It seems like every new console generation ushers in a couple of years of new content that the system just rides throughout its lifespan. There are a few exceptions, but if you compare the amount of original content that is released with a new system versus what is released after the third year, the scale is tipped quite heavily to one side. While there are a couple of reasons for this cycle of original content, it isn’t beneficial to gamers and can have a negative impact on the industry.

To illustrate my point clearly, think of the games that have come out or are coming this year. Portal 2, Uncharted 3, Assassin’s Creed Revelations, Resistance 3, inFAMOUS 2; all games with a number or subtitle after them. As for original content, L.A. Noire is the game that stands out the most, and in all honesty, that game was supposed to be out years ago. All of the titles I listed also were new IPs this console generation. So, why do we only see these new games at the beginning of a system’s life? The answer is actually fairly simple.

Aaron sticks to a pretty strict three-launch-title purchasing plan. That way, if one game is a stinker, he’s got a couple of other options to fall back to. Many people seem to follow a similar purchasing pattern when a new system comes out. So, think about this scenario: If God of War, Jak and Daxter, and a new Final Fantasy had launched with the PlayStation 3, all of those would have been safe bets for launch title purchases. We like to play it safe. So, by launching with titles that aren’t an established franchise, gamers are forced to try out these new IPs. I mean, you just spent $500 on this game-playing device; you want to play some games on it, right? Even if you don’t see many games that entice you right away, developers know that they still have a window of one to two years where gamers are willing to take a chance on a new franchise.

So, that takes us to the question of why we don’t continue to see new IPs developed later in the system’s life. Just like gamers like to play it safe, so do the people spending the money to make the game. If they have a title that sold two million copies of the first game, why would they not make a sequel to it? They’re almost guaranteed to have an equally impressive sales figure for the next game. That’s the unfortunate truth of all media and entertainment. Aside from Titanic, all movies that have a huge box office showing are going to get a sequel.

While these choices have sound business logic behind them, returning to the well several times over can have a negative impact on our industry. Four to five years into a system cycle, all of the systems have become machines specialized in playing a few games. It becomes less of an Xbox 360 and more of a Halo playing device. Or not so much a PS3 anymore, but rather a system made for God of War and the yearly Call of Duty game. But what about gamers that don’t like these titles? Are they completely ignored? I feel as though I’m a perfect example of this. Of the original IPs launched this generation, there were only a couple that I truly liked. I didn’t care for Assassin’s Creed, BioShock, or inFAMOUS. So, while other gamers get excited for this year’s “big releases,” I’m left wanting something new. And I know I’m not the only one.

Another part of the problem is inherent to the medium itself, and that is the ever-evolving technology. This is a problem that we have discussed in the past, and I feel that it is relevant to this conversation. The game that Ubisoft put out with the first Assassin’s Creed is vastly different than the one they released last Fall. Developers get more second chances in the video game world. If they didn’t perfect it the first time, there’s always the sequel. Or perhaps it’s that the developers simply weren’t skilled enough with the system’s architecture the first time around to create the game they wanted. Again, there’s always the sequel.

While there is no fix for this trend, other than publishers and developers creating original IPs throughout the entirety of a console generation, there is a counter argument to the old way of thinking. While it is true that the newest Madden and Call of Duty games will be among the top sellers of this year, it cannot be ignored that L.A. Noire and the original God of War were games that were released late in the generation and still were able to generate a large amount of sales. New games can still work later in the cycle. A key part of making them work is releasing them in the dead spaces of the year, such as early summer. Along the same lines of putting a new game out during the launch window, putting a game out in the dead time of the year gives gamers something to fill the void while also experiencing something new. I understand that this becomes increasingly difficult because you can’t start to split up developers’ teams to work on a new unproven IP. Again, it comes back to money. But, with the examples I listed earlier, there is a good chance to recoup that cost.

A problem that we have talked about on the show before is how the industry quickly became too big for itself. There’s too much money to be made and lost, and that makes the idea of risk less appealing. However, if publishers and developers are willing to take a risk, I believe that gamers are too. However, if companies continue to see us as sheep that they can herd into every new sequel, they may quickly see the herd, and the industry, begin to thin out.

Related Links

• Batman Animated (Paperback)
• The National – Boxer (CD)

It’s no secret that the name of the game these days is franchise. Every publisher in the industry is looking for that one magical game that they can turn into a multiple-release, money-printing powerhouse. This seems to happen so much in fact that developers are even starting to conceptualize their games as multiple-release epics before the first entry even hits store shelves. When this happens, the game’s story often remains extremely open-ended until the last entry. This does nothing but leave gamers with an unsatisfying play experience and a two year case of anxiety as they wait for the next entry that they hope is coming. I’m here to tell those developers who are playing this mean trick on us one thing. Cut the shit! The video game industry is a fickle mistress, and you never really know which games are going to get sequels and which will be a one-and-done. Therefore, from a narrative standpoint, give players a complete enough narrative so that they feel justified for having just spent $60 on your game.

If you think I’m being overly harsh here, I’m pretty sure I only need to utter one word, and you’ll see my point: Shenmue. Originally billed as a multi-chapter, multi-game opus from famed creator Yu Suzuki, Shenmue’s tale of Ryo Hazuki and his search for the man who murdered his father never got to come to an end. While two installments were released, the second ends in a cliffhanger that has caused the game to always rank high on fanboy wish lists. However, due to its huge budget and lukewarm sales, the third game has only ever seen the earliest stages of development and currently has no steam behind it at all.

This is highly unfair, and potentially unethical, of developers and publishers to do to players. While I can respect the ambition to create games of this size and scope, I don’t respect any developer that can’t deliver on their promise of completing the series. We don’t accept this from other types of narrative media so why would we accept it from games. You wouldn’t go pay for a movie ticket knowing that you were only going to be shown the first two thirds of the film. So why are we expected to shell out six times that amount to play a game that has no intention of giving us a decent ending?

Now before you jump down my throat about The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and other film franchises that have planned sequels, let’s look at how those projects were and are being carried out. Each movie in those franchises have been adapted from existing works, and those existing works are already written in ways that adhere to successful formulas for dramatic structure. So anyone paying to see those films knows what they are getting into. The established fan base maintains a demand for these films, thereby giving viewers a sense of security that all the parts will be released.

Looking at this release strategy from strictly monetary terms, a developer that has no intention of giving you a complete story/experience until the last title is charging you $180 for their complete product, assuming it’s a trilogy. $180?! Have you ever thought it was a good idea to pay $180 to play any game, watch any movie or hear any story? I didn’t think so. But even assuming that you are ok with the practice, let’s say the last game, like Shenmue 3, never comes out. Now you’re down over a hundred bucks with nothing to show for it.

All the best trilogies in history stem from a solid first entry that was then built upon for later sequels. It’s pretentious to assume that your game/movie/story is so great that it will hold an audience’s attention, not to mention their money, for two more entries. So all the best ones don’t make this assumption. Look at the first entries in the greatest trilogies of all time and how they ended on a note that gives fans enough closure so that if there were never going to be another installment, they can walk away happy. Luke blows up the Death Star. Neo kills Agent Smith. Ripley kills the alien. Sure each one left plenty of room for sequels, but they also gave the audience a cathartic enough ending that they felt satisfied with what they had seen and didn’t require more movies to feel like they had gotten their fill.

So are there any games that have done this whole trilogy thing properly? Yes, and it took the power of a god to make it happen. The God of War trilogy is a shining example of how to execute a proper trilogy in the game industry. The first God of War gives players a story that is epic unto itself and an ending that put a stamp on the story, all the while leaving just enough room for a sequel should fans have wanted one. It even got the second game’s story right by employing the trilogy tool of leaving the second a little more open ended than the first, but it still gave players a feeling of completion and success at the end. And of course, the recently released God of War 3 puts the bow on top of the whole narrative package. Each game tells a complete three-act dramatic story keeping in line with the story of the trilogy. It’s the only fair way for developers to do it.

Developers are only recently figuring out how to put a satisfying story into a single game. It seems like assuming they can stretch one out for multiple games that we are all expected to pay $60 each for is definitely putting the cart before the horse. And even then, those great single narrative games are still few and far between. I know that on Pixelosophy we often plead with developers to take their game narratives as far as they can, and that remains true. But there is a right way to do it and a wrong way. Getting players to shell out their hard earned money for an incomplete experience is absolutely the wrong way. Give us a reason to play another entry by making the first one the total package. The trick is to leave players wanting more based on the experience you gave them; not needing more because of the experience you didn’t give them.

Related Links

• The Batman (DVD)
• Fight Night Round 4 (Xbox 360)
• Fight Night Round 4 (PS3)

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.

Wrapup starts at 46:50. Would you kindly just listen to the whole thing?