> Suspiciously Similar Sequels

E3 at a Glance | Sony | Sega | Nintendo | PC | Mac | Online | Portables | Driving | Strategy | Sports | Action | Shooters | RPG | Classics
| Games that defy explanation | Horror | Celebrity games | Gadgets | too much hype | not enough hype | Sequels that matter | Sequels that don't |
What are they Thinking?? | Something's Missing | Best VideoDemo | Behind Closed Doors | Things we Almost Forgot | Game of Show | E3 Wrap Up

Driver 2
Reflections/ Infogrames/ PSX/ PC


Deja View.

For better or worse, sequels are a part of the gaming industry. As often as not, developers cite "consumer demand" as the driving force behind the proliferation of follow-ups. While it is true that the best games naturally leave us crying for more, releasing a sequel so closely on the heals of its predecessor often makes one wonder if they couldn't have just released a single great game in the first place. Not that such a feat is always possible - in fact you have to realize that the tremendous effort going into any given game's first outing, not to mention the limitations of developer's funds and resources and the demands of investors who want to see results sooner rather than later/never, will often push a game out the gates before it has been perfected - or at least properly finished; the sequel is merely the refinement treatment not afforded the first go 'round, making the sequel worth purchasing.

Too, technology has a nasty habit of improving in fits and spurts and by leaps and bounds, and games that came out a mere year or two ago were built for now-obsolete machines, PCs or last generation consoles, and a sequel, while still offering very little in the "fresh idea" department, nevertheless offers tighter gameplay, better graphics, and generally comes off as a better realization of the developers original vision - ideally.

It's the sequels that come out too soon and strictly for monetary gain that should really get your shorts in a knot. If there was someway to organize a massive, global boycott of sequels so suspiciously similar to their forbearers that they degrade their own franchise, we could really send a message to game publishers. Look at the Tomb Raider franchise, for example. The original: practically invented the third-person action/adventure genre and still stands as a benchmark for depth of character and wholly absorbing gameplay. Then Tomb Raider The Last Revelation (number four in the franchise), a wholly re-worked game, seemed to practically re-invent the genre. But Tomb 2 and Tomb 3? Tweak ridden, to be sure, huger hooters and sexier moves, but cows just the same. If they'd waited as long and released Revelation as Tomb 2, Eidos would have an untouchable hold on the genre. As it is, we go: "which one is that? The one where she crawls around on all fours? I think I already bought that one. I can't afford another…" Too bad, buddy, you missed the good one. (As a counterpoint, Microsoft's Motocross Madness 2 offers so much improvement to an already fantastic game that it is warmly - hotly - welcome. Same with the new MechWarrior, which is actually the 4th incarnation yet a remarkably different game that still remains faithful to its lineage, hence, the lack of numeric appendage.)

Worse, look at the Twisted Metal games. Great marketing muscle in this decrepit franchise. The TV spots are a howl. Great fun to watch. But arming the automobile, marauding through arenas and spewing projectile bitch-slaps was cool exactly once. Four incarnations offering various states of bog and pop and flutter merely destroyed the franchise's ability to benchmark car combat games.

This is an area where PC games have console games beat. Expansion packs hit the market as often as sequels, yet at a reasonable price point that clearly defines them as the previously mentioned design improvements on original game concepts. Sequels that come in at the same console price point of the original and only offer expansion pack qualities (more moves, more environments, more characters, more blood, etc.) should be taken for the cash cows that they are. These sequels milk you, the consumer. They are pulling hard on your teats and you should be a little pissed off about that. To boot, sequels degrade the video game market in general and make it much harder for you, the consumer, to soothe your aching boobs with a better version of a game from a different developer simply due to the presence of three or four or even five versions of one game taking up that much more distracting space on the shelf.

And finally, we also forgive sequels that make their first showing on a new platform as that fact makes it fresh and new to at least one group of consumers. Think of Tomb Raider 4 as Tomb Raider 1 on Dreamcast and you've got the perfect game all over again. Same with Gran Turismo 2000, which is actually the 3rd in the series but the first shot as the flagship game for the PS2.

And finally, we can't really fault the proliferation of sports games sequels on those fixed platform consoles. Sure, the rules of any give sport rarely change from year to year and the quality of gameplay always rests mainly in the eyes of the sport's fan/gamer whose main concern is simple fierce gameplay with a current roster of players. That said, sports game sequels on the PC should be offered as expansion packs, but they are not... Your poor sore nipples…

Anyway, E3 was stuffed with sequels to the point that those who were there had to look extra hard to find an original game, let alone a good follow-up to an original game. Here's what popped out at us as suspiciously similar sequels simply by blocking our view of the new, the fresh and/or the masterworks of refurbishment:

Driver 2. Too soon (unless you count the fact that this will be the first Driver for Dreamcast, in which case, go nuts). Apparently you get out and walk around (I just drove around, myself). Otherwise it's Driver with curves and a 56 Chevy. Driver was 1999's game of the year. Driver 2 is 2000's tit yanker. If Reflections and GT/Infogrames would just sit and savor the fame and bask in the glory of an awesome title, maybe start work on a bleeding edge follow-up masterpiece to be released in a year or two (like Microsoft's glorious follow-up to the glorious Motocross Madness) instead of just tweaking the game engine and polishing a few minor flaws, then a Driver sequel would be that much the grander. The anticipation is half the fun. This soon? What are you, a teenager on his first trip to third base? As it is, Reflection's Martin Edmonson is already quoted as stating "we were very pushed for time with the cut scene renders in Driver 1, and we were not happy with the quality. The story cut scenes in Driver 2 are much improved - with better lighting animation and lip-syncing." Arrrg! This is exactly my point. "Much improved?" Give me "perfected!" Driver 2 adds a few such spit-polish elements along with the ability to walk around the various city-scrapes and carjack a big variety of vehicles - and there are even hints of a multi-player mode - but so soon out of the gate just sounds forced. If this is to be their MO for the franchise, it might be wise for frugal gamers to wait for Driver 4 which should be a genuinely fresh revision to an already certified classic.

-Shaun Conlin

>>>next