There’s a big chance you’re reading this link because there’s a cool new game coming out. Well, hello! I’m here to save you from hating it unnecessarily.
There’s an assumption in the film and game industry that a sequel to something you like should be equally-good or better than the original. Which… is definitely a fine hope, but a self-sabotaging expectation. Let’s talk about the reason sequels are so tough to make.
It’s hard to make sequels.
The obvious path to making a new game - just making more of the original - leads to a disappointing game a surprisingly high percentage of the time. The joy of a game often comes from the ability to learn new mechanics, designs, approaches, etc. so adding bonus levels often feels to players like you unleashed a director’s cut rather than a new game.
Okay, so what’s the opposite? You could build something entirely new, but that may alienate the original audience. Stray too far from your original game, and you may lose the core of what made your game fun.
Okay, so just make something that’s familiar, but not too familiar, right? Well… even your new-ish sequel, with several core concepts maintained, can still fall short of the original if your audience’s tastes have shifted over time. What if your core audience was 16 years old when your first game released, but now they’re mostly 20 years old and don’t have the same time for grinding that they used to?
The toughest pill to swallow as a game designer, however, is that media often succeeds in comparison to its cultural surroundings. The best example is Animal Crossing: New Horizons, which clearly reached a particular level of success due to quarantine 2020. It’s a fine game normally, but considering the state of the world at that time, it was perfectly positioned to appeal to people homebound and stuck alone.
Basically, if one of your games or movies did well because it hit a certain chord at the time, the sequel has to fight against the perfect timing of the original. That’s pretty tough because it requires timing the market or altering your own game to better match the mood of your audience. Most importantly, though, it’s something you have to start from scratch - you can’t build on the successful timing of your previous game.
Therefore, it’s pretty common for a sequel or expansion to not top the original game.
It just happens. But also… I think that’s okay.
I see sequel frenzy most often in the game industry - the assumption that each new thing will top that which goes before. And personally, I blame boring videogame marketing tactics like MORE BULLET. IMPROVED AI. SOFTER DOG… which understandably has instilled in players a mood that they’ll have even MORE fun with this new game than the original. A formula for disappointment, I think.
The second dog may not be as fluffy as you hoped, but he’s still a very good Dog
Yes, sequels can be worse. Expansions and seasons, in particular, are probably going to fall short of the original experience. But that doesn’t mean the game itself is necessarily awful. It may even be excellent, the second-best game you’ve ever played. It it just may not better than the original. It may just miss a few of the notes that hooked you in the first place.
I think what kills sequels is often that expectation of strict improvement, that pervasive tinge of comparison. It’s not our fault as players that we have this expectation in the first place, but if we can set it aside and appreciate what’s in front of us in the moment, it can help make the latest experience still feel meaningful on its own merits.