This originally started out as my thoughts on Bioshock 2, which I had glossed over during it's original release, but recently had the chance to play through. For better or worse, it started an internal thought process on the sequel epidemic sweeping the entertainment industry. There are more sequels then original titles coming out these days, and anything that is original runs the risk of being turned into a franchise (whether on purpose or not) with successful sales. Hollywood is growing notorious for milking the same concept until it is so dead we can never touch it again, and the videogame industry is going through that same modus operandi of late. And although indie developers have been thriving, I'm not sure it's enough; the biggest games are from giant publishers that have their stockholders in mind when they give the green light to projects these days.
The thing is, there are some fantastic sequels out there. When they're done well, they compliment and then further their predecessors. When they're done poorly...well, we just feel sorry for them I suppose. Also, there really should be a way of determining just how sequel-ish a title is. They come in all different shapes and sizes and not all are created equal! For instance, there is the single player, story driven sequel which can then be contrasted to something more multiplayer oriented.
Stories are where things get complicated. I think a prime example of sequels gone awry is with the Bioshock series. The first Bioshock was a hallmark of storytelling. While the setting of Rapture seems like it could be the breeding ground for a lifetime of tales, Bioshock had a very specific story to tell, and told it completely - there really weren't any loose ends to be tied up. Enter Bioshock 2. I understand some will say that it introduced novel ideas and refined the gameplay of the first, but this game felt unnecessary. While Rapture is a fascinating place to explore, you need to have a very strong reason to return, and I don't think Bioshock 2 provided that. The story felt forced - quick! Someone find a way to make Rapture relevant again! It just smelled too strongly of a publisher wanting more from a title whether it made sense or not, and then handing it off to whatever developer wanted to give it a go (I don't think Irrational had any intentions of making a second Bioshock that took place in Rapture. They're moving on to bigger and better things.).
Then you have your Mass Effect 2's. Actually, wait. Let's back up a second. Let's start with the Mass Effect universe first. (This is just my example for these thoughts, but Mass Effect can be substituted for any number of other titles.) I feel that Mass Effect and Bioshock had equally compelling universes (I am a serious sucker for story driven experiences. I fall madly in love with them and they can't get me to leave in the morning.) Mass Effect built a world complex enough to house an epic adventure, but still leave room for further exploration. I don't just mean having a slew of side missions to complete (which it did), I mean more that completing the main story arc felt like enough of an accomplishment. Saving the universe could come later, if it did at all. I never felt short changed by Mass Effect's ending.
Developers have to be careful about expecting to build a franchise before they've seen whether the first game is successful or not (See Silicon Knights and their game Too Human). I don't know if Bioware knew right out of the gate whether it was a franchise in the making, but Mass Effect walked the very fine line of being satisfying enough as a stand alone game and open enough that a sequel felt natural to the universe's progression. There was closure to the first, but a very specific closure and one that was hard to argue with. It's interesting to me that the second couldn't manage this as well - don't get me wrong, it did so many things exceptionally, but in the end it very much felt like an in between game.
These story driven narratives have to feel natural. Some may argue to the contrary, but I believe the audience will know when something is being forced. I realize I've taken a very specific point of view on a very specific type of game, but it's still relevant. I haven't even mentioned games that simply recycle names without the slightest tip of a hat to their predecessor. I also don't think games like Unreal Tournament or Quake or even the Battlefield series apply here. Those are all separate titles that share mechanics, not really a story.
I don't expect this to make a speck of difference to the publishers, but I want developers to take pride in their work. I want these games to make sense to create and exist. I want their story to have a purpose. And if it doesn't make sense, don't make it. As with so many other facets of life, it's easier said then done.
I think that might be enough rambling on sequels for the moment...
No comments:
Post a Comment