[Editor's note: We're not just a (rad) news site -- we also publish opinions/editorials from our community & employees like this one, though be aware it may not jive with the opinions of Destructoid as a whole, or how our moms raised us. Want to post your own article in response? Publish it now on our community blogs.]
People might look at me a little strangely for implying that sequels are a sacred cow of gaming. "Everyone complains about sequels!" The thing is people complain about getting the sequels they didn't ask for, while at the same time complaining about not getting the sequels they did ask for. For example: It's oh so common to complain about Madden sequels. Admittedly even the fans of the game have an unspoken rule. "Don't buy Madden every year. Not worth it." However people harp endlessly for other games. "Because this game is dear to my heart I demand more of it!" "More Silent Hill, more Final Fantasy, more Metal Gear Solid!"
Now I won't deny that these are all good series, but if you look a little deeper you might realize that these games and the people who constantly demand them are holding their creators back.
Silent Hill's original creators were not allowed to leave the series at rest. When they decided the series had reached its creative end, Konami did not. Now an American company is taking their creation and dragging it through the mud. Silent Hill is a subtle series that had an incredible amount of creative force driving it in its earlier days. Now a group of people who don't understand that subtlety are creating cheap imitations.
Hideo Kojima is indirectly forced to continue working on Metal Gear Solid endlessly, clearly not wishing his own series to suffer the same fate as Silent Hill outside of his care. He publicly proclaims he doesn't want to keep working on the series on a constant basis, but he knows Konami will keep on pushing out sequels whether he's there or not. The best he can do is to make sure the series stays in good hands, but Metal Gear may be getting too out of hand even for him. Kojima has likewise publicly stated that he can't even follow his own storyline as much as he'd prefer; yet there are already two more down the pipeline as of this writing.
Final Fantasy has quelled the creative power of Square Enix as a whole, facing a similar situation to Kojima on a much larger scale. Final Fantasy fans rabidly demand more of the series faster than the company can produce them, and some are even livid at how long XIII has been taking. Likewise the company cannot simply ignore their lifeblood, and in order to sate their hunger the company dedicates all its resources to development of main titles as well as an endless deluge of spinoff titles in between. Even though the main Final Fantasy titles themselves are fairly unique, the time when their older ideas like Einhander and Brave Fencer Mushashi could have flourished are long gone. Even the closest thing they have to that in Kingdom Hearts can't escape the name of Final Fantasy. Their fans are not open enough to new ideas to support attempts to branch out without a specific logo attached to it.
These are all cases of companies and series that I think have lost at least some of their creative drive, because honestly I think the fans are in more control than anyone else. Their money and demands are what's driving many of these games to continue being made, and how is it possible for anyone to really be at their best when someone else is telling them what they should be making? How can any game be at its best when the original staff isn't even present to work on THEIR creation? Obviously it's not all the fault of the fans, but I'm hoping the fans themselves can realize that they're partially responsible for these creations going on as long as they have. Even the more extreme cases like Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero, where the company itself has the mentality to exploit the series on at least an annual basis: it's the peoples' money that supports that mentality.
Shigeru Miyamoto has to be the only man I can think of that has the power to simply make what he wants to make and not suffer for it. His name is so iconic and his influence so strong within his company that it's doubtful he could be forced to do anything. Though Zelda itself has borne many sequels, it continues to advance creatively with games like Wind Waker and Four Swords. I'm not claiming that Miyamoto is the only mind behind the series, but rather I'm admiring the series itself for being able to make controversial choices. I'm not against sequels themselves so much as sequels that have lost their creative drive. Likewise Miyamoto isn't limited to just working on certain series because his company tells him so.
The man is free to create new series like Pikmin, based on his own gardening hobby; or Wii Music, based simply in his own desire to help younger people appreciate music. I'm fairly certain Wii Fit was partially his idea as well. Say what you will about Wii Music, but I will endlessly encourage that man to continue making what he wants to make even if I don't really care to play it. I love Zelda, but if he continued to come up with genuinely new ideas I could be happy with there never being another sequel in the series ever again. That sort of freedom represents something of more value to me by leaps and bounds. We have plenty of great Zelda games as is. I can always replay my copy of Link to the Past if I want to experience Zelda. I won't ever get a chance to see anyone's other creative exploits if everyone goes in with the mentality that we need more, more, more.
Tim Schafer is likewise a man who doesn't buckle down to sequels. He creates what he wants to create, and generally does not ever announce plans for sequels. I could imagine that he does everything he wants to do with each of his games. Some creative minds consider a game complete and not needing expansion upon finishing the project. I can't tell if it's fortunate or otherwise, but it seems that the reason for his creative freedom is because he doesn't preoccupy himself with money. While it's great that Double Fine isn't limited in the way so many other companies are, it's a shame that more people don't just support him. Brutal Legend may finally be the game that changes that, but honestly I don't expect that loyalty to persist. Brutal Legend is more relevant to current interests than his other works, and I don't expect Tim to keep on making games like that. Quite possibly this game will be a one-time deal, in part again because he makes what he wants to make and many people would rather have a sequel than expand into further unfamiliar territory with him.
I'm not sure how to put this, but I think gamers don't know how to really appreciate a unique experience. To clear things up, I have no intention of saying people shouldn't play sequels. I play fighting games and their updates frequently. I would be a huge hypocrite if I made that sort of claim. But still, I think what I said holds true. When people play a really good game -- something really different and interesting that compels them to become familiar with it on a really deep level -- so often they can't be satisfied with just that. I hold that even though they might appreciate the game itself, they don't appreciate the fact that it is unique because they blindly start searching for more of the same. Once a sequel comes out, people are just too ready to buy it without question. People should really question more often if a game's really run out of creative steam. If it has, there's a good chance the people making it don't actually WANT to anymore, and we should spare them.
Seriously, guys. Don't tell me there's no game out there that you don't want a sequel to when one isn't necessarily needed. Cult-classic games like Ico, Okami, Jet Set Radio, and Skies of Arcadia are all very popular choices for the "We need a sequel treatment." We don't need a sequel unless the masterminds behind those games decide themselves a sequel is needed. We want these sort of things because we love the games, yes. The desire for a sequel is fairly natural. But at the same time we do the very things we love a disservice by pushing for further works that weren't ever intended. If we don't seek to be less demanding, every one of our dearest gaming memories could some day be drug through the dirt until it no longer has any value, and then what good did our love do? If people really want to view games as art, then we can offer peoples' creative works a little more respect than that and trust those creators to do what's best.
Contest:
12:00 PM on 10.17.2009
| 
I don't think she went into great detail, but I really see it now. Old Snake being dragged out for "One More Mission". Raiden becoming more awesome and fighting tooth and nail to keep up with the legend of Old Snake, like some new idea trying break through and have its own spotlight while suffering severe cuts and damage along the way. I haven't thought alot about it, but I can imagine it goes a bit deeper than that.
OK. Maybe its a little silly to consider MGS4 as an "art" game. But, its a fascinating conceit for a game that, more than any other game I've played, places the most satisfying and firm end cap on a chain of lore. I would be absolutely fine with MGS4 remaining the last Metal Gear that ever was.
there's an interesting distinction between sequels and expansions. At GDC, someone made a point about how games like Halo 3 and Jak 3 shouldn't be called new games, but should be called expansions and people should charged equivalently. In Japan, they don't necessarily call sequels new games, they only refer to new genres or breakthroughs as new games. All sequels are considered spin-offs, unless they completely revolutionize the subject. The Japanese are way more aesthetic than almost any other culture, and I prefer their method for discerning a novel experience.
I will never forget the pointless use of Pyramid Head for the sake of fan service.
If SE decided that XIV was the most Final of all the Fantasies, and that a persistent world with constant content updates was the way of the future, would anybody be happy with that? What would happen to the people currently working on FF XIII, Versus XIII, and other assorted spin-offs? Would we see an increase in quality in the Last Remnants and Infinite Undiscoveries, or would they just cut some people and pat themselves on the back?
I can't really imagine being a part of something as big as Final Fantasy and then just quietly letting it fade into the shadows for the good of the brand, which is why we won't really see any lasting change when it comes to this. Nobody makes "expansion packs" anymore... In this day and age, we like to call it "downloadable content," or, in the case of Activision, releasing a nearly identical game every year and maximizing our profits.
Katamari Forever was a bit disappointing, but I still prefer it to Beautiful Katamari. I'd much rather have a graphics/controls enhanced port of the original Jet Grind Radio than risk seeing a sequel from a new creative team get it all wrong.
Bionic Commando Rearmed Vs the "now-gen" Bionic Commando is a perfect example of where I'm coming from.
On a related not: I think it would be great if we had a section on D-toid dedicated to a compilation of unique games and gameplay experiences. That way, great experiences won't be missed out by the unintentionally ignorant.
I agree with you so much on Silent Hill. Playing Origins and Homecoming were heartbreaking experiences for me. Whats worse, I bought them, encouraging this destructive cycle, now we have some game on Wii and I have decided to not purchase it. I will rent it, at best. I hadn't realized I was directly responsible for this problem until you blatantly pointed it out.
People often defend the new Silent Hill games with statements such as "you are just mad that the developers are American", "the games weren't THAT bad dude", or "the series is EVOLVING (wtf is this, Pokemon?)".
Where the developers come from do not concern me, that point is that these are NOT the original developers, and thus have no idea what the developers intended. It pisses me off when they attempt to "fill in plotholes" when the creators clearly intended for it to be up to your interpretation. Apparently, these guys have the "correct" interpretation, you know this because they have the license -_-....
Yes, the games weren't THAT bad, but they weren't needed, I hate needing to clarify that I mean Silent Hill 1-3 when recommending the games to people, otherwise they come back with "homecoming sucked". It did.
hahah
You struck a nerve with me man, excellent article. I had put off making a Destructoid account for awhile and this finally inspired me to sign up, I will direct people to your article every time they ask me why I get pissed regarding unnecessary sequels.
@Fredrick2003: But of course not all sequels are bad. I just don't like seeing developers being tied down to games they don't really want to make. Sonic Team is a good example of the kind of horrors this can lead to. I don't think anyone's ever confirmed it, but rumors have gone around that Sonic Team is basically a sweat shop now. They're forced to make Sonic games. I could bet you the reason they suck is because they aren't allowed to do anything else.
Sonic Adventure was one of my favorite games as a kid. Admittedly it's a little dated now, but at the time it was new and interesting, and Sonic Team itself had other projects like Phantasy Star Online and Chu Chu Rocket. They were allowed to make what they wanted, and they really should have succeeded for it. Stupid Dreamcast failing for possibly a dozen reasons. So much creativity, so little reward. I don't know what could possibly have saved them at that time. It seemed everything was against them.
@makesfive: It's hard to actually begrudge a company at all, really. They are a company and it's not like people are extremely invested in them (if they're reasonable.) Like I said, sequels themselves I have no problem with, if the game was something the developers actually wanted to make. When it gets to the point that sequels are made for the point of just having sequels though, I won't knock a company for doing it but I'll probably stop buying the games.
If they really do use that money to go make new ideas, that's great, but I probably will always lament the beating of a dead horse, especially if I ever loved that horse.
Imagine if you were a writer who had to write the same story over and over again, only slightly different. You ran out of ideas a long time ago because you're basically writing the same story, and you're really tired of doing it, but your fans would rather buy that story from you than buy something interesting and new that you might want to do instead. Now imagine that new story idea you wanted to make absolutely never happened. Wouldn't that suck?
Zone of the Enders 3 comes to mind.
I would like to hear some opinions on what classifies as milking a series and what's just the countinuation of one. I hear complains that Final Fantasy has gone on too long (I've said this at one point myself) but too be fair 13 main games from a large company from the NES days to this generation isn't that bi8g if you look at it.
@EggmaniMN
I wish more people would realise that and follow that example. Game creators need to have a good concept behind the game before they just decide to churn one out and fans need to stop asking for games that the creators don't want to make.
Everytime I see someone complain that Mother 4 isn't being made I dislike the world a little bit more.
Imagine if The Big Lebowski had a sequel. It'd sell like hotcakes, but would undoubtedly cheapen the original material.
The only aspect a sequel has to have is to retain a section of the previous name in most cases (Brand Awareness), a name is just that, it does not limit the potential a game can have. You use the idea of a writer creating the same the story each time over this conveys you views very clearly and I can see where you are coming from but if a writer has write sequels there is no limits as to what he/she could do under that title, just because certain limitations would be in place in order to relate to the previous incarnations it doesn't mean originality is stunted. I hope this made sense, I think it does.
Some series have a time when they deserve to be left to rest. You don't need to perpetually create games in a series forever. That's my point. Quality over quantity is a good motto. Final Fantasy is a good series, but none of the Final Fantasies are what you can actually call sequels. What you can call sequels are the endless deluge of side-games made because of rabid fan demand, stunting Square Enix's capacity to create something aside from Final Fantasy on the side.
Crash an Spyro games stopped on Crash Bandicoot 3:Warped and Spyro: Year of the Dragon to me...why? Because the original team it isn't on the development team anymore, that's why!
I would love to see another Crash/Spyro game made by Insomniac and Naughty Dog again, but hey! There's Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank, Resistance and Jak & Daxter out there now, thanks to their decision to do new things!
The problem is that most people only see video games as just that: games. Therefore, variations or improvements in gameplay mechanics, accompanied by the obligatory graphic augmentation, will be enough for the vast majority, regardless of how degraded the quality and inspiration of the original essence is.
You'll see that amongst reviewers and gamers. Was SH: Homecoming a competent game? Yes. Was it scary? Depends on the person, but at least was creepy. Was it a true SH? Simply, no. But since it is not a failure as a game, that's enough for most.
The question is: Why do we deserve better, when editors on this site and the community with its blogs keep on fapping off to announced sequels or the possibility of them? Buy oh yes, when Kotick comes out and says he only wants to make sequels, we immediatly start yelling "GREED", "EVIL"...
The problems is not iteration, the problem is that most times we are the ones asking for the abuse and whoring out of the idea we originally liked.
Expansions can be argued to be sequels depending on the product, but in offline product they tend to be more of a sign that the initial product is incomplete (oh hi Fallout 3 GOTY Edition, nice you finally got done and all those kinks were worked out a year late.)
Rock Band 2 is the only Rock band this generation will ever need, though. The very nature of the game is to be constantly something that cab be added to.In this respect, that's a good thing. Its something I wish sports games would consider doing, rather than being roster updates with a few tweaks.
all that said, I can kind of excuse a slew of sequels when the developer strives to make and publish new content. Atlus is a great example of this. There's a Shin Megami Tensei title almost every half-year these days, not to mention all the loving attention games in that series get, I can't help but appreciate what Atlus does. Atlus does bring out original properties and goes to bat to publish for others as well, bringing even more fresh content under their banner. I root for Atlus because the bring the right balance
I do think Tim Shafer and Miyamoto have it the best, though. I wish more developers had the kind of freedom they enjoy.
We do get too many of them, though. My wallet can't handle it.
If you ask me, sequels are best when they elaborate on the potential and concept of the original. The Hitman series has done a bang-up job expanding on the formula with every successive game up to Blood Money, which is almost not even comparable to the first game, Codename 47. I don't know about Okami and Skies of Arcadia, but Jet Set Radio could definitely benefit from similar expansion- the game was spectacular in style and form, but in function it left something to be desired. (Ico shouldn't need a direct sequel though that's silly.)
Likewise with Killer7, which I'm going to bring up for no reason- fans of the game know that it was rushed through development, and the end result bore little resemblance to the original design doc, and many of us would like to see the game without the heavily Resident Evil influenced puzzles and the frustrating and occasionally unpolished (though completely unique and amazing) mechanics, but... actually I have no comment to tie up this sentence, but let's just say it's completely impossible to make heads or tails of any of Suda51's public statements.
In closing, there will always be great new IPs like Assassins Creed to break up the monotony. And there will always be great and much needed sequels like Assassins Creed 2. Treat the problem, not the symptom.
Sequels aren't a bad thing, they are just used badly (Guitar Hero). Some series deserve sequels. I would kill to have a proper Lunar 3 in my hands right now, or how many times the thought has crossed my mind to write a letter to Tecmo and Nintendo demanding they bring Fatal Frame 4 to America. See sequels are needed but the companies involved should also take the time to develop them properly, by implementing new and creative ideas.
Now as for Metal Gear Solid, I never have understood why Kojima hasn't remade Metal Gear, and Metal Gear 2. That would be awesome! It would be a good chance to fully complete the story of the Solid universe, while maintaining the integrity of the series. Also after those are out of the way, if Konami still wants to make MG games, they could start fresh with new characters. I'm talking fully fresh, not even talk of Snake or Raiden or anything else. The longer Konami clings to the series roots, the less of a chance it has of trying to make it move forward.
"We don't need a sequel unless the masterminds behind those games decide themselves a sequel is needed."
Sometimes a Sequel is so uneeded like often a prequel.....or you wanna wish to see Forest Gump 2? Or Forest Gump: The Beginning?