Nintendo Okie

Gears Of 3 has been released upon the world. I haven’t played it yet but I am looking forward to it. Gears Of 1 was released early enough in the 360’s lifetime that the whole trilogy has been released for the same system. That is kind of rare these days if games are given the standard two years development cycle. In recent history the third game of a trilogy appears on a system different than its two older brethren; the Metroid Prime and Halo trilogies jump to mind. Perhaps the only reason the Gears games have been released for 360 is because of the 360’s expanded lifespan. The 360 is going on six years old at this point which used to be the maximum time for a system. As things stand now it’s looking to make it all the way to a whopping seven years old before Microsoft releases its next system. Is such an expanded console cycle going to affect game development?

Usually sequels carry incremental improvements on the last game; streamlined menus, cleaner combat, etc. I imagine developers fix these sorts of things in sequels because they are too busy building a whole game with the first iteration. However, when making a sequel several assets from the previous game can be reused thus opening time to refine things previously missed. Annual franchises like Madden exist only because of this model. I’m not saying it’s impossible to build a game from scratch each year, but I pretty sure no developer would want to accept the challenge.

But what happens when a franchise graduates to a new platform for its next installment? All the mistakes made from the first two game lead to a very polished experience with the added bonus of better visuals, sound and online functionality due to the new hardware. It’s almost like the game gets a steroid boost. Am I greedy for wanting all sequels to be like this? Don’t misunderstand me here; I am not saying incremental changes are bad. Persona 4 (one of my favorite games) barrows heavily from Persona 3. However, imagine if developers were allowed only one genera-specific, franchise entry per generation. Immediately I see good and bad that would come from such a rule.

Games could benefit greatly if developers were forced to polish every aspect of their game the first time around. They would be less likely to say “we’ll fix it for the sequel” if that sequel were six years away. The gameplay would also be forced to be unique and distinguishable. Developers would really have to make their games stand out if they had only one shot to make it sell. However, these outcomes are the best case scenario for putting such a rule in place. More than likely games would instead be pushed out the door in a shorter timeframe and then be patched to fix any problems. It would be more like episodic content but in place of a new game we would get a bunch of bug fixes. It would drive costs too high if a game was forced to stay in development longer. Games need to be cheaper, not more expensive.

Let’s forget the art side of the development and focus on the business side of things. It’s very easy to forget game studios are businesses that have to make money. Multiple game sequels in the same generation allow devs to produce more products in cost effective ways. As I said before, no developer would volunteer to make a game from scratch every year. On the other hand, at some point developers have to know when enough is enough; otherwise we get Duke Nukem Forever.

When you think about it, it’s amazing games get made at all. So many thing have to happen, so many people have to work hard. Then it’s so easy for us to say “that game sucks.” However, it is our job as game players to point out things we like and don’t like. Criticism isn’t a bad thing as long as it’s constructive. Game sequels aren’t bad as long as they improve upon what has come before. It’s easy to want a carbon copy of your favorite game but if we don’t challenge developers to make something new, and if they don’t challenge themselves, ultimately all games will be exactly the same. Granted I am thinking of game development as a function of infinite time. That’s the engineer in me.