Video games, like all media, do not exist in a vacuum. Movies, books, and of course, video games, all receive many remakes and sequels over time. It is commonly understood that this is a primarily positive thing. New additions to the story are interesting and fun, so long as it’s good. But video games are another story. Sure, the story itself can have a sequel, like anything else. But what about the gameplay? How should producers approach this matter? Refine the ideas of the first? Add totally new elements and ideas? Change the genre entirely? Let’s take a look at how some video games have approached this topic.
Option 1: Refine Original Ideas. A simple idea, and probably the most common. Think every single Mario game – each one is pretty similar to the one that came before, with just a few refinements and mild additions. Think Super Mario Bros 2, or The Lost Levels, or New Super Mario Bros. They’re all pretty similar. A few new additions are made, a few new ideas introduced, a few updates added. But the core is totally unchanged. Mario moves about the same, the core tools are about the same, the goal is about the same. This idea is the safest, in my opinion. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing – sometimes you have a great formula that people just want more of. But sometimes, more creative approaches can be taken.
Option 2: Introduce New Ideas. I think this is the most ‘baseline’ approach. More of what you like, but with enough things to give each game its own identity. Hollow Knight and Hollow Knight: Silksong are quite like this. Someone can play Silksong, and simply prefer the original, because the games play totally differently, even if the core of the game is the same. Unlike Option 1, the sequel is not necessarily meant to be a straight improvement of the original. But there will still be elements of the original that still exist, but are now ‘improved’. What do you do when you’ve nailed the baseline already? You could always just introduce new ideas, or…
Option 3: Branch off entirely. It sounds like an odd idea for a sequel at first glance, but becomes oddly obvious on closer examination. Why does a sequel to the story also have to be a sequel to the gameplay? Why not just make a totally new thing altogether? For example, Lobotomy Corporation is a monster-management simulator where you have a huge amount of things going wrong at the same time and your attention is constantly being forced every which way in order to keep things under control. Its sequel, Library of Ruina… is a slow-paced card game with rarely more than 6 enemies on the field at a time. The games are entirely different. Sure, they both have a focus on reading a lot in order to ‘solve’ a puzzle-like issue, but the actual execution is barely comparable. This has a ton of risks; the original audience, who loved the gameplay of the original, may totally forsake the franchise. But for a game like Lobotomy Corporation, where so much of the fanbase was built based on the story, moving to a totally new genre was worth it to continue the story, and Library has grown a huge following. Undeniably, it’s the most ‘high-risk, high-reward’ option. While not all sequels can make such a daring move, if it works, it works very well.
So, how is the best way to do a sequel? The answer, simply put, is: It depends. Do you want to improve an existing concept, or try out something new? All of these options can be successes, or failures. Each developer should carefully consider what they want in a sequel and, similarly, consumers should understand what it is they want from a sequel. By understanding what we want in a game, we can better decide when to buy a sequel, and when to give a new series a try.
