I'm a firm believer in evolution, revolution, and change. I like seeing new IPs come into being, new concepts, new technology, and even replacement cityscapes. At the same time, I love things that are classic and play homage to nostalgia. But I feel that our culture has become so focused on making sequels to things that don't really need sequels. This is in due part to the success of the original, so a sequel is created to capitalize on the financial success before someone else does.
There are many factors that go into making a sequel: financial success, development time, publisher demands, and development team. These factors can lead to either a great sequel or a terrible one.
For example, Chronicle is a fantastic movie that's part Superhero origin story and part High School drama. It uses POV cameras similar to Blair Witch Project, but through a smart script, it transcends the gimmick and incorporates it into the story.
For the sequel, which would indubitably be created, I hoped that it would answer the larger questions of the first movies. What was that alien device? Why was it there? Are there more? Where's it going to go? It's known that Matt has superpowers now, so what is his role in the world? Different government agencies will probably be after him, and that concept is amazing.
It seemed like writer Max Landis wanted the change, but different news sites are saying Fox wants more of the same. Fox wants more POV cameras because that's what made the first movie the first movie. They believe that people will want to see the same movie again because the first movie was such a success.
Making more of the same is why we have too many Saw movies, too many Paranormal Activity movies, and a 2000s version of Terminator 2 in Terminator Salvation. Sure, they're telling a continued story, but some things should just end. In creating sequels to stories that don't need sequels or prequels, the overarching storyline can get convoluted and strange.
Arguably, a Paranormal Activity could be another movie altogether because it's about "possession." By creating sequels, we follow the family-line through years. The first one made it seem like it could be any family. It could be yours. But the sequels show that it's happened to that specific family, so the overall fear is gone because I'm not part of that family.
It's not just film. We have video games that follow a similar concept. In film, having a different story is good enough. When sequels fall into the same pattern, they become stale. In games, the gameplay is arguably the biggest problem.
There are at least nine Call of Duties, at least 6 Halo games, fourteen main Final Fantasies (none of them are ever final), at least five Assassin's Creed games, and more.
That's not to say that games don't evolve over the sequel's time. I have a great problem with the Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed series for their sequelitis and producing the same game over and over again. They may add in a few extra game mechanics each time, but only a few are truly revolutionary. Instead, we're treated to the same game rehashed each year, and it's not just the developers' fault. We as consumers purchase it because we want more of it.
Only three games in the Call of Duty franchise add interesting concepts to the First Person Shooter (FPS) genre. The original Call of Duty kickstarted the fascination for World War II video games in the early 2000s. It still used health packs to heal, but we can thank Halo for removing health packs from modern shooters.
Modern Warfare took the franchise into the modern day, and it made videogames a normal pastime for Americans to play. Its multiplayer element added in perks (already seen in MMOs as talents) to the FPS genre. This gave players the ability to customize their play style online.
Black Ops 2 adds in a branching storyline to the singleplayer, so that the game could be different each time you play it. All points still lead you to "W," but the endings are based on your decisions throughout the game. This creates different endings based on your decisions. Most games tell one story. Despite what you might say about Bioshock and Mass Effect, the decisions you make don't really influence the ending. In Mass Effect and Black Ops, your journey may be shaped, but Mass Effect endings are based on what you choose at the very end. A paragon or "good" Shepherd could still blow up the Council (the galactic version of the UN) at the end of the game.
Assassin's Creed 2 is my biggest gripe. Why are there two additional sequels to a sequel? Rather than continuing the story into the 3rd Assassin's Creed, they decided to prolong the adventures of the second character.
Additionally, Assassin's Creed 3 allegedly ended the series, yet lo and behold, there's a 4th one announced. Asassin's Creed 3's story is still continuing with the "Tyranny of King Washington," but you know what, let's just throw in a 4th one now too. Rather than turning attention to creating a new IP or returning to an old one (2008's Prince of Persia comes to mind), they churn out sequel after sequel because it makes money.
And good for them. There's nothing wrong with the concept of sequels. But a sequel isn't retelling the same story; it's not rehashing all the same scenes, the same gameplay. It's about change and adding new developments. It could have similar concepts such as superhero sequels fighting other supervillains for the sake of the planet, but there needs to be development in their characters. Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 told how Peter Parker finally asked out Mary Jane and came to terms with his Superhero self. Terminator 2 destroys the inevitable destiny set forth in Terminator, but Terminator 3 and Salvation then show that destiny cannot be avoided.
Final Fantasy's combat systems change across its numbered reiterations and tell a different enough story that keeps them interesting. Bioshock Infinite is a spiritual sequel to Bioshock, but it's story seems more personal than the Randian philosophical endeavor of the first one. Even Assassin's Creed 2: Brotherhood added in some squad based mechanic, which was quickly dispatched.
To me, great sequels take the basic concept and expand upon it. Super Metroid took the idea of exploring a world and added new mechanics to explore it. It added creative gameplay elements to make one of the greatest games of all time. Metroid Prime took that concept and took it to the 3rd dimension. It added in a subtle story based on your character exploring in the world rather than copious amounts of exposition.
Sequels need to move things along, but they also need to have the proper development time. In many of the IP's of today, sequels are creating more of the same because they're slated to come out at the same time each year. There's not enough time to create new developments, different techniques, and something that sounds coherent.
And this trend will continue unless we ask the industry to make it stop by no longer jumping onto each and every sequels that comes out.
 |
| You may know this as Final Fantasy XIII-3 |
For example, Chronicle is a fantastic movie that's part Superhero origin story and part High School drama. It uses POV cameras similar to Blair Witch Project, but through a smart script, it transcends the gimmick and incorporates it into the story.
For the sequel, which would indubitably be created, I hoped that it would answer the larger questions of the first movies. What was that alien device? Why was it there? Are there more? Where's it going to go? It's known that Matt has superpowers now, so what is his role in the world? Different government agencies will probably be after him, and that concept is amazing.
It seemed like writer Max Landis wanted the change, but different news sites are saying Fox wants more of the same. Fox wants more POV cameras because that's what made the first movie the first movie. They believe that people will want to see the same movie again because the first movie was such a success.
Making more of the same is why we have too many Saw movies, too many Paranormal Activity movies, and a 2000s version of Terminator 2 in Terminator Salvation. Sure, they're telling a continued story, but some things should just end. In creating sequels to stories that don't need sequels or prequels, the overarching storyline can get convoluted and strange.
 |
| Finding Nemo 2 should get a name change unless it's about Nemo being lost... again. |
It's not just film. We have video games that follow a similar concept. In film, having a different story is good enough. When sequels fall into the same pattern, they become stale. In games, the gameplay is arguably the biggest problem.
There are at least nine Call of Duties, at least 6 Halo games, fourteen main Final Fantasies (none of them are ever final), at least five Assassin's Creed games, and more.
That's not to say that games don't evolve over the sequel's time. I have a great problem with the Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed series for their sequelitis and producing the same game over and over again. They may add in a few extra game mechanics each time, but only a few are truly revolutionary. Instead, we're treated to the same game rehashed each year, and it's not just the developers' fault. We as consumers purchase it because we want more of it.
Only three games in the Call of Duty franchise add interesting concepts to the First Person Shooter (FPS) genre. The original Call of Duty kickstarted the fascination for World War II video games in the early 2000s. It still used health packs to heal, but we can thank Halo for removing health packs from modern shooters.
Modern Warfare took the franchise into the modern day, and it made videogames a normal pastime for Americans to play. Its multiplayer element added in perks (already seen in MMOs as talents) to the FPS genre. This gave players the ability to customize their play style online.
Black Ops 2 adds in a branching storyline to the singleplayer, so that the game could be different each time you play it. All points still lead you to "W," but the endings are based on your decisions throughout the game. This creates different endings based on your decisions. Most games tell one story. Despite what you might say about Bioshock and Mass Effect, the decisions you make don't really influence the ending. In Mass Effect and Black Ops, your journey may be shaped, but Mass Effect endings are based on what you choose at the very end. A paragon or "good" Shepherd could still blow up the Council (the galactic version of the UN) at the end of the game.
Assassin's Creed 2 is my biggest gripe. Why are there two additional sequels to a sequel? Rather than continuing the story into the 3rd Assassin's Creed, they decided to prolong the adventures of the second character.
Additionally, Assassin's Creed 3 allegedly ended the series, yet lo and behold, there's a 4th one announced. Asassin's Creed 3's story is still continuing with the "Tyranny of King Washington," but you know what, let's just throw in a 4th one now too. Rather than turning attention to creating a new IP or returning to an old one (2008's Prince of Persia comes to mind), they churn out sequel after sequel because it makes money.
 |
| Superman coming back from the dead made it possible for EVERYONE. |
Final Fantasy's combat systems change across its numbered reiterations and tell a different enough story that keeps them interesting. Bioshock Infinite is a spiritual sequel to Bioshock, but it's story seems more personal than the Randian philosophical endeavor of the first one. Even Assassin's Creed 2: Brotherhood added in some squad based mechanic, which was quickly dispatched.
To me, great sequels take the basic concept and expand upon it. Super Metroid took the idea of exploring a world and added new mechanics to explore it. It added creative gameplay elements to make one of the greatest games of all time. Metroid Prime took that concept and took it to the 3rd dimension. It added in a subtle story based on your character exploring in the world rather than copious amounts of exposition.
Sequels need to move things along, but they also need to have the proper development time. In many of the IP's of today, sequels are creating more of the same because they're slated to come out at the same time each year. There's not enough time to create new developments, different techniques, and something that sounds coherent.
And this trend will continue unless we ask the industry to make it stop by no longer jumping onto each and every sequels that comes out.
