Do I Have To? or, A Game Studio's Obligation To Improve

The past few years have been the Golden Age for sequels in the entertainment industry, as studios seem less and less willing to take a chance on original ideas and increasingly willing to play it safe, sticking to formulas that have already proven worthy, shunning all else. It's become sort of an unhealthy plague that, in my opinion, often breeds stagnation (and a lot of Mega Man games).

The two prime examples that come to mind are the Halo and Poke'mon sequels. From the get-go, both were instant bestsellers, broke tons of records, and made a lot of internet moneys. I remember all of my friends rabidly anticipating the sequel to Halo. Every rumor was talked about, every internet article was bookmarked, and every magazine with even the briefest mention of the game were brought to school.

Looking back, it seems kind of funny that we were all anxiously awaiting a game that was hardly a sequel. Funny because we were all going absolutely mad over the then revolutionary idea of adding new goddamn vehicles into the game. Of all the reasons I was ever excited for a new game, I would add that to the list of the worst ever.

But! That couldn't be helped. Halo: Combat Evolved, as it was known then and was never known as again, was honestly a great game. The campaign was beautiful/intriguing/thrilling. I still remember the opening bit on the level called "The Silent Cartographer" and how I was so excited; I felt like a genuine space marine just then. Additionally, the multiplayer was, without a doubt, the best thing since Goldeneye. Even when it had lost its luster, I still remember having so much fun exploiting the various glitches in the game, specifically the warthog jump.

When Halo 2 eventually did come around, with the exception of the opening level on the giant space gun and New Mombasa, I was bored rather quickly. With the exception of the production values, there really wasn't anything revolutionary. We got a few new vehicles and a few new weapons and a story which still had me hard-pressed to follow. From what little I've read, the books are a way better way to experience the "Halo Universe," or whatever...

I ended up borrowing Halo 3, and even then I couldn't be bothered to get out of that silly jungle. Just got really, really tired of that stop and pop action and killing hundreds of similar-looking Barney-like creatures with no real plot to drive it all and only a very familiar multiplayer mode to justify its existence. And don't even get me started with the amazingly pointless Halo: ODST. Even having most of the cast of Firefly voicing the characters couldn't save that thing for me, and I fucking love Firefly! (You can't take the sky from...*sniff*...meeeee...) And despite being a game about Orbital DROP Shock Troopers, there's only one DROP in the game!

Halo: Reach is coming out soon, and I'm beginning to wonder if the people at Bungie have any soul at all.

But therein lies my point, which I admit has taken forever to get to. Despite my whining, the Halo series sells millions regardless of how little it changes. People are okay with that. Like Poke'mon: the story hasn't changed after a billion games!

-Leave your room.
-Talk to the inexplicable scientist in the very small village.
-Get your Poke'mon (watch your rival pick the one that can beat yoursssgawd!)
-Travel the world.
-Catch the interchangeable set of Poke'mon
-Defeat Team (insert space reference, i.e. - Rocket)
-Beat the Elite Four
-Beat your rival.

The most Poke'mon has ever done in terms of progression has been to add a clock and give you a "Poke'walker," which I think was done a lot better years ago. But they still sell.

Stuff like this gets me thinking, you see. Does a studio have an obligation to improve upon a successful formula? I've read arguments in which people defend the lack of change in these games. It's the old: If it ain't broke, don't fix it mentality, which I guess is okay. But I do think there is a disturbing stigma upon change. I really don't understand how one can buy more than two games from the Dynasty Warriors series and believe that they're getting a new game every time.

Now, there are some brave souls who take a chance and completely remake the formula. Bioware and Ubisoft both put out sequels to their games Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed respectfully. Both games sold really well. In AC's case, the reviews weren't stellar, but it broke many records in sales regardless. In the face of so much internet moneys, I'm surprised either company decided, "Hey, you know, we made a ton of money from our super-awesome games. But...let's try something different."

Mass Effect 2 was nearly stripped of its RPG status, and Assassin's Creed II ended up becoming the game that everyone had wanted its predecessor to be, and more. Both were utterly amazing, and showed the mark of game studios who weren't afraid to take risks with their formulas and attempt to make an improvement. It worked. Both games are among my all time favs (need to work on that list again).

As someone who's always been interested in the industry, this trend has always been on my mind. Should more studios have the integrity to always attempt to better themselves, or does it behoove (wow) them to simply pretty up a formula that everyone likes anyway? There are supporters on both sides, with myself being on the side of progression, but I would also never say that the ideas on the other side are invalid.

Though, I will say that these static elite are in the way of me actually being able to walk diagonally in Poke'mon. Until that day, you are a part of the problem!