Monday 11 September 2017

Editorial: What makes a great sequel?

What makes a great sequel?

          Whenever a great new IP comes along, people always inevitably ask the same question: “We all loved (insert game name here), when’s the sequel?” Of course if something turns out to be a big success story, a developer would have to be insane to not make more eventually, but sometimes a sequel to a game well received both critically and with the fans turns out to be…less than impressive.

          This year we’re seeing sequels to two of 2014’s biggest names: Destiny and Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor. Destiny 2 hit store shelves last week, while there’s still a month before we receive Shadow of War. Despite this, just by looking at the two a clear victor has emerged as to who created the best successor to the original game. Destiny 2 has clearly been designed with fans of the previous game in mind, while Shadow of War has been plagued with No Man’s Sky levels of controversy over the past month or so thanks to it looking like it’s being geared specifically towards earning the publisher some extra cash.

          So that got me wondering: what are the ingredients needed to create a successful sequel to a beloved original title?

          Last week when discussing the new Kingsman movie with a fan, Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn had this to say on the topic of what makes a great sequel: “Sequels are not about “topping.” That framework has destroyed whole franchises. Sequels should be about evolving.” Gunn had to say. While this definitely true when it comes to movies (it’s still not easy to come up with too many sequels better than the original), this definitely is also true when it comes to games. Many games are way too concerned with trying to top what they did in the previous game instead of trying to evolve the experience to a new and better level (the Assassin’s Creed franchise is especially guilty of this).

          Another thing that’s been made clear with both Destiny 2 and Shadow of War is that gamers aren’t exactly happy when you take stuff from the original game and either change them for the worse, lock them behind microtransactions, or both. Fans got really up in arms about how Destiny 2 changed the shader system to be more geared towards paying for the cosmetics, and I don’t even want to get started on the cornucopia of ways Warner Bros. Interactive is using Shadow of War as a Trojan Horse to make themselves a little bit of extra cash off the name of one of the biggest multimedia franchises ever.

          I think there’s two ways a sequel can go that can make it great: take James Gunn’s advice and polish the first game until it shines, or give something completely different. Uncharted 2 is widely regarded as one of the best direct sequels in gaming for precisely the first reason. It took what worked in Drake’s Fortune and made it even better, removed what didn’t, and threw in a bunch of new stuff for good measure. On the other hand there’s games like Breath of the Wild. Six months after release and fans are still calling it among the best Zeldas ever made, despite being incredibly different gameplay-wise from the rest of the series.

          I think that’s why Destiny 2 is getting so much praise and why Shadow of War isn’t. In making a sequel it decided to improve and evolve on what the original had to offer, giving returning players a good reason to come back and new players an excellent starting point. Meanwhile Shadow of War is tearing itself to shreds for extra cash, leaving fans of the original disappointed that the long-awaited sequel is arriving as more of a blatant cash grab than anything substantial. Just what Tolkien wanted, right?

Song of the Week

Main Theme - Destiny

No comments:

Post a Comment