I'm not sure that I'm entirely qualified to talk about this, having not played some of the games in question, but it's an issue that's been bugging me for some time now. When is it time to take a break from producing sequels to a game?
Nintendo appear to have traditionally excelled in judging this matter, knowing when to pause in the development of a series and then pick up on the themes and ideas using vastly improved hardware a few years down the line. Metroid and ... Wars both skipped the 32/64 bit generation, and are some of the most acclaimed releases of the current era. However, recently this approach has begun to slip. Would the Zelda and Mario series have profited from missing this contempary gaming? The issue appears to be more acute in the light of the increased franchising of the Zelda series, with two psuedo-sequels unveiled at E3. Would the decision to rest these characters and ideas have boosted anticipation for the next instalments and the eventual quality of the titles produced? Resting a series could not only allow designers to recharge their stacks of ideas, but allow them to cultivate new projects. As someone who's only played one game in the series, my reaction to the announcement of Mario Kart: Double Dash was extreme disinterest. Will the treadmill approach to updates lull interest among those who are not hardcore devotees of the franchise in question?
The classic example of a well-rested franchise is the Metal Gear series. By waiting until the technology was availble to realise the potential of the title, the creators have produced a truely memorable experiance, and one with a sufficant grip on the popular imagination to fuel a number of extremely profitable direct sequels. Sega appear to take this approach with regard to Virtua Fighter, waiting until there is a new generation of arcade board availble to power each true follow-up, even though VF4: Evolution shows that they are perfectly capable of producing superb sequels in the ordinary manner. Another Sega franchise, Sonic, shows that delay is sometimes demanded by the mechanics of a series. The 3D section of Sonic Jam shows a clear desire to release a new plaform game based around the company's mascot, but the devlopment of Sonic X-treme was cancelled after the developers concluded that it was not physically possible to recreate the trademark features of the 2D titles on a 32-bit console.
More and more, developers appear to be bringing forth older titles in the light of new technical advances (eg Ninja Gaiden) or limiting their games to only one appearance in each generation of hardware (eg F-Zero). But does moderation garentee critical acclaim? The situation appears to be more complex with regard to the more modern series. Take the two Playstation 1 stalwarts, Tomb Raider and Resident Evil. Both had a large number of follow-ups released in the years afterwards, in the forms of single-format releases and across multiple platforms. Both are currently being rested, while follow-ups which claim to significantly alter and enharnce the gameplay and experiances which the series offer. Yet Resident Evil 4 is keenly anticipated, while Angel of Darkness slips into development hell, admit consumer apathy.
Any thoughts, anyone?
Nintendo appear to have traditionally excelled in judging this matter, knowing when to pause in the development of a series and then pick up on the themes and ideas using vastly improved hardware a few years down the line. Metroid and ... Wars both skipped the 32/64 bit generation, and are some of the most acclaimed releases of the current era. However, recently this approach has begun to slip. Would the Zelda and Mario series have profited from missing this contempary gaming? The issue appears to be more acute in the light of the increased franchising of the Zelda series, with two psuedo-sequels unveiled at E3. Would the decision to rest these characters and ideas have boosted anticipation for the next instalments and the eventual quality of the titles produced? Resting a series could not only allow designers to recharge their stacks of ideas, but allow them to cultivate new projects. As someone who's only played one game in the series, my reaction to the announcement of Mario Kart: Double Dash was extreme disinterest. Will the treadmill approach to updates lull interest among those who are not hardcore devotees of the franchise in question?
The classic example of a well-rested franchise is the Metal Gear series. By waiting until the technology was availble to realise the potential of the title, the creators have produced a truely memorable experiance, and one with a sufficant grip on the popular imagination to fuel a number of extremely profitable direct sequels. Sega appear to take this approach with regard to Virtua Fighter, waiting until there is a new generation of arcade board availble to power each true follow-up, even though VF4: Evolution shows that they are perfectly capable of producing superb sequels in the ordinary manner. Another Sega franchise, Sonic, shows that delay is sometimes demanded by the mechanics of a series. The 3D section of Sonic Jam shows a clear desire to release a new plaform game based around the company's mascot, but the devlopment of Sonic X-treme was cancelled after the developers concluded that it was not physically possible to recreate the trademark features of the 2D titles on a 32-bit console.
More and more, developers appear to be bringing forth older titles in the light of new technical advances (eg Ninja Gaiden) or limiting their games to only one appearance in each generation of hardware (eg F-Zero). But does moderation garentee critical acclaim? The situation appears to be more complex with regard to the more modern series. Take the two Playstation 1 stalwarts, Tomb Raider and Resident Evil. Both had a large number of follow-ups released in the years afterwards, in the forms of single-format releases and across multiple platforms. Both are currently being rested, while follow-ups which claim to significantly alter and enharnce the gameplay and experiances which the series offer. Yet Resident Evil 4 is keenly anticipated, while Angel of Darkness slips into development hell, admit consumer apathy.
Any thoughts, anyone?
Comment