In seemingly every medium, there is a rather severe bias against sequels. Where this is most infuriating, however, is in video games. While movie sequels usually deserve their derision, the video game industry has a truly spectacular track record for sequels that are better than the original, from all echelons of quality for the original game. The amount of the best and even most innovative video games that are sequels is truly staggering, yet despite this, there remains an anti-sequel instinct among a large percentage of the gaming community, an idea that sequels are an inherently bad thing and severe double standards against sequels.
Before getting to the focus of this article, I’d like to express my confusion at the contempt for sequels in general. The most common argument against them is that they limit creativity, not letting the creative minds behind a work try new things. However, think of what the complete annihilation of sequels would mean for the scope of stories: we can’t reasonably expect 10 hour mainstream movies, 3,000 page books, or 250 hour story driven games. The result of banishing sequels would be to force everything to conform to a rigid length for its medium, which I’m sure you realize would be terrible for allowing creative freedom. In video games sequels offer even more, since gameplay formulas often need some amount of tweaking, and being a fairly new medium there is a lot more experimentation needed. Miyamoto said the main reason he made Super Mario Galaxy 2 (more on that later) was because his team had so many ideas they hadn’t been able to work into the original. How would a no direct sequels rule destroying all those ideas be GOOD for creativity and freedom?
The first issue that must be addressed about sequels in gaming is the claim that the video game industry can’t be biased against sequels, since so many of the most hyped and well reviewed games are sequels. The problem with this, however, is that the success of those games is in spite of their sequel status, not because of it. It would be full fledged insanity to claim video game sequels are always bad (not that this has stopped the most pretentious gamers from claiming it anyway), but that doesn’t mean there can’t be some level of bias against sequels. Imagine a review of a game openly admitting that the game is better than the previous entry in the series, but still scoring it lower, maybe even admitting upfront that it scored less for not coming first. This is fairly common, and people seem to have no problem with point deductions just for something being a sequel. But imagine the reverse happening, a review saying a game is better than the recent entry in a popular series, but still scoring it lower, and even saying “Since it doesn’t have the lineage of (insert series here), I had to knock off a few points.” That would never happen, the reviewer would never get away with it and no reviewer who cared about their credibility would try it. Some may claim that reviewers do this without openly admitting it, but that’s just the point, pro-sequel bias is hidden, anti-sequel bias can be openly stated.
The most blatant anti-sequel bias in games is the overarching sentiment that being dominated by sequels is an inherently bad thing. Look at any list of upcoming games that the industry is looking forward to, and it will be dominated by sequels. This fact can be used as a standing complaint theme whenever you need an editorial or complaining message board post, lamenting how sequel filled the industry is. Some say this is only a problem due to balance, but complaining about that would only be justified if all games were made by one monolithic entity. They aren’t, and I can’t think of any logical or fair way to determine exactly which companies get to make sequels and which are forced to make extra new intellectual properties for the sake of balance, and by extension, I can’t think of a logical or fair way to decide which companies should get scorn for relying on sequels.
The anti-sequel sentiment does not stop at theoretical discussions of how the industry would ideally be structured. Sequels are held to a higher standard and considered inherently lesser achievements at the same times. As I mentioned before, reviewers and gamers will gladly and often openly mark a game down in comparison to its predecessors simply for being a sequel. At the same time, if a sequel does a single thing worse than its predecessor, you’ll never hear the end of it and the game will be treated as a disappointment and failure regardless of how many things it does better. Let’s look at an example, two games in the same genre that came out at around the same time: Zelda: Twilight Princess and Okami. Pretty much every example of anti-sequel bias is demonstrated in the treatment of Twilight Princess by the gaming community. Despite belonging to a rare genre it was constantly called a rehash for keeping the core game style of what is widely considered one of the best games ever made. The combat difficulty being lower than Ocarina of Time was exaggerated into it being one of the easiest games ever made. Things no one would notice the absence of in a new IP are treated as glaring omissions if featured in even one previous Zelda. The fact that Twilight Princess is easily the longest Zelda, was harder than its immediate predecessors, and has some of the highest puzzle difficulty in the series is mostly ignored, some openly stating that as a sequel it is required to do those better but deserves no recognition for it. Now let’s compare it to Okami. Okami plays very similarly to the Zelda series, but is rarely criticized for that. The game is easier than Twilight Princess, and has a lot more slow story driven sequences (Twilight Princess is often criticized for this, despite there really only being one example), but this is barely ever mentioned. Being a new IP, Okami is given many free passes and everything it does right is treated as an accomplishment. Being a sequel, everything Twilight Princess does is scrutinized to death and its triumphs are mostly ignored.
The core of much sequelphobia (thank you TVtropes) stems from the biggest boogeyman term in gaming this side of fanboy: rehashes. There are two facets to the unfair sequel bashing that stems from rehash accusations. The first is that the standards for something being a rehash are way too low. Games like Super Smash Bros Brawl and Resident Evil 5 added huge new features that weren’t in their predecessors, but because the core gameplay wasn’t completely different, they were called rehashes. The treatment of Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 4 still angers me to this day, the game completely redid career mode and is well over three times as long as THPS3, but due to the number in the title it was declared a rehash and widely ignored. There really isn’t much to say about this point, a lot of rehash accusations are simply wrong and the gaming community will often neglect to do the basic research that could debunk them.
That said, let’s look at the games that really don’t add all that much to the series’ formula. I think the horrors of a level pack sequel are greatly exaggerated, if a game has a really good formula, should we really throw it away after one shot just for the sake of being innovative? As I mentioned earlier, Super Mario Galaxy 2 is the poster child for how ridiculous this is. 3D platformers are not a common genre this generation, and many agree with me that Super Mario Galaxy is one of the best games of all time and perfected the 3D Mario formula. It is absurd, considering how loved the original is, that so many people want the formula simply thrown away after one use. We are not flooded with Super Mario Galaxy clones, and there will likely be a two and a half year wait between the SMGs. Super Mario Galaxy 2 is exactly what platforming fans need, and while there could easily be significant new features we just don’t know about yet, if it is mainly a level pack, what is so horrible?
If every sequel was a level pack I agree it would start to get old, but that’s just not the case. In closing, I’d like you to imagine a video game world without sequels. The stealth, fighting, RPG, and sandbox genres would be crippled with no Metal Gear Solid, Street Fighter II, Final Fantasy (insert your favorite here), or Grand Theft Auto 3. Zelda, Metroid, Resident Evil, and lots of other beloved series would have been abandoned after awkward first installments that didn’t get the formula right. And of course, we can’t forget Mario. Party games and mascot racers might very well not exist, 3D platformers would be completely stunted, but little of that matters, because the video game industry would be essentially unrecognizable since Super Mario Bros never existed. You could argue that these innovations would have happened with new series, but I think it’s very possible that the stress of coming up with completely new settings in every single game would reduce the potential for innovation and polish sequels have. Either way, it isn’t fair to disregard the accomplishments of sequels because of hypothetical alternate realities. Going by what they contributed, a gaming world without sequels simply isn’t one I want to live in.
No comments:
Post a Comment