Non Sequential

PART I - Why with all the sequels?

Numerous comparisons are drawn between the game and movie industries, ranging from dialog to the ability of each medium to inspire emotion and even violence in the consumer. Whether or not such parallels can really be drawn is debatable, but there is at least one facet common to both. They both, unfortunately, suffer from an overwhelming number of sequels amongst high-profile titles.

If one were to consider the movies that will do big business this year, it would not be unusual to arrive at a list that looks something like this:

* Spider-Man 3
* Pirates of the Caribean: At World's End
* Fantastic Four: The Rise of the Silver-Surfer
* The Bourne Ultimatum
* Harry Potter & the Order of the Phoenix
* Rush Hour 3
* Transformers

The only title listed above that isn't a direct sequel, Transformers, is a re-imagining of a TV show that has already been made in to a movie. So, is this a bad thing for movies?

Well, not necessarily, some of the mostly highly regarded films of all time are sequels, the Godfather II being a prime example. But it does mean that all the major Hollywood dollars being invested in 'safe-bets', films which will likely generate additional revenue based on prior films. This sounds good for the industry, with $500M on the line you'd surely want any bet to be a safe one. Indeed the number's seem to suggest this is true, take a look at the top 10 highest grossing movies in the US:

1. Titanic - 600M
2. Star Wars - 460M
3. Shrek 2 - 440M
4. E.T. - 430M
5. Star Wars - Episode I - 430M
6. Pirates of the Carribean 2 - 420M
7. Spider-Man - 400M
8. Star Warrs - Episode III - 380M
9. Return of the King - 380M
10. Spider-Man 2 - 370M

Six out of ten movies are direct sequels, and another (Spider-Man) is based on an existing intellectual property (namely a comic-book series and cartoon show). So the answer is that the best money is in sequels, right? Well maybe not, take a look at the top of that list again, of the top four movies three are new IPs (although of course Titanic is based on a real-world event), so does this instead mean the absolute best profits are to be found in brand new projects?

The answer is that the quality and marketability of the film is what makes the most difference, and the originality comes somewhere beneath. However, in terms of where the safe money lies, I think you have to say sequels are the way to go. This is reflected by the fact that all really successful films are now made in to trilogies (of 3, 4, or even 5 parts!).

Well, that's a lot of talk about movies, but how does this apply to video games? The answer is obviously that the same principle is bound to apply to high-budget games too. With some games costing upwards of $10M to develop, produce and market, it should be expected the companies are going to minimise the risks taken wherever possible.

As we did for the big impending movies, lets also consider what's hot and upcoming in the game space:

MGS IV
GTA IV
Halo 3
Devil May Cry IV
Mass Effect
Assassin's Creed
Guitar Hero 3
Heavenly Sword
Super Mario Galaxy
Metroid Prime 3

Of course its widely arguable that there are other titles that should be on this list, but by anyone's standards, that's a list of some pretty heavy hitters. Amongst all of those titles there are just three games that are new IPs, and it should comes as no surprise considering how much money each costs to develop.

So it is fair to say that a good proportion of the big-name Hollywood movies, and AAA-title video games are always going to be sequels. But is this a bad thing, or should we be pleased? Would anyone dispute that all the games I listed above are pretty juicy-looking?

The question I would pose would be this:

Given that a game series should (in theory) become more polished with iterations, what is more important, Originality or Quality?

Coming soon, PART II - Sequel, friend or foe?