Quick Jump Daily Digest
Thank you for your interest in the Quick Jump Daily Digest. Get notified of all new content on QJ in our free Daily Digest. To subscribe, enter your email address below and click the subscribe button.
PoV: Most sequels are unnecessary |
Listed in: PS3 Tags: call of duty, ed fries, uncharted 2, Zelda
Earlier today, Ed Fries, a former Microsoft executive, talked about how he worries that the gaming industry will be bogged down with sequels that are carbon copies of the previous version. He couldn't be more right -- most sequels are unnecessary.
I worry more about innovation on the software side, honestly," Fries said. "I worry about too many sequels."
Fries then refered to Call of Duty being a prime example of sequels gone wrong. Activision is able to tap into a long history of wars for their Call of Duty games, but unfortunately, each new iteration is a carbon copy of the last. Can you name one siginificant gameplay element added in Modern Warfare 2 that the first Modern Warfare didn't have? Most sequels fall into this range. Even though we may love the Halo lore, from a pure gameplay stance, what did Halo 3 add to the series? Most sequels fall in this range.
Two examples of great sequels are in the form of a newer franchise and a long running one: Uncharted and The Legend of Zelda.
Uncharted 2 was absolutely fantastic. It expanded on gameplay and story telling elements from the first game and took them to an all new level. The game was far more action packed, funny, and better told than the first title, and the stealth and platforming elements were much better in the second game.
Zelda is a series that always innovates with each console version. You can't line up two console Zelda titles and say they're exactly the same. The upcoming Skyward Sword is looking to reinvent the series much like Ocarina of Time did in 1998, with 1:1 sword combat and a switch from the classic dungeon-field-dungeon progression.
What sequels are your favorites? Which ones do you think never should have been made? Sound off in the comments below and be sure to continue the discussion on our forums.
| This story sucks? This story rocks! |
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments
... meanwhile, diluting the series with various canonical and non-canonical spin-offs that made pointless retcons that didn't actually introduce anything interesting. Zero didn't need to be a Patriot, Null didn't have to be an American experiment (he was African first, dammit!), and don't get me started on the crazy coincidences that seem to follow Otacon's lineage around. Oh, and above all, don't resurrect a character if his sole purpose is to give the hero a hug at the end.
Reply
Reply
The Legend of Zelda pissed me off with its ever changing gameplay. Which is why the last one I ever played was Ocarina of Time. Besides from where I sit most Zelda sequels aren't really sequels at all, they range from a carbon copy of the first game's story or a completely new story altogether.
But sequels like Guitar Hero, Rock Band, Call of Duty, Halo, and even to an extent Grand Theft Auto are completely unnecessary and could be resolved with payed DLC for replayability.
Reply
Might not be true but anyway...
Reply
Reply
Reply
Now a carbon copy of me would be Dark Link. He's a true foe just like me! Does any consider Smash bros. a carbon copy? I mean.. what if you're friend chooses me and zelda and then ... well you get the idea. I'm a little off topic here.. so.. yeah..
Reply
I'm surprised that Mario was not mentioned in the article. I think they've done pretty well reinventing him except I didn't enjoy Sunshine as much as I had hoped.
I thought ZoE: 2nd Runner was a great follow up to the first.
Reply
If you're judging a sequel based purely on gameplay additions, you're missing the whole picture. Sometimes you just want more, and the sequel gives that.
For the Halo example: Halo CE was a great game. It was complete, lengthy enough for the time, had a well rounded story, a lot of features, etc. What did Halo 2 add? Well it had online and dual wielding, but not a whole lot of new gameplay content. What it did have was more: more vehicles, more guns, but mainly more of the same formula. Halo 3, again, but upped for a new generation.
The point I'm making is that this is no bad thing. Sometimes you want more. Halo 1 was in no way incomplete, but most of the world wanted more, and Halo 2 and 3 did that. Not to mention tying off the story.
Sure, they could've made Halo 1 three times as long and added things like online and dual wielding, but it would've taken twice the time to make, during which time Bungie would be making no income, and would go bankrupt.
Sometimes a sequel is all you want, and there's a certain amount of games that can be released to a formula before something new needs to be added. CoD has gotten ridiculous, with two separate companies churning out carbon-copies. NFS did the same thing, then it imploded. But sequels themselves aren't the problem.
Halo knew when to stop, when to branch out to new and original games in the same universe.
Reply