This has been on my mind for a long time now. Whenever a sequel comes out it never fails that someone (typically all the reviewers and a lot of the people online) will complain about it being to way too similar to the first (sometimes they say to different but that's rare from what I've seen).... What I have a horribly hard time figuring out is: why? I mean if that game was horrible ok, but they dont usually get sequels. Why if everyone loved a game must the sequel be different in fear of everyone getting pissed off at it being so similar? I won't deny that sometimes things can be improved (those things are either obvious or aren't necessarily bad to begin with).... But a lot of times things get changed almost for the sake of it or for the sake of change itself. What do other people think on this?

I personally hate a game that differs too much from the original unless of course the original is a bucket of steaming turd then please feel free to try new things out.

To me, it's because sequels are often lazy cash-ins on a successful original concept. A sequel doesn't have to be radically different, but they often use the same assets as in the original game. Therefore, typically a lot less effort is put into making the sequel. If a sequel is nothing but a set of new maps or levels for the original game (maybe with slightly improved graphics), then it's not a proper game in its own right but more like an expansion. That doesn't mean that the sequel is necessarily bad, but it's certainly not worth paying the full price for in many cases. A good sequel takes what was successful about the predecessor, but adds something significant that gives it its own character instead of being just more of the same.

Well I'd have to ask what denote being more than just new maps and levels? I can think of the Syphon Filter games (1 - 3) or Resident Evil (1 - 3) or Fallout 1 or 2 etc etc, Where the games where extremely similar just different places and stories but they're still good games and sequels.

And as for not wanting more of the same: Well I guess you must not have like the original very much to begin with. 0=)

That's a good list of the reasons for making poor sequels, which most sequels are. Cash in as cheaply as possible on the part of the market that will settle for more of the same.

The proper reason for making a good sequel has been known for a long time. It is to strengthen the bond between the author and his audience (readers, gamers, whatever), so that the audience will better appreciate (and pay more for, and demand more of) the author's work. This gets amusing when an author wants to end a series, but the public will not accept it; that's how Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, and others get killed off and resurrected.

There's also the authorial ego that no one dare puncture, such as George Lucas and the overextended Star Wars series (and the otherwise inexplicably repeated presence of Jar Jar Binks), or Douglas Adams's one-novel-too-many Hitchhiker's Guide series. But that is a bad reason for making a bad sequel, and unless the author is independently wealthy, it means the demise of the series.

Well as I said, a good sequel doesn't have to radically change the original formula. It can be "more of the same" to a certain degree, but to be a respectable game in its own right, it has to bring something substantially new to the table. Take TIE Fighter, for example. Its game mechanics are similar to those of its predecessor X-Wing, but it adds so much in terms of atmosphere, storytelling and level design that it's a vastly superior game. On the other hand, a bad sequel would be X-COM: Terror from the Deep. Don't get me wrong, it's still a very good game. But it is little more than a re-skin of the first X-COM, adding nothing truly substantial. The key to a successful sequel in my mind is to use the mechanics and the story of the original as a foundation upon which to create something original. A bad sequel is essentially the same game again with more content, but no real innovation. Such lack of true progression can kill a franchise, as in the case of Guitar Hero or the Tony Hawk games.

Precisely, take FO3 versus FO:NV. FO:NV doesn't differ that much from FO3 in terms of the basics, but the developers clearly spent a lot more time on the RPG aspect and getting the spirit of FO right and hence it's a sequel that's better than the predecessor.

Some games deserve a sequel because the story can be continued in a rather epic way, and sometimes a sequel is really the only way to fix a game that went off tracks. Assassin's Creed is like that. The first game was OK, certainly had a good story, but the game went off the tracks with way too much repetition of mission type. AC2 remedied that and was a quality game in its own right.

Continue the story. Keep the same formula. Take everything from the previous game... and improve it in a big way.

Starcraft -> Starcraft 2.
Warcraft 2 -> Warcraft 3.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

Woah, you cant just throw TV tropes at us like that without a warning! I dont want to lose more hours to that website!

Seriously dude, not cool. ;p

Too late >:3.

Imo, the creator(s) of a game needs to have some kind of vision about what he wants to create (even if it's vague at best).

After the original game is out, maybe he won't feel 100% satisfied with the game and feel that some more adjustments are needed to bring the game closer to what he envisioned.

If the required changes are small, it's a patch. If the required changes are medium, it's an expansion. If the required changes are extensive, it's a sequel.

At some point however, when the creator should realize that he executed his vision (or came as close as he is able to without going off the deep end) and that should be the point where the sequels stop and he should move on (hopefully) to something different.

Anyways, that is my ideological take on it.

I doubt the motive of most sequels are that pure. They do it for the cash.

Well I have to really disagree with the thought that the purpose of a sequel is just if a lot of things need changed. I mean if you can put out an awesome game then make a sequel and I see no reason why it has to be an overhaul of the original if it was good. And if they keep making good ones I don't see why there has to be an end just because they've gone past their 'original vision' for it.

On a similar note to all this does anyone else think that the obsession with graphics has gone a little to far? I mean it great that we can make things look better but I think we could have stopped a few years ago at least on upgrading graphics and I'd be happy.

It depends on the genre, for racing games just adding new cars and new tracks is just about enough to make for a decent sequel. Typically you'd update the physics engine and graphics, perhaps bump the realism and there you go.

But, for games that are more complicated like RPGs, RTSes and adventure games there's quite a bit more that's really needed to make it worthwhile.

FPS games tend to be all over the place in terms of what is needed to justify a sequel.