Every Monday the LeftStickRight team will take on a different topic surrounding news or interesting topics about games or the gaming industry and open it up for discussion. Our three editors will give their perspective and you are welcome to give your own. Agree? Disagree?

The topic this week is: Why are video game sequels so often better than their predecessors?

Tim’s Take

We don’t tend to think of them as such now, but the first game in any series was almost always a business risk. Back in the heyday, would you have reacted in full confidence if someone suggested a game starring mushroom-eating plumbers? It just makes sense that new prospects, unless suggested by someone with a pedigree, can often be faced with low budgets and higher restraints until a company can predict their return with greater assurance.

Once a game has proven successful, however, companies tend to become a little looser with their purse strings and inhibitions. In many cases, this leads to a better, more expansive second entry that likely includes many brainstorms the creators were forced to cut out of the first. Of course, freer reign doesn’t always result in a better sequel, including cases when the creator has gone slightly nuts. I’m looking at you, Metal Gear Solid 2; you poor, abused child.

He's only acting out because his dad abused him so

Ian H’s Take

Video games are a unique mix of entertainment art and technology. The tools for creating novels are inherit in the language, the tools for creating film is in readily available household technologies and a few good ideas, but when it comes to games it is a bit more complex. There is a knowledge of programming languages required, art assets and sounds assets that aren’t always easy to acquire at a respectable quality. Making video games is hard.

The reason I’m starting my answer with that is because it is that growth in technology that pushes games sequels often above the expectations their predecessors. When crowds flock to a film and enjoy the experience, their hopes for a sequel do not often hold with a desire for bigger and better, but rather a continual flow of the existing story and characters. Because video games are a technology driven product, each iteration has a tendency to push for that higher frame rate, more crisp graphics or open world to match the acceleration of their competitors. No one expects the new Stephen King to take advantage of the latest printing press’ high-scale font rendering. Typographical technology has just advanced so far, dude.

“Better” is the only word that I would say does the question out, because within a generation I find it easier to look back on the original of a series and say “They got it right the first time.” When I think about Prince of Persia, the first game of the modern take The Sands of Time is an excellent title, and the subsequent games during that generation of consoles did not impress me nearly as much. Gaming is also still a new medium, and as technology develops there a lot of lessons to be learned about how consumers and critics react to mechanics and open world ideas, developers continue to build on what they have available and fine tune these aspects. Even within a generation, Uncharted took a huge leap with its sequel and showed off why that technological tuning does work out in a developer’s favour when they really pay attention.

Look! A game that is better than its sequels!

Ian Y’s Take

Are video game sequels always or even mostly better than the original? I’m not sure, although, I must admit, game sequels have a far better track record than movies or books. So let’s try to solve this conundrum with the power of SCIENCE! Say we assume the admittedly dubious notion that if a sequel is inferior to the original gamers won’t buy it. Then we can get a rough idea of the general quality of them by looking at the ratio of sequels to original IPs people buy. Like any good scientist (and yes anthropology is a science), I’ll begin by analyzing a sample population, namely my personal video game library. For the sake of brevity I’ve limited the sample to current-gen systems.

The Data
Wii: 11 games – 5 sequels
PS3: 10 games – 6 sequels

The results are surprising; the ratios are about 50/50. So, if half of all my games, at least for home consoles, are sequels, they must have something going for them right? Well, while interpreting the evidence, I’ve come up three possible explanations.

1 – Half of All Games Ever Made Are Sequels!
I blame Bobby Kotick.

2 – All Sequels Secretly Contain The Littlest Hobo!!!
This theory needs no further explanation.

Maybe tomorrow I'll get my own game...

3 – Sequels Are Better!
It’s wholly possible that newer games a just plain better than their predecessors. Now there are a slew of possible reasons but I find two in particular, interesting. Firstly, the likeability of a game, and consequently how we perceive it, hinges heavily on things like gameplay design and mechanics. And these are much easier to preserve between iterations of serialized media than characters or story.

Another point of note is the role that technological advancement has on the perceived quality of games. Videos games, more so than other types of media, are directly and more rapidly affected by technological advancements in the industry. Not to entirely equate the two but, better tech, means better graphics and gives developers greater freedom to deliver a wider ranger of gameplay experiences. The stats suggest this as well, as at least 3 of my Wii and PS3 sequels cross console generations.

Personally, I think its all Hobo’s doing.