Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Sequel Revolution

Why is it that gamers expect something extraordinarily modern and revolutionary when it comes to game sequels? Consumers and media alike seem determined to undermine a sequel's success if it's only a slightly improved version of the original. People start calling it a $60 expansion and other such nonsense.

Maybe it's just me. When a sequel for a game is announced, I expect the developers to a) continue the story and b) fix what was broken. If I wanted something utterly new and different, I would buy a different game. If I wanted an elegant improvement over something I already liked and the continuation of a plot... well, then I would buy the sequel. After all, that's what sequels are for.

Granted, if you wait ten years for a sequel, then you expect updates in gameplay and technology. But that's true of any game... you can't be a contender in 2008 with 2002 graphics or 1995 gameplay.

Rainbow Six: Vegas had great gameplay, a fun and exciting multiplayer experience, and awesome environments. In 2, they've given us a sprint button, an engrossing RPG-like experience (in both multiplayer and campaign), and fixed the ludicrous co-op from the first game. The game picks up where the last one left off. This is what I call a sequel.

Maybe I'm not a sufficiently discriminating consumer.


Post a Comment

<< Home