Okay, so we’ve talked about previews. Now let’s talk about sequels.

Possibly one of the bigger issues when it comes to sequels is not the fact that there are so many of them, but rather that companies seem to insist on calling additional games sequels when they’re only loosely tied into the first one.

Let’s look at the different types of sequels:

1. The Direct Sequel

The direct sequel is fairly straight forward. Typically the same studio/company does each sequel, they tie into the previous games, and have similar game play. Look at, say, the Brothers in Arms games, the Halo series, Diablo 1 & 2. Each might have refinements and improvements in gameplay, but they’re telling an interlocked (or continuing) story. In Mercenaries 2, one character, a Chinese colonel, comes back from Mercenaries 1, but is now promoted and a general. He’s an NPC, but you’ve got the same “main characters” that the player can pick from the original, too.

These are true sequels. They’re like good movie or book sequels – not when the studio says “let’s add more of the same!” to something, but rather when they concentrate on making a solid contribution to the on-going storyline.

(Halo Wars makes for more of the re-imagined sequel, down below, though it’s a prequel (technically), and manages to keep – from what we’ve seen so far – a lot of the same feel.)

The key to the direct sequel is keeping it separate from the rote sequel if the direct sequel does, in fact, suck. That’s not uncommon, both in movies and in video games. Tenchu Z is a sequel to the original Tenchu: Stealth Assassin game, and even features incredibly similar gameplay. However, where the original was a classic stealth game and featured innovative gameplay for the time, the sequel – well, it just kind of sits there. What was innovative back however many years ago is by now stale, and the story, while moving previous main characters into supporting roles, is technically a sequel, it’s droll and derivative.

2. The Rote Sequel

Some games, by their nature, just require sequels. Much like the direct sequel, they typically feature gameplay that slowly improves over time, though at some points – usually when they jump up a generation in platform – you’ll see some dramatic changes.

The best examples of these will typically be sports games. If you’ve played Madden one year, you can play it the next, often with some small changes to the gameplay. These could be bad (the cone of vision in Madden) or they could be good (new shot control in Tiger Woods).

Or, they could be done really badly, like the incredible changes in crash modes between Burnout 2 and Burnout 3. The racing modes of those games featured a solid improvement, making 3 definitively better in racing – but the changes in crash mode made a lot of players yearn for the second game, rather than the third, something a publisher does NOT want.

You could argue that some of the World War 2 games end up in this cycle. Medal of Honor, for instance, and Call of Duty have had a number of sequels, some by different companies.

In movie terms, these would be the movies that get made because the first one did so well. “Hey everybody! We made a blockbuster! Come up with a sequel or two – NOW!”

3. The “Re-imagined” Sequel

These are the ones that when they get called a sequel they, in my opinion, often hurt the industry. The reason is that it confuses the fans and increases the disconnect between the developers and players unless it’s done in a very clear, dramatic fashion.

Fallout can make a good example of this. Fallout Tactics was quite a different game than Fallout 2. This was clear from the get-go, and while there may have been complaints about the gameplay in Fallout Tactics, it typically wasn’t that “it’s so different than Fallout 2!”

(At least, generally. The more fanatical of fans will find something to complain about in any kind of sequel of this manner, but most development companies can count on them to complain no matter what, and typically to buy the game no matter what.)

On the other hand, Fallout 3 is being called a sequel to Fallouts 1 and 2, and I think that’s a disservice to the games. While, technically, it is a sequel to the Fallout RPGs, it’s not a direct sequel. It’s set in a different area, with different characters, a different time, a different engine and a different style of RPG gameplay.

That’s what I feel like is causing a lot of the issues amongst the Fallout community right now. When you change something as minor as the type of engine some kind of car had in a game that you’re calling a direct sequel, you’re forcing either a ret-con (a retroactive change to continuity) in the original, usually beloved, game, or you’re doing something wrong.

On the other hand, if the game had come out as just “Fallout”, and Bethesda had said “Hey, we’re starting from the beginning and re-imagining the game in a number of ways” – well, the more die-hard fanatical fans will still complain, because they want the game they’ve always dreamed of (and aren’t going to get unless they can program themselves, because everyone wants something slightly differently and the company is looking for something that will sell the most among the population in general, not just the fans of the previous games). However, changing the engine of the cars, or the location of the Vault, or what have you, won’t matter so much, because it’s a similar, yet subtly different world.

On the other hand, some games can get re-imagined and improved upon. The original Area 51 shoot ‘em up games in the arcades were fun, but rather cheesy, with the jump up “good guys” that you couldn’t shoot and were poorly videoed, as was popular back on those days. Midway remakes Area 51 as a first person shooter, and instead of trying to make it just like the old game, or claiming it’s a sequel to the first game, they just use the same basic story and update it to modern sensibilities.

Best of all, you can then throw in the homage to the original game. The E3 sample level had a great example of that – a brutal “boss battle” with the player’s character as the door gunner in a helicopter, shooting it out with a boss who fired slow moving projectiles back at him, much like the bosses in old light gun arcade games used to do. THAT is the kind of thing that a fan of the original games can look at and say “hey, cool!” while not denigrating (necessarily) from the experience of someone new to the series. Of course, if I remember correctly, Midway also did the original games, so it didn’t go to a new developer like Fallout did (from Interplay to Black Isle Studios to Bethesda).

But you can still screw things up with the same developer, if only for a sub-set of the fans.

No one can argue that World of Warcraft is anything but a huge success, at least financially. Blizzard says they have over 9 million subscribers now – the game has changed the world of MMORPGs forever and probably made them a ton of money, not to mention the cultural impact it’s had even outside of the gamer universe.

On the other hand, this complete change to the Warcraft universe – from real time strategy game to MMORPG – also drastically changed the lore and the feel of the universe. People who were big fans of the lore complain when they see “big bad guys” from the novels or games turned into raids on “farm status” for loot. To them, the MMORPG has so irrevocably changed the canon – the universe – of the Warcraft world that unless a new RTS completely ignored the MMORPG it couldn’t be the same.

For instance, look at paladins. In Warcraft 3 they used group heals and never used swords, only hammers. (Yes, Arthas used a sword, and became a deathknight.) In World of Warcraft, they often use swords and have individual heal spells.

You could list a ton of other examples of this – just mentioning Star Wars Galaxies should be good enough for shudders out of any Star Wars fan in the audience.

4. The Exception to the Rule

You know what they say – there’s an exception to every rule. Not all sequels can be defined this way.

For instance, look at the jump between Duke Nukem 2 and Duke Nukem 3D. DN2 was a side scrolling adventure game. DN3D, on the other hand, was a first person shooter – and quite a popular one at that, at least in my neck of the woods when it came out. Even with the drastic shift in viewpoint, from 2D to 3D and from side scrolling to first person, it had the same atmosphere as the previous ones and was a direct sequel in terms of story.

Let’s look at another example. Everquest 2 is the MMORPG sequel to the immensely popular Everquest. It’s the same world, just further in the future and after a dreadful apocalypse.

Is it the same game? Well, at least as far as I can tell, it’s a different gameplay, definitely. It’s the same universe. It doesn’t preclude anything from the first game, and so doesn’t require any ret-conning. Does that make it a direct sequel? Or is it a re-imagining? Or a rote sequel?

Honestly, I don’t know.

Likewise, Call of Duty 4 moves the venerable Call of Duty engine from World War 2 to the modern day. You could call it a direct sequel, as the modern day is, after all, 60 years past the end of World War 2 (and CoD wasn’t exactly alternate history – WW2 still ended the same way).

But it’s also a different game. Where it might matter is if any of the characters are descendents of the characters from the previous Call of Duty games (one may be, I cannot remember) or just homages to them.

So that leaves a lot of questions up to you. Mention them in comments or on our forums.

Do you prefer direct sequels, rote, or re-imagined?
Do you think WoW should be a separate universe as the Warcraft RTS games?
Would you be more accepting of Bethesda’s Fallout 3 if it wasn’t being touted as a direct sequel but rather as a re-imagining of the original?
What games do you think have been ruined by their sequels, and what type of sequels were they?
Is a good sequel as good as an innovative original game? Better? Worse?