What Makes a Good Video Game Sequel?

Article is a couple of months old but was just tweeted by IGN. I thought this was relevant to a lot of the discussions going on here.

http://www.ign.com/blogs/standardgamer/2014/11/27/what-makes-a-good-video-game-sequel

> Fixing the Previous Game’s Problems
>
> You can’t start making a sequel to a game without fixing some of the problems that may have plagued the previous installment. This means changing mechanics and gameplay elements that might’ve not worked and instead improving them or taking them out altogether. This can be anything from fixing up the story to improving performance on particular systems. You can’t have a game franchise that has the same set of problems throughout the entire series.
>
> Example: Pretty much every Grand Theft Auto game had a terrible mission check point system but Rockstar was finally able to fix this problem in GTA V.
>
>
>
>
> Innovation
>
> A good video game sequel shakes things up. A good video game sequel changes the established formula set by the previous game by adding a new gameplay mechanic or story element. Every year hundreds of games are released and if each game doesn’t do something new or daring, they are likely to quickly pass by. Why would I buy a sequel to a game that doesn’t change anything up and is merely just a new coat of paint on an old product?
>
> Example: Upcoming Batman Arkham Knight seems to be shaking up the old Arkham formula by adding in the Batmobile as a new integral game mechanic.
>
>
>
>
> Not Straying Too Far Away From The Original Game
>
> Innovation is good and all, but a game sequel needs to resemble its original roots in some way or else it just become an entirely different product. No one will buy next year’s Call of Duty if it’s a top down real time strategy game. New ideas and mechanics are fine, but you have to find some way to fit them into the already established game mechanics, or else the game is unrecognizable.
>
> Example: The Resident Evil series was well known for being a great example of survival horror games but then they suddenly turned it’s newest installment into a full blown action game.
>
>
>
>
> Improving Performance and Graphics
>
> While I never really cared all that much about graphics, frame rates, resolution and so on, they are a big part of separating the different games in the franchise. It only makes sense that each new installment in a game series looks better than the last. Graphics are always improved on in video game sequels and there is a reason for that. When people see a new video game, the graphics are always the thing they notice first.
>
> Example: The evolution of graphics in the Uncharted franchise

So while Innovation is good it shouldn’t strive so far away from it’s roots(let’s be honest, CE is a lot different than Halo 5).

That’s an interesting article. Seems to fit with Halo exactly.

> 2533274903392888;1:
> Article is a couple of months old but was just tweeted by IGN. I thought this was relevant to a lot of the discussions going on here.
>
> http://www.ign.com/blogs/standardgamer/2014/11/27/what-makes-a-good-video-game-sequel
>
>
> > Fixing the Previous Game’s Problems
> >
> > You can’t start making a sequel to a game without fixing some of the problems that may have plagued the previous installment. This means changing mechanics and gameplay elements that might’ve not worked and instead improving them or taking them out altogether. This can be anything from fixing up the story to improving performance on particular systems. You can’t have a game franchise that has the same set of problems throughout the entire series.
> >
> > Example: Pretty much every Grand Theft Auto game had a terrible mission check point system but Rockstar was finally able to fix this problem in GTA V.
> >
> > Innovation
> >
> > A good video game sequel shakes things up. A good video game sequel changes the established formula set by the previous game by adding a new gameplay mechanic or story element. Every year hundreds of games are released and if each game doesn’t do something new or daring, they are likely to quickly pass by. Why would I buy a sequel to a game that doesn’t change anything up and is merely just a new coat of paint on an old product?
> >
> > Example: Upcoming Batman Arkham Knight seems to be shaking up the old Arkham formula by adding in the Batmobile as a new integral game mechanic.
> >
> > Not Straying Too Far Away From The Original Game
> >
> > Innovation is good and all, but a game sequel needs to resemble its original roots in some way or else it just become an entirely different product. No one will buy next year’s Call of Duty if it’s a top down real time strategy game. New ideas and mechanics are fine, but you have to find some way to fit them into the already established game mechanics, or else the game is unrecognizable.
> >
> > Example: The Resident Evil series was well known for being a great example of survival horror games but then they suddenly turned it’s newest installment into a full blown action game.
> >
> > Improving Performance and Graphics
> >
> > While I never really cared all that much about graphics, frame rates, resolution and so on, they are a big part of separating the different games in the franchise. It only makes sense that each new installment in a game series looks better than the last. Graphics are always improved on in video game sequels and there is a reason for that. When people see a new video game, the graphics are always the thing they notice first.
> >
> > Example: The evolution of graphics in the Uncharted franchise
>
>
> So while Innovation is good it shouldn’t strive so far away from it’s roots(let’s be honest, CE is a lot different than Halo 5).

Dont forget having a good story also makes for a good sequel

> Innovation
>
> A good video game sequel shakes things up. A good video game sequel changes the established formula set by the previous game by adding a new gameplay mechanic or story element. Every year hundreds of games are released and if each game doesn’t do something new or daring, they are likely to quickly pass by. Why would I buy a sequel to a game that doesn’t change anything up and is merely just a new coat of paint on an old product?
>
> Example: Upcoming Batman Arkham Knight seems to be shaking up the old Arkham formula by adding in the Batmobile as a new integral game mechanic.

Feel like someone is inevitably going to misconstrue this point while simultaneously ignoring the paragraph that comes right after it.

Yes, it is a good thing to shake up the formula. Your game should try to avoid being a simple paintjob of the old game.

Although I personally disagree with this view, many considered L4D2 to be “DLC” because it wasn’t different enough from the original, and a boycott was attempted.

Some examples of Halo shaking up its formula are equipment, vehicle boarding, dual wielding, changing how the utility weapon functions, so on.

i think halo 4 was not truly that I mean the campaign was perfect to fit it. It had the roots, but brought a heck of a lot of new features into it.

I think so far halo 5 looks like it will be a great squeal to it.