Third Time's the Charm

I've noticed a definite trend to long running series of videogames. More often than not, we see this pattern:

A game comes out. It's fairly original, and generally well received, but it's perhaps a tad on the short side, and has a few rough edges.

A sequel to that game comes out some time later, adressing the flaws of the first one, and generally beefing things up a bit. Everyone loves it.

A third game comes along. This time, the developers have really analyzed their creation, and strive to absolutely perfect what they have. Surprisingly often, they succeed at this, although often people will still claim the second game to be the best, mainly because at this point, the novelty of the concept has worn off.

Then it comes time for game #4. The developers know they can't improve on what they just did, so they're stuck with two basic options.

Option 1- Start releasing a stream of cookie cutter games, never really changing anything significant, and bleed the concept dry.

Option 2- Make some radical changes, essentially creating a new series, but diverting their fanbase into it.

I could list off dozens of examples to back up my point, and there's precious few long running series that don't hold the trend. Most of the ones that come to mind there only do so because the numbering is screwy. Take Resident Evil for instance. RE1 is the unpolished prototype. RE2 kicks everything up a notch and becomes the fan favorite. Code Veronica came next, polishing everything up. Then immediately after its release, we get RE3, the cookiecutter sequel, and Dino Crisis, an attempt at reinventing things. DC took off on a new tragectory for a bit, 3 didn't go over too well, so we keep trying the reinvention angle until we hit 4. If they follow the pattern here, we'll likely see two more very nice games in the vein of 4, before moving onto either another weird reinvention, or more of the same.

Now, here's my main gripe. Far too infrequently do developers (or more accurately, publishers) advertise it when they make these dramatic changes, and quite frankly, it ticks me off.

Perfect example, Silent Hill 4. After 3 games, the developers of Silent Hill wanted to do something a bit different. Fine by me. They start deveoping a game called The Room. It has a lot of the same style and mood as the Silent Hill series, but it's a very different animal. Still fine. At some point though, they decide to slap the Silent Hill name on there.

Now, I'm fully aware that the forth game in a series is going to be somewhat ho-hum if they aren't reinventing the wheel. Every so often though, I like that. Mainly when the series in question is the only source I have to feed a certain craving (in this case, spiffy logic puzzles). So sure, I'll buy a cookiecutter sequel just to get my fix, and be happy with it.

Assuming, that is, that the cookiecutter sequel is what I actually get. If you slap a title on this game like, say "The Room: From the Makers of Silent Hill" that's a game I'd be likely to buy on its own merits. Call it Silent Hill 4 though, and the whole time I'm playing it, I'll be griping about the lack of puzzles, and flashlights, and so forth, and be less inclined to appreciate what's good about it.

I'm not saying every major twist needs a totally new title here either. Just tack on a couple words after the franchaise title and I'm good. Resident Evil: Outbreak. Mega Man X. Metroid Prime. Anything Tactics. You get the idea.

That's about it. If you're morbidly curious, Wild ARMs 4 is what set me off on this.

Oh, and by the way.

It's been quite a while.

Never expected to do one again.

But someone going by Toby just sent this in.

So here it is...