FFD: Should sequels really try to innovate?

1 min read


In videogames, sequels to hit games are pretty much an inevitability. there’s a certain expectation that gamers have of sequels. To paraphrase Epic’s CliffyB, gamers expect sequels to be bigger, better and more badass. One the one hand, you have games like the annualised Call of Duty which is, without fail, criticised by many for being nothing more than a glorious exercise in the wonders of cut and paste. Even the incredible Starcraft II was lambasted by many for being too much like the first game, just with the application of a shiny coat of paint.

On the other, you have releases like Metroid Other M, Max Payne 3 and Diablo III – which while excellent games, have been blasted by some fans as straying too far from the established formula – and just not “feeling” like their predecessors.

If Max Payne 3 doesn’t feel like Max Payne, and Diablo III doesn’t feel like Diablo II, should the whiners then just go and play Max Payne I and Diablo II respectively – or should developers pander to fans, keeping things as they are – just updating them for newer hardware?

Last Updated: May 25, 2012

Geoffrey Tim

Editor. I'm old, grumpy and more than just a little cynical. One day, I found myself in possession of a NES, and a copy of Super Mario Bros 3. It was that game that made me realise that games were more than just toys to idly while away time - they were capable of being masterpieces. I'm here now, looking for more of those masterpieces.

Check Also

Diablo III: The Eternal Collection Switch review – Ding Dong, Diablo’s Dead

Diablo III makes a great transition to the Nintendo Switch with a stuffed package of conte…