We live in a world where sequels to almost anything is both welcomed and expected. Usually it's for continuing story and plot sequences, other times it's just an excuse to improve one gameplay or graphics, but in the end the developers have some kind of logical reasoning behind making sequels, or is it logical? Here are the Pros and Cons to what may or may not make a sequel worthwhile...
Pros:
- Much needed enhancements: Usually beginner games, or firsts in a series, are usually bland or simplistic when first released. This is not a problem at all, for the first is to nearly get people interested and to get their attention and awareness for when any future installments come out. I'm pretty sure that Bungie had no idea at the start that Halo would become this big when they were just releasing the first Halo game way back on the original Xbox. Even look at Killzone, the first game wasn't exactly worthy of a gold medal, but its sequels did amazingly well all due to Playstation fans remembering the first back on the PS2. One last example would be High Moon's Transformers games, the first was just a mere set up to prove that an actual fun Transformers game was possible, and now a sequel is coming out with lots to offer. While sometimes graphics and gameplay may change, as long as it achieves what the first one started it'll be great.
- Story frenzy: Sequels sometimes tend to do best when they are the continuation of an unfinished story. Gears of War for example ended on a cliffhanger, with a woman at the end speaking about the humans having no idea what's in store for them and the war. A cliffhanger like that helps to make Gears of War 2 that more more of an anticipation. What about Darksiders? The first could've concluded there and then but instead decided to show the other three horseman awakening from their eternal slumber. This opened a lot of "what's next" questions which led to the excitement of Darksiders II.
- Great build up: A good sequel is possible to show up without you ever noticing, this can sometimes be a bit of a complication for sales or anticipation. So a sequel that is able to praise itself with the right amount of appraise should most certainly be... well appraised. New Super Mario Bros 2 was the equivalent of having a hammer continuously bonk you on the head for the entire week that it was Present at E3, which of course isn't a bad thing to do especially for Nintendo, since they understand the kind of popularity that Mario is. Dark Souls also did a fine job advertising, it even had TV commercials which in our lifetime is a rare opportunity. But more recently Halo 4 has been doing a fine job at advertising. I've noticed that it's cinematic trailers have been popping up in movie theaters just before the film starts.
Cons:
- Zero Effort: The only thing worse than a bad sequel is a bad sequel that shows. This is usually done when a game company, new or the same from the first entry, make a sequel just for either A: the money, best examples would be all the guitar hero, rock band, and dancing games (not that every entry they made was necessarily bad), B: complications, a company could be in debt and have no choice but to make a new game ASAP, especially sequels to well known earlier entries, or C: Brainwashed, the creators can tell when a game they make is loved and so they believe all the fans will immediately buy any kind of sequel, no matter how bad, just think of all the people in disbelief when they first played Crackdown 2 (Geoff was one of those people). Basically, the argument is that some game creators will work next to nothing to make a good sequel because they can simply do it.
- What goes up, brings something else down: Most game companies try to improve on a dislike or downgraded quality from the first game. Sometimes doing this will ultimately ruin another factor in the game. Example: Force Unleashed II had an amazing improvement on the battle statistics and new useful force powers, but it seems as though that was the only thing Lucas Arts wanted the reporters to know about, cause the rest of the game was too short with a less satisfying story. Perhaps a game could even have nothing new to it at all, even when it is shown to the public as being new. Resistance 2 was an anticipated sequel to the original, but in the end that game ultimately was nothing more than a rehash, it's a good thing Resistance 3 fixed those wrong doings.
- The worse that could, can, and has: This goes to all the many other wrong happenings you can imagine. Character changes, unrelated story lines, or new stupid mechanics are of the few too many that haunt gamers everywhere. What could happen is that Call of Duty Black Ops II will try too hard to be new, what can happen is Sly Cooper 4 not living up to expectations, and what has happened is all the wrongs in Prototype 2.
Controversy:
- New company in charge: Usually a sequel will head straight to a new company for a sequel due to the original makers being either busy or uninterested. This usually tends to be a raised flag for some people (or however the saying goes) because they believe the new company will destroy the boundaries that the original set. However most others would give congrats to the newbies, getting excited for what new and interesting improvements can be made. This is neither a pro or a con, or perhaps both, let's just say it extremely varies.
Really not all game sequels are horrendous, games like Infamous 2 or Super Smash Bros Brawl have been prime examples of games that stay true to the original. Heck, I'm playing Darksiders II now and I am amazed by how they were able to make it basically the original again while still bringing in many new things. What are your favorite sequels? What are your most hated sequels? any future sequels you're either excited or worried for? Any games you think need or don't need sequels? Please Comment!
