Safe Sequels: Are They Really as Bad as Everyone Says?

            Recently, I purchased the game Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time.  There were a number of things about this game I found strange.  It was a cross buy with the Playstation Vita, it was $40 instead of the usual $60, and it had no instruction manual, preferring to have its controls printed on the reverse of the cover.  While all these things offer interesting discussion points, I have a different topic I want to cover.  You see, when I played Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time, I thought to myself, "Huh...this is a lot like Sly 3: Honor Among Thieves."  And you know what?  That's okay.  That's not a bad thing.  I know tons of people who cry foul about how every New Super Mario Brothers game just rehashes Super Mario Brothers 3, but...it's still fun, yeah?  Safe sequels aren't always a problem.  Sometimes, they can even be a blessing.

Look familiar?  That's not always a bad thing.

           As I so often do, let me defend myself from any accusations.  Yes, it is important for games to keep evolving.  No, game designers should not get lazy, nor should they be willing to settle for what's profitable rather than trying something new.  Yes, I love games that try new things, like Flower, Journey, or the Trauma Center series.  But you know what?  I also loved Mario Galaxy 2.  I enjoyed Bioshock 2.  Dragon quests 4-9 are among my favorite RPGs of the last twenty years.  And yes, they are all games which have been done before.  Here's the thing.  The games industry constantly tries to innovate.  However, eventually, you're going to hit a plateau where innovation is no longer possible through game design and instead relies on technology.  We're reaching that point now, with accessories like the Kinect, WiiU controller, or Sixaxis controller offering some of the only new types of game experiences.  Sure, games can play differently, look differently, or tell different stories, but looking at them, at least one person can say it's "Like _____, but..."

These graphics are the norm for Dragon Quest 4-6.  Yet the story and tweaks to the norm make each game just as engaging as the last.  The best definition of a safe sequel.

            My point is, you don't need to reinvent the wheel with new technology or try a UI no one has ever tried before or do something stupid or annoying simply because it's "new."  Sometimes, what we want is a sequel where we know what we're getting.  We want a new story to be told and new music, certainly, but the gameplay can largely remain the same.  Look back at Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time.  Is it better than Sly 3?  probably not.  Is it derivative?  A little bit.  Does it still give you that Sly Cooper experience with the wacky characters, interesting music cues, off beat mini games mixed with stealth gameplay, and comic-book like story?  Absolutely.  It gives the Sly Cooper experience.  And that experience is fun.

Still plays almost exactly like Sly Cooper 3, but now they're time traveling.  Yes, please!

            Fun is the whole point of playing games, most of the time.  Whether you are suffering against insurmountable odds in Dark Souls or blowing people up in Call of Duty, you play because you enjoy it.  Some games, like Spec Ops: The Line, can be engaging without being fun, but most gamers play to relax and enjoy themselves.  So, if a game is fun...who cares if it plays like an older title?  I think we could have done with a few more "Safe sequels."  Look at Devil May Cry 4.  It left gamers with several unanswered questions about the Devil May Cry universe that may never be answered thanks to the DMC reboot.  However, if Capcom had used the same game engine with a new story?  We'd have eaten it up.  It'd be the same fun, challenging, over the top kind of game, even if nothing new was added beyond the story.  And it'd probably take less time to make, as well.

Look, it's a decent game, but what about all our questions?!  Who was Nero?  What happened to Dante after he went to hell in DMC2?  Is Virgil still alive somewhere?

            Safe sequels do have a place in the games industry, no matter what people might tell you.  For everyone who groans about the latest New Super Mario Bros. game or whines about how Kirby's Return to Dreamland is just a copy of Kirby's Adventure on the NES with prettier graphics, there are dozens of people who just sit down, play the game for fun, and really enjoy it for what it is.  A pleasant way to pass time.  Challenging, visually stimulating, familiar...it doesn't need to reinvent Kirby as a psychotic monster or give Mario a long, in-depth story.  They're enjoyable because we're familiar with them.  And I think that too often people forget this.  New does not always mean better.  A recent new release, Ni No Kuni, used a real time battle system that was somewhat flawed in my opinion.  Many of these flaws could have been avoided if it had used a traditional turn based system.  However, the fear of being labeled "just another JRPG" or derivative made the developer, Level-5, feel like it HAD to innovate.  Like it HAD to try something new.  Ni No Kuni would have been a success regardless of combat, because of the beautiful graphics, whimsical story, amazing music, and the adventure it took players on.  To me, it just feels sad that I had to suffer some annoyances because it had to be "New."  You don't need to reinvent the wheel.  Not always, anyway.

I love this game.  It's beautiful, whimsical, and a blast to experience...but real time combat was not what it needed.  You coulda gone old school on this and it would've been way more polished.

            That being said, let me offer a warning.  I do believe that safe sequels have a place in the games industry.  That they're not really a problem if they're fun.  However, for both players and game companies, if you dilute the brand, then you'll only hurt yourselves.  I have no problem with safe sequels.  But boring sequels?  Those, I can't stand.  And it's important that people know the difference.  Yes, New Super Mario Brothers 2 and New Super Mario Brothers WiiU are enjoyable but they came out with such rapid succession and didn't really do anything with the story, graphics, or tweaked gameplay, that make buying one version more attractive than buying another.  It's like a 2010 vs a 2011 version of a sports game.  You're paying for a slightly better coat of paint and maybe an updated roster.  The reason I saw Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time is an okay kind of sequel is because it'd been almost a decade since Sly 3.  It was time for Sly Cooper to make a come back.  Do you need to wait that long for every safe sequel?  No, of course not, you want your players to remember the series and for it to still be relevant.  However, if you churn out sequel after sequel, year after year...then players get bored.  They get tired of paying $60 once a year for an update.  The Call of Duty Modern Warfare series, which has a new iteration on an almost yearly basis, is a good example of this.  It's still fun to some people, certainly...but will it still be fun ten years and ten to twelve CoD games down the line?  Companies are diluting the brand with constant releases and all it will do is hurt the games.

I picked a screen from a CoD game at random.  Can anyone besides the super hardcore fans even tell me which game this is from?  Yeah...that's how many CoD games get released on an annual basis.

             I do think that story based games, especially RPGs could get away with this a bit more often.  Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask was built to be a safe sequel, using the same engine as Ocarina of Time, the same graphics, the same character models, etc. and made in roughly a year.  However, it gave us a new story, new places to explore, new people to meet...it gave us new horizons.  Games which rely heavily on gameplay, like modern warfare shooters, Mario games, racing games, sports games, etc. don't always have something new to offer players.  Maybe a new weapon or new set pieces, but...it's the same basic experience.  With no new experience, the game becomes bland.  A safe sequel needs to be what we are familiar with, but also it needs to have something different which will engage the players.  A new story, tweaks to combat, worlds that have never been explored before in that universe, etc.  A good example of this done well is the Dragon Quest series.  Dragon Quest has, as a series, basically recycled the same battle system for years, with a few slight variations.  But the story is always different.  In Dragon Quest 4, players take control of a number of different characters with different goals, jobs, and worries, whose stories all intersect.  In Dragon Quest 5, you play from childhood to marriage and team up with your children to fight evil.  In Dragon Quest 6, players are wrapped up in a battle for two worlds which are parallel, yet hidden from one another.  Even if the gameplay is the same, or slightly tweaked, they offer a different experience from previous titles, while still being familiar.

Despite being made one right after the other in rapid succession, each game was different enough in style, story, and environment, that gamers actually labeled them rivals.  Which Zelda game was better?  Safe sequel becomes timeless rival...I love it.

            Safe sequels are, in my opinion, like a fine wine or brandy.  You can drink them up as soon as the developer wants to release it, but the flavor will be lacking.  Give the property time to age properly and the safe sequel will be much more warmly received.  New Super Mario Brothers was basically a safe sequel to Super Mario Bros. 3 on the NES.  But people ate it up because it'd been over a decade since they'd had an experience like that.  Fast forward to the fourth New Super Mario Brothers game, recently released for the WiiU, and people are a bit more...indifferent, or disappointed.  Does that mean they don't have a place?  No, they absolutely do, but you need to think of properties as an investment.  Sometimes, you need to wait before trying to cash out with them.  If another ten years passed with no New Super Mario Brothers games, players would probably be more receptive to another entry in the series.

Maybe you should give this franchise a little time off, Nintendo.  If the images were shuffled around, do you think any of us could tell the difference?

            Humans are a bit confusing, at times.  When we hear a story, we want closure, because that way we can move on to the next great story, feeling satisfied with what we just experienced.  However, that doesn't mean we never want more stories or more experiences like what we just had.  We just don't want them back to back.  Gamers are sometimes like comic fans.  We enjoy continuity.  We enjoy seeing the next part of the story that takes place after what we just saw ended.  But we need time to digest the experience.  Time to try other things before the next chapter is released.  This is one of the reasons I enjoyed Final Fantasy 4: After Years, even though it was critically panned.  Because it'd been long enough that I wanted to hear more of the story and experience that classic Final Fantasy gameplay.

Save for a slightly "crisper" look, FF4: After Years plays just like it's predecessor.  And that's why I enjoyed it.  New story, new characters, same old Final Fantasy.

            The take away from this is twofold.  First, game companies, recognize if you're milking a franchise too much.  If you keep churning out sequels on a yearly basis and people keep groaning, maybe lay off them for a bit until we're ready for the next part of the story.  It'll help keep the brand strong and players interested, rather than indifferent.  Second, gamers who always whine about sequels that are "just copies of the original," or what have you, take a step back.  Is the game still fun?  Are there more sequels incoming on an annual basis or is this the only one we get for a while?  Do we get a new experience, even if gameplay is similar?  Some safe sequels are problematic, but don't bash on a game just because it's like the original.  If it's fun, lay off. 

Innovation for the sake of a fun, enjoyable experience is the cornerstone of Journey, which uses the oldest storytelling trope known to man.  Innovation works here.

  

Playstation Move, a controller that has widely been ignored because it tried to jump on the Wii bandwagon and incorporate motion controls.  Innovation fails here, because it was for the sake of profit, rather than for the sake of making the games more enjoyable.

          Innovation does not equate to quality.  Jim Sterling put it best when he said that innovation was the game industry's snake oil.  Innovation for the sake of making a game more fun is great.  Innovation for innovation's sake is just going to end up with a product that is lacking, either in polish or enjoyability.  At some point, you can't really innovate anymore.  So, stop saying that innovation equals quality and something familiar is holding the industry back.  Safe sequels aren't always bad.  Many times, they are an enjoyable romp through familiar territory with a new twist or experience and they help keep their brand and their developer afloat.

Now, where's Devil May Cry 5 or Dark Cloud 3?  I'm waiting...