How Not to Make a Sequel

In an industry where boycotts, fanboyism and corporate warfare are just this morning’s news, no force holds as much sway over the success or failure of a gaming franchise as the dreaded sequel. Will it live up to the standard its predecessor set, or will it ruin the series? Is it unique enough to stand apart from its brethren, or is it the same song and dance we’ve come to expect?

Anybody who has been a part of the gaming scene for more than a year has seen their fair share of sequels. Whether it’s a developer’s second or third foray into a new franchise (Dead Space, Gears of War) or what seems like the millionth title in an ongoing series (Final Fantasy, the Legend of Zelda), these days it seems like every other game on the shelves has a number on the end. So, what exactly makes a good sequel better than sliced bread, and what is it about the bad ones that make it crash and burn?

Catering to the Fans

Once you’ve decided you’re going to make a sequel to your beloved game, you have to take a step back and figure out who your core demographic is. Are you trying to please those critics who scoffed at the first game, or broaden your audience? Or, is it more important that you please the fans and customers who supported you? Many sequels are defined by this very distinction.

It’s not enough that you keep the core philosophy of the sequel the same – for fans, any slight change could be seen as heretical. BioWare changed the designs for the Darkspawn and Flemeth in Dragon Age 2, and the result was a veritable shitstorm of forum threads complaining about it. When Final Fantasy XI was announced as a massively multiplayer online game rather than a single player RPG, most gamers simply stood agape at the news. For better or worse, every slight change in a sequel’s formula will be seen negatively by the game’s most hardcore fans.

Changing it Up

So, don’t change anything, right? Well, not quite. If your sequel is exactly the same as the original, it will be slammed by critics and fans alike for not adding anything new to the table. Despite the many changes it had over its predecessor, Resident Evil 5 was criticized for having essentially the exact same combat system as Resident Evil 4. For a while, even Halo 2 was unaffectionately known as “Halo 1.5″ in many circles for having few additions to gameplay. One can’t turn on Fallout: New Vegas without being immediately reminded of how similar it is to Fallout 3, again, despite its many new features.

How does a game developer avoid angering critics and fans, then? A sequel must be close enough to its roots to retain the look and feel it is known for, but still have enough changes or additions to make it fresh and new. Going too far in either direction could open the game up for a hailstorm of criticism.

Regular Maintenance

If a game has some well-known problems, and its sequel is announced, gamers expect those problems to be fixed. If they’re not, the sequel might be dead in the water on those grounds alone. Mass Effect 2 got rid of the heavily criticized inventory system from the original Mass Effect, and critics were pleased (although some fans felt betrayed – see point #1). Recently, Marvel vs. Capcom 3 was released without spectator support, making lobbies of more than two players almost entirely pointless. While this will hopefully be patched soon, it’s baffling considering that Street Fighter IV has the same problem and demand for its inclusion has been staggering.

That being said, if the only thing a sequel does is fix the problems of the original without adding additional or unique content, fans will be angry that they are being forced to purchase what amounts to a $60 patch. Developers must be wary of releasing a game that only adds what could have been incorporated for free. Valve is one of the best developers in this regard, as they are constantly improving their games with free patches that not only fix major issues, but bring new content, as well.

Story? What Story?

Generally speaking, there are two very broad categories of sequels – ones that follow where the story left off, with the same setting and protagonists, or ones that head off in a completely different direction, but maintain the overarching style or theme of the original. Halo would be an example of the former, whereas Silent Hill would be an example of the latter. There’s no right or wrong answer in this category, but the decision ties directly into the developer’s motives for the sequel. If the original’s strong point was its setting, protagonist or story, you can bet that the sequel will be popular if it retains these elements. For example, what would a Duke Nukem game be without, well, Duke? Uncharted would also lose a ton of appeal if Nathan Drake were suspiciously absent from the story.

On the other hand, if story isn’t the most important factor to the game, it might be worth it to completely change up the paradigm in every iteration. Every Call of Duty game features a completely different set of characters and scenarios (with the sole exception of Modern Warfare 2), and it definitely helps keep the shooter fresh each time. Assassin’s Creed’s framed narrative gives Ubisoft the unparalleled ability to completely change the setting and time period any sequel is set in without having to work tirelessly to fit it into the overarching story.

It’s Not a Sequel, We Swear

Some developers decide they can’t think of a better way to continue or expand their story, so instead they opt for the easy way out – they start over. The movie industry might have started this new trend, but for better or worse, it’s caught on. For the record, I want to say that there’s nothing inherently wrong with rebooting a franchise. Sometimes, a series has been milked so thoroughly that a reboot is the only way to invigorate it.

Interestingly, we can study the pros and cons of this trend by looking at two games from a single franchise: the 2008 Prince of Persia and Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. Both attempted to start the franchise over with a “new” prince and a new story. Sands of Time succeeded by having fantastic gameplay, believable voice acting, and a protagonist who was genuinely likable. The 2008 Prince of Persia, well, didn’t.

And don’t even get me started on this thing you call DmC.

Seriously, Stop it

Game developers or publishers who want some quick cash like releasing a new sequel for one of their beloved franchises. The problem? It’s only been four months since the last sequel. While they can expect a ton of people to purchase the new installment simply due to brand name recognition, they can also expect to run their franchise into the ground if they don’t believe in moderation. I’m looking directly at you, Activision.

Doing it Right

There are a ton of sequels that have performed this careful balancing act with grace. I’ll conclude my how-to with a handful of my personal favorites, and why I feel that they are great sequels.

Assassin’s Creed 2: One of the major issues of the first Assassin’s Creed was its repetitive nature. You essentially ride to a town, do a few little sidequests, then take part in an awesome assassination. Then, you ride to a different town, do the same sidequests, et cetera.

Assassin’s Creed 2 fixes this problem by adding a slew of different mission types, including far more actual assassinations than the original, and having each mission tie directly into the story in some way. There was far less backtracking or mindless traveling, and a lot more oomph to the story as a result. As if this wasn’t enough, there were more varied environments, more weapons, and more abilities. Finally, because of Assassin’s Creed’s unique narrative, the sequel was set in an entirely different time period with a completely different set of characters.

Uncharted 2: Somewhere about halfway through Uncharted, the gameplay started becoming a chore. The visuals were still stunning, and the combat was still fun, but the pacing was off. There were way too many enemies (to the point where even Nathan himself starting commenting on it), and they were all exactly the same.

Uncharted 2 blew the first game out of the water, and one of the many reasons why was its approach to pacing. Every time you started to slog through a scene, something spectacular happened to keep you on your toes, whether it was a truck crashing through a wall, a helicopter shooting a building until it collapses, or a great segment of dialogue. Everything that was great about Uncharted returned, but the story wasn’t just a simple continuation – like an Indiana Jones movie, it took the characters we loved and put them in a new and unique situation.

Resident Evil 4: This game was so different from its predecessors that it could almost be called a reboot, even if the story still fit into the overall Resident Evil canon. Everything – from the slick new combat system to the grid-based inventory system – was a major overhaul from previous Resident Evil games. Just in time, too – the formula was just getting stale when Resident Evil 4 came in to knock things up. Not happy with just refining gameplay, it completely mixed up the Resident Evil storyline by jumping years ahead and changing the nature of the enemy. The game didn’t even have zombies! It was a bombshell of a surprise, to be sure.

(For another take on Resident Evil 4, check out Kim Gray’s enlightening article about horror games.)