concentrate on the fun stuff, the reason why people play FPS games.. the firefights. When they actually had sections dedicated to fire fights(city17 most noticeably), they did it really well, with good street battles and an enjoyable arsenal to use, but there just wasnt enough of those fights.

This is in my oppinion the biggest problem with sequels, the game companies try and be too clever with them and lose track of what makes the game fun in the first place.

Take Halo.. Halo had a fantastic plot, good solid gameplay, a decent selection of weapons and a likeable selection of characters, it was easy to get immersed into the game because of the consistent characters and the linnear way in wich the plot unfolded.

Halo 2, whilst still enjoyable, was nothing in comparrison, they tried to make it "bigger and better" by adding sections with tons more bad guys and by making you play the role of 2 different characters. Whilst a nice idea to let you play the covenant, it should have been a completely seperate campaign, forcing you to play both whilst interwining the plot from 2 perspectives at the same time, meant you didnt get immersed in the plot at all, because it kept shifting your perspective.

Freespace 2 is a great example, they knew what made freespace good, a solid plot involving a desperate fight against a vastly superior enemy and comprehensive but simple controls. They took that and did it again in freespace 2, but just added a lot more pollish, they didnt try to be too clever, and it paid off.

[ajbrun]

Sequal basically build on what as gone before. Although I haven't played many games, I think that this can be done to great effect. Take the GTA series. I'm sure most people will agree that pretty much everything (except the music) in San Andreas is better than anything that has gone before. Now considering that this is the 6th (i think) in the series, I think that's quite an achievement.

Another example is timsplitters on the PS2. It's been a while since I've played either the 1st of 2nd, and haven't even touched the 3rd (I believe it's out), but I'm sure the 2nd is better than the 1st. It's built on it in terms of plot, graphics, and possibley most importantly, multiplayer abilities.

I could talk about HL, but since I played HL2 first, and haven't even nearly finished the first one, I think I'll be biassed towards HL2.

On the other side of the spectrum, you get game sequals that I think are well over done. A classic example of this is the Sims series. Fair enough 2 or 3 is fine, but I've lost count how many there are now. I'm sure you could fill a whole hard drive just with the whole sims collection if you really wanted to. The sims have been so over done that when a new game is released, it no longer gets hype or any attention at all. Yestersay whilst browsing www.play.com, I discovered a sims university expansion pack.

To summarise, I think sequals are OK so long as they add something new to the series (GTA), and don't use the same tried and tested forumula in a slightly different situation (The Sims).