Why Do Prequels Suck So Much?

When a developer tries to do a sequel, they usually faff it up. Case in point, look at the two GoWs from earlier in the year: God of War: Ascension and Gears of War: Judgment. Neither were particularly bad games, per se, but they were more negatively received than their predecessors. I've never played Judgment, and I only played Ascension for a few hours before putting it away in boredom, but from what I've heard the qualms are mostly over story not being up to par--or even necessary--and the gameplay being dissatisfying.

I'm picking on the dual GoWs, which isn't quite fair, but choose a prequel, any prequel, and it's probably not as good as those that preceded it.

And I think this is why: technology moves forward and prequels, by their nature, try to move back. It just doesn't work.

Well, usually: Bioshock Infinite steered clear of the prequel predicament by making it a standalone story, one that didn't force or expect you to play the original Bioshock. Halo: Reach also did this pretty well, though the ending of that game is heightened by an order of magnitude more if you had played Halo: Combat Evolved specifically--but that's a story issue, and can happen in any medium.

They also succeeded with their gameplay: you didn't have to know how to play the others, because these were separate enough that they stood on their own.

When prequels distance themselves from their "past"--ironic, no?--they can be a good game, not just a good prequel. Ridley Scott, for example, knows this, and he intended to distance the film Prometheus from the prior Alien films so that it could be its own story and have its own voice. So, too, can it be with games: those that take the story and run with it are usually all the better for it.

Some games can pull it off, and some can't. Halo, one of gaming's biggest franchises, almost suffers from the "too many cooks in the kitchen" issue in regards to its lore, but has still managed to produce at least two or three good prequels--and a series of retcons that Halo purists like me can spat over for hours. That's related to the storytelling, however, and it's not unique to games--films and books can render the same problems.

Games are a mite trickier, however, because of one other wrinkle: gameplay. You know, the thing that makes a game a game.

When a game gets made, and then subsequently released, a developer cues in to what gameplay elements are good and what are bad. Then with the sequel, they remove the bad, hone the good, and add new things that may be either good or bad. Repeat forever and ever until the end of time.

Sometimes a prequel necessitates the removal of good gameplay because it doesn't make sense within the context of the story. Number of developers that have removed known good gameplay: none. Nada. Zilch. Because you'd be an idiot to remove something fun from a game.

But that's what needs to happen.

In Halo 3: ODST you play as an Orbital Drop Shock Trooper, who is basically a really awesome marine, instead of the Master Chief. And yet he can hop onto a Wraith tank and punch the shit out of it until it explodes.

Why? Because it's good gameplay that was established in prior games, not because it makes any goddamn sense. Because it doesn't.

Now, this one single reason isn't why a prequel can be bad (and I'm certainly not implying ODST is a bad game, because it's not) but it's indicative of the baggage that game prequels carry: it worked before, so let's do it again, regardless of who the characters are or what's happening in the story.

An ODST shouldn’t logically be able to pummel a Wraith tank until it taps out, so let's remove that bit of gameplay from this one game--and in its place, create a new compelling gameplay scenario, based around the confines of a story or its characters. Remember, necessity is the mother of invention.

Will this ever happen? No. Of course not. Not with triple-A developers who have a lot of money riding on the next big thing.

Where this may come from, I hope, is indie devs. Those that aren't tied down as much and can move around with this stuff more freely. Those that are more willing to take chances and throw out good gameplay, because hey, it doesn’t make sense in this one--and now we have a chance to create new, different gameplay. I don't think many indie devs are making heavily story driven games, let alone prequels, but I feel they're the only ones that can do it.

And the big boys? I feel they just don't have the balls to be brave enough.

So I Started A Gaming Blog...

Hey all. My name's Christopher George, also known as George (I bet you can't guess why!). This will be my new blog, dedicated entirely to video games and the industry, as I see it. I play games all day, so I might as well write about them, too.

I'll try and post a long form opinion piece every week rambling about something or other that's been on my mind--not necessarily something timely, mind you, just something I feel needs to be shared. I also have no idea what I'm doing, so let's cross our fingers and hope for the best, yeah?

My first piece should be up within the next few days. Here goes nothing.


-George