As we approach the launch date of the Xbox360's eagerly awaited Halo 3, I find myself trying to reconcile the concept of the ubiquitous sequel; are sequels valid generally across various media such as film as well as gaming? How should they be viewed, received, publicised? For example, when Gears of War was released, it was immediately stated that it was to be the first of a trilogy of games. Basically, just what the hell have I got against sequels anyway???There seem to me to exist what I would call valid sequels and invalid sequels. Until now it was just a feeling, a hunch, as to which was which; that some sequels appeared natural progressions of a story while others appeared to be shameless cash-ins: just because the first game had an "open" ending plonked on top of it, doesn't make the second game valid.
Take Halo for instance. Even though I love playing games and I know how cool they can be, I still find it strange just how awed I was the Christmas I ran the game for the first time. I'd never played a game so engrossing; I really felt panicked trying to get the hell off that ailing battleship, and the final dive into the escape hatch was made with great triumph and relief. It's the same with Devil May Cry on the PS2. Strange as it may seem on an older system, after the opening cut scenes when we get to see Dante standing on the brink of his adventures with his cool full-length jacket blowing about in the breeze - my wife and I just sat there, waiting for the rest of the cut-scene...but no, this is the actual game!! We get to control this awesomely rendered character!......Anyway, the point I want to make is that I got none of that feeling from the sequels. Halo 2 was a good game, but it wasn't great. DMC 2 was OK, not great. Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 2 was...well...bullshit compared to the fantastic original.
Now, on the other had, there's Ubisoft...I own all the Ghost Recons, all the Splinter Cells, and all of the Rainbow Sixes that have been released on the PS2, Xbox, and Xbox 360, and I think they keep getting better and better. What makes me feel that these sequels are somehow more valid than those others mentioned?
For my money, the question could better be considered if we look at a related medium: film.
Films like Lethal Weapon, James Bond, The Bourne Identity, or Alien spark film after film, all of them different enough to keep you interested, but more importantly they get more and more enjoyable. Admittedly, Lethal Weapon 1 is my favourite of that series for its darker tone, but the first James Bond is certainly not my favourite; I'd much rather watch the last 3 or 4 films in that series any day.
Then again, the vast majority of other films do not lend themselves well to any kind of follow-up; and in fact when they are forced in to a sequel they tend to be abysmal. Like Blade 2, The Crow 2, and of course, Bad Boys 2.
Put it another way. If Gladiator had been a game rather than a film, with all that film's success, and acclaim, and excellence, how long do you think you would have to wait until a sequel would be on the cards? 3 minutes? 4? But even the film industry, shockingly, has just enough integrity not to release The David Beckham Code, or Braveheart 2: They May Take Our Kidneys Out With A Spoon, But...Hang On...Where Is Everyone? etc.
The valid sequels have something important in common: formula. But a great film is just like a great game. It is a compelling story, skillfully delivered.
These are the Greats, the invalid sequels, and should not be tampered with.
