Something old, something new
Moving along in the FAQ series, one of the questions I get pretty regularly are variants of this:

"Why do publishers keep making sequels?"

Alongside this:

"Why don't they come up with new games, instead of keep rehashing stuff?"

Also, recently this has come up:

"Will publishers keep taking risks on triple-a games like Mirror's Edge after seeing them flop?"

These are all facets of the same issue that crops up from time to time, and it is quite true. Part of this stems from what makes a game a game, and part of it comes from customer confidence. Let's discuss this further, shall we?



The first thing to understand is what makes a game a game. A game is a collection of systems put together in such a way that lets a player do some basic tasks over and over in a simulated environment with basic rules. Doing these tasks generally makes it fun for the player. You can break any game down into component parts this way, be it chess (moving pieces on a board), twister (placing limbs on randomly determined colored spots) or counter-strike (moving, aiming and shooting in a 3D world). There are other elements to games, such as story and pacing and such, but when you think about it, what makes it a game is the actual systems that interact with each other that the player controls. This is what separates a game from another forms of entertainment media: the ability to control things.

This is important in looking at why sequels work the way they do, and why game sequels are more prevalent than things like movie sequels or book sequels. When movie fans want a movie sequel, it is because they want to know what happens next in the story (or watch more spectacular action scenes, or whatever). When book fans want a book sequel, they want to know what happens next in the story. But when game fans want a game sequel, most of the time it isn't because they want to know what's next in the story - it's because they want to keep doing the things they were doing before, but in newer and more spectacular manner than before.

For example, people wanted a sequel to Katamari Damacy because they wanted to keep rolling stuff up into balls, and they were tired of doing it in the same levels as before. They wanted more ball rolling, more stuff to roll into balls, and they wanted more ways to roll balls up. They wanted to try rolling balls up with other players. They wanted cooperative rolling. They wanted ways to share the fun of rolling stuff up with friends. So Namco made sequels.

I am sure you can think of many game series that are similar to this. There are whole game dynasties that are focused on perpetuating the 'feel' of the original game in the series through the past quarter century, like Mario. From Super Mario Bros to Super Mario Galaxy, the same basic concepts are there - jump, run and explore. They've added new features as they went, but the core is still there. Similarly, look at Megaman. Jump, shoot, defeat bosses and gain new powers. Most game series are based upon a core collection of game systems, with some innovation in terms of new ways to do stuff that is somewhat different but not completely from the previous game. Very little of the time does the story actually continue; some game series maintain the core systems but reset the story each time (e.g. Final Fantasy). Players want sequels because they want to keep playing the game past the content that they were given on the disc.

So now that we've identified the core of what makes a game a game, and what makes a game series a game series, it is important to identify why publishers continue to make sequels. Publishers like Activision-Blizzard and Electronic Arts are in the business of making money. Intellectual Property isn't just what they are guarding, but it's the core game systems associated with that intellectual property. When you think about Tomb Raider, you think about Lara Croft... but you also think about doing acrobatic jumps and navigating death traps in ancient tombs. You would be more skeptical about a Tomb Raider kart racing game, or a Tomb Raider fighting game. The strength of the brand is rooted in the gameplay developed for that brand, and the trust of players that the gameplay continue in a similar vein as before. Thus, by creating more content with similar gameplay and a brand famous for it, they will earn the money of the players who enjoy that type of game.

Sequels will, oftentimes, eventually wear out their welcome. A lot of game series become "boring" because they don't do a good enough job of expanding the gameplay each time. However, a brand doesn't necessarily die because of this; it just gets set aside for a time in order to capitalize on factors like nostalgia. A perfect example would be the Turok game series. For a while, Acclaim put out several Turok titles from 1997 to 2002, and they weren't sufficiently evolved to be fun or different and players got sick of them. The Turok games went on hiatus for a few years, then eventually came back in 2008. If the development team can keep the gameplay systems interesting and fresh, they can continue a series nearly indefinitely and it will continue to make money (e.g. Zelda, Final Fantasy, Castlevania, etc.).

Games like Mirror's Edge and the like are attempts at creating new franchises. Every game has the potential to be an ongoing franchise, because you can simply reset the entire story and still make a sequel. As long as the gameplay systems are the same, you can continue to move forward. However, the trick is to come up with gameplay systems that entertain and draw enough support from players to buy the game. It's harder to come up with an entirely new game with enough gameplay to make it fun. Thus, you'll never see a publisher stop putting out new IP. It is within their best interests to continue to try to find new brands they can continue to build sequels for.

When it comes down to it, new games are a risk. A publisher has to risk millions of dollars on development for a new kind of game in order to create a new brand, and further millions to market it properly. The rewards for doing so are great - if you generate a good game with good publicity, chances are very good that the good will from players generated from that first game will spill over to the first sequel, the second sequel, and so on. Look at Devil May Cry, for example. The first game was such a treat that the second game (which was generally panned by most players and critics) still sold decently well, and the third and fourth games were also generally well received. Sequels are generally not as risky - they have a built-in fanbase that will be more likely to buy the game. When it comes down to it, the risk is the most important factor, and that directly ties to things like the economic situation. If EA is riding high and earnings are up, they are much more likely to take risks and bankroll more high profile new IP games like Mirror's Edge. Most games take around 2-3 years to complete. If you look at EA's financial data in the 2005-2006 range (when Mirror's Edge started development), they were doing pretty well. Their stock price ranged from 50-60 a share and they were doing pretty decently. Their share price stayed above 45 points until late august of 2008, when it tumbled. Now it's under $20 a share.

Generally, sequels are safer bets that are used to fund new game experiments. The new game experiments are built with the concept of creating new safe bets in mind. In good economic times, you'll expect to see more new games and riskier games. In bad ones, the publishers are more likely to stick to what earns money. This is why you'll likely never see new games entirely vanish, but you will see them sometimes start to dwindle in the face of a bad economy.