Posted by Geoffrey Tim - 25 May 2012
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?