What is so Wrong With More of the Same?

"Same," "similar," "cookie cutter," "by the numbers," "remake," "expansion." These are all descriptions that reviewers have ascribed to the recent release of Crackdown 2. You can find similar descriptors in reviews of most sequels. After reading a number of reviews of sequels that used these same sort of descriptions and then playing the games for myself, I was struck by a seeming disconnect between what video game reviewers want from a sequel and what I, as a gamer, want.

Video game reviews of sequels tend to start with the predecessor title as a base line for the review. No matter how great the last title in the series was, a sequel that just adds new maps and a new story, but that doesn't deviate from the formula that worked before, will not be given the benefit of the glowing review that the predecessor got. Reviewers seem to insist that a sequel innovate. A sequel must add a few new bullet points to the side of its box or it will be panned as an overpriced expansion or derided as content that should have been released as DLC (with the notable exception being the GTA series, which can just release more of the same and be hailed as the greatest game to ever see release).

Well, drawing from my own experience, I call "bulls@#*!" If I am excited about a coming sequel it is almost assuredly because the previous game in the series was stellar. Why would I want the sequel to reinvent the wheel? Give me more of what I love about the game. Crackdown 2 is fun precisely because it doesn't seek to innovate on a tried-and-true formula that worked in the original. Ruffian Games was ahead of the developer curve when it decided to make a sequel that mirrored the original (although, Ruffian has since felt the need to justify how similar the original and sequel are based on a lack of development time provided by Microsoft Games Studios) and that "innovated" by adding 4-player co-op for the 2-player co-op of the original. That said, my biggest complaint about the sequel is something that Ruffian decided to change that wasn't broke: taking out the gang leader bosses.

My classic example of change for the sake of change is Gears of War 2's campaign and multiplayer. My favorite game of all-time is the original Gears. It was the game that really got me into playing competitive MP on Live. I loved the campaign in that it didn't try to tell me some complex story, but rather just gave me enough information to explain why Delta Squad was in the location that the game put them in. The MP essentially required players to fight in close quarters due to its symmetrical maps and dodgeball-like, race to the power weapons set-up. You could play the game as a tactical shooter, but you would not get the power weapons. As a result, it was just a matter of time before you learned that "boomshot > lancer." By contrast, the sequel tried to tell a compelling story, but that story had more holes in it than swiss cheese. Ultimately, that story somehow made me feel less connected to the characters than the original. To advance the thin plot, we were forced to play a level in the belly of a giant worm, for God's sake. But Epic's greatest sin was what they did to the competitive MP. By beefing up the lancer (using the explanation that the Lancer is Gears's signature weapon), while nerfing the shotty and many of the power weapons, the MP became more of a tactical shooter that encouraged mid-range over close quarters combat. Why would I risk running for the longshot if I know that I can take down an enemy just as effectively with my standard issue lancer? Even the weapons that were added ruined the experience. I had many an early match where the battle was decided based on who got their hands on the mortar first. Now, to Epic's credit, through patches released in response to gamer complaints, the MP has gradually come back to being substantially the same as the original Gears. Not surprisingly, I have fallen in love with Gears all over again (although, I do still always vote for the original maps over the Gears 2 maps that were designed to host a different type of gameplay). Had Epic released this version of the sequel and innovated with the amazing co-op Horde mode variant, I know very few gamers that would have complained.

Fortunately, it seems that developers are starting to realize the disconnect between what gamers and reviewers want in a sequel. Halo: ODST gave players precisely the same MP as its predecessor (literally) and a story that stayed true to what one would expect from a Halo game (albeit, without Master Chief). The innovation in ODST was accomplished away from the core game by the inclusion of the separate Firefight mode. My hope is that the future will see more releases that take a cue from Crackdown 2 and ODST. If Epic has learned its lesson from the past, Gears 3 will feature a thin but action-packed campaign, MP maps and weapons that will encourage CQB, and innovation outside of the core game (like Horde mode).

Video game reviews are a handy resource to discover details about a game before making a $60 investment. However, if I have already played a game in a series, I should be able to rely on that experience as predictive of whether I will like the sequel. Hopefully, the trend is moving in that direction. If so, I can reserve reading video games reviews for new IPs.