For my first editorial here on Gamespot, I've decided to tackle a subject which could be deemed a bit hypocritical of me. Take a glance at my games collection and you'll notice I have a penchant for videogames series, continuations of titles or videogaming brand names purely because of the thrill of familiarity and guarantee of a similar experience to that which I have loved in the past.

Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, Tomb Raider, Metal Gear Solid, Zelda, the list goes on. Videogame franchises such as these have already attained 'classic' status, but despite this, take a look at any and all of them, and it's hard not to become a little disgruntled at how there is always inevitably a point where the title itself, and the success that surrounds it, begins to overtake logic and, in particular, consideration to the series branching storylines.

Some franchises are able to get away with this to some extent, but only for a finite amount of time. Take a look at Final Fantasy, perhaps the most contradictory and innapropriate title bestowed upon a game series. As Square Enix go into their own over-drive of production, and enter a dubious period where the number of spin-off games are dwarfing that of core titles, it seems very few people in their company are really addressing the idea of the Final Fantasy mythos as a whole. At a time where there is continued pressure in the industry to address games as a viable 'art form' as opposed to just an entertainment bi-product, it's hard not to look at Square's Final Fantasy strategy and conclude they are thinking with their wallets over their responsibilities as 'artists' so to speak. One of the key means of identifying a 'series' of games under the same title usually falls upon a progressive or linked storyline of sorts. It's by no means necessary, but what other unifying link between games offers the samestrength ofbond as storyline or characters connections?

What Square Enix (formerly Square, then SquareSoft) have created with the Final Fantasy series is much more of a bricolage of different experiences and worlds which only share a very thin number of connections. Worlds and characters are rarely re-used, and whilst this always injects originality into the proceedings, when you look at how vastly different the likes of Final Fantasy X, XI and XII are in terms of content and gameplay, do they really all warrant the same overriding title, thus effectively being labelled as a progressive set of sequels? The times when characters and worlds are recycled, for example games such as Final Fantasy X-2 and Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings, the resulting games seem to be fuelled only from the financial success of their predecessors, with the finished titles themselves being of a notably lower all-round quality, particularly when it comes to storyline.

Whilst this is of course steering off topic a little, getting back to the focus of the editorial -progressive series storylines - it does illustrate a considerable rejection of maintaning such a narrative through-line in the series unless it is financially profitable. But is such a continuum even that desirable to the paying public? The state of the Final Fantasy series may be a little all over the place to say the least, with the identity and strength of that title waxing and waning with so much deviation from its roots, but nonetheless the vast majority of titles, even though they do not have links with one another, offer strong, well developed storylines of their own.

It's a delicate balance, and seeing as most players would prefer a new, rich storyline over re-hashes or forced sequel narratives, at a base level, ignoring the lack of cohesion it once offered,Final Fantasy can just about be forgiven of its over-branching... just. If you are going to keep each instalment in a series fresh and new, even with throwaway references or allusions to previous instalments, then that's fine and acceptable, but really developers should be a bit braver in addressing whether or not this new, fresh experience deserves the same title, or should be labelled as something completely new. Whilst most of the time financial safety of labels such as 'Final Fantasy' prompt developers to tag them on even if they aren't really appropriate, some developers have been a lot braver, with one commendable example being Team Ico and SCE, who created the incredible 'Ico', and then the equally incredible 'Shadow of the Colossus', and despite allusions and references between the two titles, they were not so lazy or potentially greedy as to simply label Ico's successor as 'Ico 2'.

But what of the series which do not offer such fresh, individual instalments, and do indeed attempt to maintain a narrative through-line? It seems a sad fact that in this day of technical potency and visual brilliance, there are a lot of videogame series that are losing their way in terms of the over-arching story they are trying to tell. The incredible 'Legend of Zelda' series is an almost criminal example of this. Whilst they are individually each brilliant adventures, the core titles in this series in particular do follow a very similar template of structure in terms of storyline. You begin as innocent Link, things go wrong, you end up going round the world collecting and uncovering a greater truth, and usually end up teaming up with Zelda to defeat Ganon in one form or another. The familiarity between the titles gameplay elements and story structure just makes an overriding title compulsory - if, for example, Twilight Princess was released under any title other than 'The Legend of Zelda', nobody would be convinced, it simply is a 'Legend of Zelda' title.

So, in the case of Zelda, it is gameplay and structure which makes it title obligatory, but with the makers of the series being so reluctant to change the shape of the plot progression, and the gameplay itself, they really should step up to the mantle and address what is increasingly become an incredibly complicated, and somewhat convoluted 'legend' indeed. A UK gaming magazine I read a couple of years back attempted to fit the recently announced Twilight Princess into the grand scheme of things, and tried to fit all the previous titles together in terms of chronological progression etc., but even they were unable to do so.

Whilst it could be argued that the series were never intended to be organised into a series of relations with one another, that the titles do indeed all fall under the same title, and each instalment generally alludes to the others as having happened before, or even after, the current events,a basic inherent drive to try and place them in some form of order is created by the player. As with any given story, form and context are important, and when playing Twilight Princess after, say, The Wind Waker, its almost impossible to not try and place them in relation to one another chronologically, thought to do so is a little difficult, and there is no means of getting a definitive answer on whether or not you are correct. Attempt to throw Ocarina of Time, Link's Awakening, A Link to the Past etc. into the mix, and it becomes headache-inducingly difficult.

The through-line of the Resident Evil series offers a different set of conundrums, this time in the form of side-stories contradicting or not fitting within the overall arch of the narrative, and also the over-abundance of branching stories within the main narrative itself. Although there is very definitely a cohesion and clear forward thrust to the narrative of the Resident Evil games,it is not pure plain sailing. The move of Resident Evil 3 to act as both sequel and prequel to Resident Evil 2 by effectively splitting it into 2 acts between which Resident Evil 2 took place is not particularly complicated, and is welcomed by the many players who grow tired of a simple, straightforward linear narrative. However, in some places the Resident Evil series shows how branching the title of the series off can over-complicate, or even contradict.

Between Resident Evil: Code Veronica, the Resident Evil: Survivor games, Resident Evil: Gaiden and Resident Evil: Dead Aim, the number of T-Virus inflicted zones quadruples from 1 to 4, which leads to complications when characters from the other areas are included or referenced. Likewise, the resurrection of popular characters such as Ada Wong and Albert Wesker and the variety of conclusions some of the games offer adds complications and plotholes to the series story when considering the fact that their demise can be seen in a number of ways depending on how the player plays the game, and no definitive 'conclusion' to either Resident Evil 1 or Resident Evil 2 is offered. Albert Wesker, for example, dies in a number of differentways, with different witnesses,in both the original Resident Evil and its Gamecube remake, including some which make his 'resurrection with greater powers' impossible. Attempts at answering such plotholes and inconsistencies using the likes of 'Wesker's report' and Ada's equivalent, only manage to throw up even more questions.

Then take a look at titles such as Resident Evil: Gaiden, which, whilst not considered canon by most, nonetheless bears the 'Resident Evil' title and throws up circumstances which are later simply ignored, or makes future titles impossible. Gaiden, for example, has Leon infected with a virus which will either turn him into a Tyrant or kill him, and yet he is seen in Resident Evil 4 with no allusion to these events. For those who know Gaiden was produced independently and is not considered to be part of the official Resident Evil storyline (as complicated as it is), then this is of little consequence, they can dismiss the games story, but what of those who aren't aware of this fact, and try to fit Gaiden into the overall Resident Evil jigsaw?

Hopefully, further elaboration is unnecessary, as the point has been illustrated that even more streamlined series which offer progressive storylines really do seem to lose much of their cohesion and logic when they too fall prey to opening up the opportunity for spin-off chapters in particular, which rarely take up the responsibility of their cash-calling titles and give enough focus and dedication to the series continuing storyline.

Ultimately, as I hope this editorial has indicated, the state of a continuing narrative in most videogame series is continually becoming something of a convoluted and complicated affair. Whilst audiences grow increasingly more sophisticated and desire their games to be supported by stories with considerable depth, numerous layers, and sub-plots, many developers seem to be ignoring the primal need for some degree of cohesion and sensibility, and at the very least providing the players with a conclusive storyline, whilst at the same time trying their best to minimalise plotholes.

The prevalence of making profit, whilst an obvious imperative for all games developers, seems to be overshadowing such decisions as 'is this game really deserving of its title, or should it be labelled something new?', and more importantly 'where are we taking the storyline which players have already invested in - are we contradicting ourselves, are we confusing the bigger picture, and are we ultimately aiding or harming any sense of narrative cohesion?'.

Any videogame franchise which manages to inspire a good number of sequels is obviously born of a strong or popular premise - the likes of Metal Gear Solid, Zelda, Final Fantasy etc. are all titans of the videogaming world, and I myself anticipate and embrace the continued development of such wonderful titles. Nonetheless, being so popular gives these prestigious series, and their developers, an important responsibility, and surely they should be attempting to ensure that such titles remain pinnacles of not only gaming, but storytelling as well, and ensure the portfolio of experiences under this title are a collective unified group, and not just a rabble of different experiences under the same forebear, or a rough assembly of stories and events riddled with inconsistencies?

Of course, this editorial itself could be rendered entirely moot by some players who do not believe such an intricate handling and analysis of a games story is fitting or necessary. For some, gaming is about just that, and if a game they enjoyed garners a sequel, then the quality and continuation of the story may be a less pressing matter in comparison to the overall gaming experience. But really, it all comes back to that 'art' word again, and as more money, time, talent and creativity is poured into the games industry, surely it is something that the bastions of videogaming - the videogame series and franchises - should aspire to be? And with all mainstreamart, although there are always varying interpretations, there is nonetheless usually some sense of form and structure. It is a little disheartening then, and difficult to ignore as we enter the seventh generation of videogaming, that some of the most fundamental elements that unify so many mainstream art forms - the ability to label and acknowledge a clear, formal structure - are being overlooked and undermined in favour of financial gain and the inability to break free of the safe choice of an established, successful series title.