What happened to the REAL sequel?

I grew up on Nintendo.  Mario and Zelda set the foundations for what I know about video games today.

I look back on their sequels and think how vastly different they were from each other, even on the same hardware.  Let's look at Super Mario Bros.  Between 1, 2, and 3, there are 3 totally different experiences.  They have a different graphical look, yes, but even their gameplay elements, enemies, story, etc. are vastly changed from one release to the next.  Each game was a re-imagination of the series.

This even continued on the SNES.  Mario World 2 was so different in every way than Mario World 1.  ...and the same for Mario 64, Sunshine, etc.  I think this is a riskier path to take, but when it work, I think it's rewarding.

Meanwhile, newer franchises seem to be getting expansions as sequels.  ...a little better graphically (in the same style), with a few gameplay mechanic tweaks.  Look at Halo (a game I love, by the way).  Halo 1, 2, and 3 are essentially the same game, with graphical improvements and gameplay tweaks, but with no real directional change.  It works for the series, but I think that it's unfortuantely going to become the trend for most franchises.

Even old franchises that did innovate at one time seem to be falling into that same trap:  Metroid Prime, Prime 2, and Prime 3 might as well be the same game, from what I can tell.  ...slight tweaks to an existing formula that works. 

I guess I'm guilty of perpetuating it, too.  I loved Resident Evil 4.  The fact that it was a whole new experience and direction for the series made me love it even more....but now, I want Resident Evil 5 to be more of the same, which goes directly against what I loved about 4.

I guess my question is this: Do you think that the video game industry is adopting an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude to their big franchises?  ...and if so, do you think we're going to end up hindering our game experiences because of it?

--Dave 

I notice that you use many Japanese games with your example.

Most Japanese developers are developing primaryly for handhelds first.

As for American developers many develop for the PC which I notice some true sequels being created *Half-Life 2 for example*

Also there have always been non-improvement sequels, remember the Sonic franchise?

Also devs relied on new hardware upgrades so each game could be a big differnce *hence noticing little sequels for big titles on the same system*

IMHO the 360 and PS3 are nowhere close to as big of a jump that the SNES and Genesis were to their counterparts.

So that's just my 2 cents. :) 

You may have a point about Japanese developers.  As for Half-Life 2, that was definitely a large-jump sequel, but I question if it was just because technology had advanced so much between the game releases.  It was ...what....6 years or something like that?

Doom and Doom 2 were essentially the same.   ...and they are old.  Doom 3 was a big jump, although again -- so many years had passed.

--Dave 

You may have a point about Japanese developers. As for Half-Life 2, that was definitely a large-jump sequel, but I question if it was just because technology had advanced so much between the game releases. It was ...what....6 years or something like that?

Half-Life 2 as much as I loved it played very little like Half-Life1 were the majoirty of the game was puzzle solving.

Doom and Doom 2 were essentially the same. ...and they are old. Doom 3 was a big jump, although again -- so many years had passed.

 Doom 3, I'm sorry to those I will offended, but literally wasn't even Doom, it was basically just like any other FPS just with added pretty graphics and a flashlight. I wouldn't call that a "jump" but more as a change in approach. I really wish that Doom 3 was more as a run and gun while being able to move your mouse with some evolution in gameplay. 

DaveGray

Change is good every once in a while, but I often prefer the 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' mentality, especially when it comes to my favourite game series. If it's a style of gameplay I enjoy then I'll be perfectly happy with only slight changes to the tried and true formula when a sequel is released.

The only problem with drastically changing the gameplay is that it could leave a chunk of the former fanbade unhappy as a result (Silent Hill 4: The Room and the new Prince Of Persia sping to mind).

I don't like sequels that are totally new. Sequels should have "additions" not "changes".

Best example of a sequel is God of War - God of War 2, worst is RE 3 - RE 4.

I also don't like how the sequence of RE is. RE 1 = Jill and a guy. RE 2 = Leon and Claire. RE 3 = Jill again. RE4 = Leon again. But still a great series! Hehe!