Lecture

Considering the role of sequels within the games industry was an interesting topic for this week’s lecture. Perhaps more so than any other industry, sequels play a huge role in the continued success of their creators. With game development being a medium based on incremental innovation, it follows suit that this structure lends itself well to the conception of sequels.

It is important to consider the fact that the experience of sequels can be delivered in multiple ways outside of traditional subsequent entries. If a DLC or expansion expands on a game’s mechanics or systems enough, it is more than likely that it meets the criteria of a sequel (look no further than Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon (2013) and Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare (2010)). Likewise, while rare, mods can be considered sequels – and in some cases are popular enough to warrant the development of a separate, original product themselves. Especially within the realm of games as a service, expansions have the capability to radically change a game’s core experience enough that it is largely indistinguishable from the original title.

The four considerations for sequels as posited by Challenges for Game Designers (Brathwaite and Schreiber 2008) were helpful to examine, and I am sure that I will refer back to them if I am ever in the position to create a sequel. By exploiting, expanding, exploring, and exterminating, designers can make the most informed decisions when innovating through sequels.

In today’s modern context, audience feedback is more easily accessible than ever. By looking at data sources such as Steam Spy and Metacritic, as well as open discussion forums, developers can gain critical insight into what fans love or hate about a title, and what would best serve them in a sequel. Strategic use of these data sources is imperative to making a sequel that caters to as many fans as possible.

GDD work

In response to feedback that I received from Nick, I have made some additions to my GDD this week. The primary element that he felt was lacking from my submission was specific gameplay examples, which I agree with.

I started by mocking up some level designs in Adobe Illustrator (fig. 1 and fig. 2), so as to better visually convey how the player will move through the world. I am happy with how these turned out, and I think that they are relatively clean and readable. Many of the elements have been colour coded, so as to better represent the traversal tools at the player’s disposal. I hope that the inclusion of the illustrations helps readers to better understand the level layout and design of my game.

I also decided to add another flowchart to the GDD, this time detailing the flow and progression of a main mission within the game. By showing this one example, I hope that readers are able to form an idea of how main missions within the game will generally be structured.

Overall, I am happy with these additions of specific gameplay examples. I feel that they go lengths to visually convey the game’s design and provide examples of systems.

Iron designer challenge

Our iron designer assignment required us to make a pitch presentation for an infamously bad videogame, with my team being assigned Duke Nukem Forever (2011). The pitch was to be a serious proposal, meant to right the wrongs of its predecessor and improve design in multiple aspects.

One key element that we felt could elevate the gameplay of a traditional boomer shooter such as Duke Nukem was the inclusion of dual wielding (or Dual-ke Wielding in our pitch). Taking cues from immersive sim titles, players would be able to hold a weapon in their right hand and a utility (such as a grapple, teleport grenade etc.) in their left hand. Our aim for this was to allow for dynamic gameplay situations and an added layer of player agency which allowed for players to choose their favourite combinations.

The story would follow a retired Duke Nukem being brought back into the fight against aliens. Our spin on the original formula was that this time, rather than Earth being invaded, Duke would invade the aliens home planet, essentially invading their invasion.

Alongside the other additions we made to the formula, we felt it was a relatively effective modernisation of the franchise. Our presentation won, receiving ‘funding’ to enter production, which was a welcome surprise. Nick also let me know that I am currently in the lead for our iron designer challenge rankings, so I will have to work extra hard next week to try to hold onto that title!

Further reading

Following on from the lecture, I went to Metacritic to see how various sequels were reviewed by audiences and critics alike. For instance, while the original Portal (2007) has an impressive score of 90, its sequel Portal 2 (2011) has 95. From my own experience playing both games, I can attest that the sequel is a significant step up from the original, including a longer and more fleshed-out story, the addition of more mechanics and modifiers, and even the inclusion of a wholly separate co-op mode with its own campaign. This shows that Valve had a strong understanding of audience responses to the original title and made important design decisions that further expanded and innovated on that core experience. They were successfully able to exploit, expand explore and exterminate in their transition between game entries.

I also read an interesting article on the practicalities of video game sequels (Bycer 2016). It shared a lot of points with Nick’s lecture, discussing how sequels allow developers to improve on the baseline mechanics and formula of previous entries. A lot of games franchises do not reach their full potential until the third entry or beyond, with that only being assured if the previous games sell enough in the first place. This is due to the iteration and improvements that can be made between sequels, regardless of how substantial they may be.

References

BYCER, Josh. 2016. ‘How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Video Game Sequels’. Game Developer [online]. Available at: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-video-game-sequels [accessed 1 December 2021].

Duke Nukem Forever. 2011. 3D Realms, 2K Games.

Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon. 2013. Ubisoft Montreal, Ubisoft.

Portal. 2007. Valve Corporation, Valve Corporation.

Portal 2. 2011. Valve Corporation, Valve Corporation.

Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare. 2010. Rockstar San Diego, Rockstar Games.

BRATHWAITE, Brenda, and Ian SCHREIBER. Challenges for Game Designers. Boston: Course Technology.