Games with three instalments tend to follow this formula...
"The first game is the original. The second game is the weird one. The third does the first again, but better this time."
A thread on ResetEra made me think about how games often miss the mark when they follow up with an original title which hit the right spot in so many areas but fall off when the sequel comes around. The third title often has to act as damage control and bring new features to the table. Need examples? I got a couple detailed below.
The first title I want to bring up is Need For Speed, more specifically the 2015 reboot. Even though the game was mediocre as a package, it brought back the Underground vibe the series had during its peak, which many purists have been asking for. NFS 2015 had the right aesthetic, but not the correct running gear. Fast forward 2 years to late 2017 and we have Need For Speed Payback. While the extensive customisation was very much part of the game, it had a story-heavy campaign mode which felt ripped out of the Hollywood movie. Along with its controversial car upgrade system and approach to monetisation, Payback acquired an unfavourable reputation among fans of the franchise.
We can't be certain the third game will follow the pattern since we know nothing about NFS 2019 (except the game is in production and scheduled for a Holiday release), but Ghost and EA have given several hints themselves suggesting the 2019 release will follow capture the essence of Need For Speed, replicating an illicit, underground street racing atmosphere that was introduced in Need For Speed 2015.
GRID is the other example which follows this pattern. This was a new spin on the ToCA Race Driver franchise which brought Touring Car racing among other disciplines to seventh-generation consoles for the first time. It focused on driver development, team building and progressing towards more advanced disciplines to become an icon in various motorsports. Meanwhile, GRID 2 took a different approach; the goal here was to become social media famous and more emphasis was placed on road cars, street racing and drift-focused handling. Even though GRID was never a simulation, the sequel took things too far to the arcade side of things and even removed cockpit view which caused a massive uproar.
Autosport was a return to form featuring a car list bringing more purpose-built race cars, a career mode focused on a motorsport driver's journey and many more real world racing locations. Crucially, GRID Autosport brought back cockpit mode, albeit with a camera which blurred out the often low-res dashboards of cars. What's more, Autosport was released nearly half a year after the PS4 and Xbox One entered the market - In Codies' defence, the PS3 and 360 had a much higher player base at the time, but it seemed odd not to have a high res port for the newer consoles.
Fast forward to today and we finally have a GRID reboot in the pipeline for current-gem consoles. The upcoming release will focus more on motorsport disciplines and strike a balance between sim and arcade handling, like the favourably-received original and Autosport.
So why does this pattern happen? A variety of factors could come into play; the creative team may have got so carried away with how well received original games were, they believe any vision they have (even if it diverged from the original's concept) could be a success. Or perhaps time and budget constraints mean features that made an original game so popular had to be cut for the sequel? It is fascinating to ponder about possible reasons sequels to successful titles often end up iffy, but as third titles go to show, we can all learn from mistakes.
A thread on ResetEra made me think about how games often miss the mark when they follow up with an original title which hit the right spot in so many areas but fall off when the sequel comes around. The third title often has to act as damage control and bring new features to the table. Need examples? I got a couple detailed below.
The first title I want to bring up is Need For Speed, more specifically the 2015 reboot. Even though the game was mediocre as a package, it brought back the Underground vibe the series had during its peak, which many purists have been asking for. NFS 2015 had the right aesthetic, but not the correct running gear. Fast forward 2 years to late 2017 and we have Need For Speed Payback. While the extensive customisation was very much part of the game, it had a story-heavy campaign mode which felt ripped out of the Hollywood movie. Along with its controversial car upgrade system and approach to monetisation, Payback acquired an unfavourable reputation among fans of the franchise.
We can't be certain the third game will follow the pattern since we know nothing about NFS 2019 (except the game is in production and scheduled for a Holiday release), but Ghost and EA have given several hints themselves suggesting the 2019 release will follow capture the essence of Need For Speed, replicating an illicit, underground street racing atmosphere that was introduced in Need For Speed 2015.
GRID is the other example which follows this pattern. This was a new spin on the ToCA Race Driver franchise which brought Touring Car racing among other disciplines to seventh-generation consoles for the first time. It focused on driver development, team building and progressing towards more advanced disciplines to become an icon in various motorsports. Meanwhile, GRID 2 took a different approach; the goal here was to become social media famous and more emphasis was placed on road cars, street racing and drift-focused handling. Even though GRID was never a simulation, the sequel took things too far to the arcade side of things and even removed cockpit view which caused a massive uproar.
Autosport was a return to form featuring a car list bringing more purpose-built race cars, a career mode focused on a motorsport driver's journey and many more real world racing locations. Crucially, GRID Autosport brought back cockpit mode, albeit with a camera which blurred out the often low-res dashboards of cars. What's more, Autosport was released nearly half a year after the PS4 and Xbox One entered the market - In Codies' defence, the PS3 and 360 had a much higher player base at the time, but it seemed odd not to have a high res port for the newer consoles.
Fast forward to today and we finally have a GRID reboot in the pipeline for current-gem consoles. The upcoming release will focus more on motorsport disciplines and strike a balance between sim and arcade handling, like the favourably-received original and Autosport.
So why does this pattern happen? A variety of factors could come into play; the creative team may have got so carried away with how well received original games were, they believe any vision they have (even if it diverged from the original's concept) could be a success. Or perhaps time and budget constraints mean features that made an original game so popular had to be cut for the sequel? It is fascinating to ponder about possible reasons sequels to successful titles often end up iffy, but as third titles go to show, we can all learn from mistakes.
Comments
Post a Comment