“Wait a second, but I thought this was going to be an article about voice-acting?! That title doesn’t sound like a voice-acting title!” First of all stop abusing the exclamation point, and calm it right down. The voice-acting article is indeed forthcoming, but just not this week. Due to a bit of shortsightedness on my part, and after finalizing Alex’s article on sequels this week, I realized I had to call the audible at the line. While we won’t make a habit out of these last minute changes, this one was just too good to pass up.
As Alex made clear in his article, sequels are a huge part of the video game industry, no argument there. The point at which he and I split paths is our general outlooks about game sequels. In our talks about his article, I know Alex is actually quite optimistic about the future of game sequels and simply wanted a few demands met in order to achieve a totally positive position on sequels, as his article outlines. However, I think we’re already there. I already think game sequels have a leg up on other entertainment mediums, and I would even say that I’m almost usually more excited for a game sequel than a movie sequel already.
The main advantage that games have over movies is that games are usually based on design and play concepts/ideas rather than a story. Like we have pointed out before, we classify game genres by play type, not story. Of course, that isn’t to say that directors don’t go into movies with concepts and themes they wish to convey, but I would argue that, almost always, the story comes first. I’m also not saying that all games are born this way, as a game like Heavy Rain could have been conceived with a story first, only that most of them probably start with a gameplay mechanic.
The advantage here comes from the fact that a gameplay idea is a much more malleable form to play with and shape than a story. Most importantly, players can recognize the potential in a great gameplay idea. Combine that with the fact that it seems as though many developers are quite open to fan feedback and are willing to listen, and you have the formula to create games that get better and better with each installment. Let’s break that down a bit.
First, seeing the diamond in the rough is what keeps players excited for sequels even if the first game didn’t live up to expectations. Assassin’s Creed was a game that, for me, didn’t live up to expectations by a mile. In fact, anyone who has listened to any of the 4PC podcasts has probably heard me describe it as my most disappointing game experience ever, and I stand by that. But was I at the midnight launch of Assassin’s Creed 2? You better believe I was! Why would I do that? It’s simple. The concepts and ideas that live within the design-skeleton of the Assassin’s Creed franchise are some of the most intriguing and unique in all of gaming, so much so that even if they get it just 85% right, you have a game of the year contender. An even more recent example is Red Steel. Not many would argue that the first one was pretty terrible, but come on, swords and guns? If they nail the feeling of free combat while wielding a sword and a gun, the player is in for one of the most exhilarating experiences to be had on a console.
These ideas and concepts are often based on hero fantasies that we all wish we could be a part of. We all want to experience fantastic worlds, be a badass assassin or a pistol-toting ninja, so when these games have such a clear vision for how the game should work, we tend to still get excited for the sequel in the hopes that if they get it right next time, it’s going to be great.
Next is the malleability and, sometimes, comparative ease of altering a gameplay idea as opposed to something like a story element. Broken game mechanics are readily identifiable, mechanical problems to be solved through direct means. Jumping didn’t feel right using the Y button? Switch it to the X button. The character didn’t climb the walls in a way that looked believable. Add more animations next time. Any problem X always seems like it has a clear solution Y. But when you look at something like a movie, it’s a bit different. Say you just got done watching a comedy, but you didn’t really laugh or find it funny. Could you explain exactly what needed to be different for it to be funny to you? Was it the delivery, the writing, the pacing, the actors personalities? There is no quick answer to make it funny. I’m not saying that all gameplay problems are easy to solve. Overhauling a control scheme would be a major task, but identifying that the original control scheme wasn’t working is the easy part and therefore makes itself a part of the solution for a better game next time.
Of course players wouldn’t maintain their anticipation for a sequel if they didn’t think developers were listening. This point is actually up for some level of debate. It’s always questionable whether or not artists should be catering to fans or critics, and if developers are indeed the artists, should they, to put it bluntly, give a damn? I say they should because in the case of mechanical alterations, it isn’t a compromise of the idea or concept. It’s a group effort to find the ultimate solution for realizing that experience. Since both players and developers have the same goal in mind, listening to each other is a great aspect of this medium.
With a great core gameplay mechanic at the soul of a franchise, it’s easy to get excited about a sequel even when the first game sucked. Can we say the same for movies? To be honest, it’s when a game nails the mechanical aspects of the gameplay right away that players can be worried about the sequel because then developers do tend to play with the more intangible elements like story and character development. Or even worse, they try and “fix” a mechanical element that was never broken to begin with. Then they have the potential to fall into the same trappings as bad movie sequels that alter things they shouldn’t. However, developers that use these unique advantages in their approach to game sequels should almost always end up with a better game and truer experience every time.