One striking aspect of this year's E3 has been the number of sequels in evidence. It is currently de rigueur, apparently, to have the number 2 (or II) after your game's name. In the past, this would have been perceived as a bad sign - sequel games, for years, have been held to convey a lack of adventure and imagination. But some of the best games at E3 2009 are sequels, and I have a theory as to why that is.
Whether a sequel game is a good or bad thing depends on the original game. And in the previous development cycle, two years ago, there were a number of very good games, which were almost great but were slightly flawed. Those are the games which might spawn great sequels. On the other hand, if the first iteration was near-perfect, then difficult second album syndrome might rear its ugly head.
A ****c example of the former is Uncharted 2. The original was one of those games that came from seemingly nowhere - expectations were low when it arrived, but it proved to be great fun to play. You wouldn't have said it was a ****c, though. But Uncharted 2 just might be a ****c. It is absolutely stunning, with incredible environments, many of which are destructible in a technologically impressive way, and as far as one can tell from the two levels on display at E3, another rich and involving storyline like the original. The quirks of Nate Drake's movement and the shooting system appear to have been cleaned up, and it strikes me as a game which has benefitted from a dispassionate assessment of its predecessor (something that developers, who get too close to their precious efforts, aren't always good at). Uncharted 2 will definitely be one of this Christmas' biggest draws.
Pretty much the same could be said of Assassin's Creed II, except that the original arrived in a blaze of hype. While the first game flattered to deceive - the gameplay suffering from monotony - its sequel puts forward a convincing case for keeping what made the first game good, and fixing the slightly broken bits. The Rennaissance setting is fantastic, and Ezio's movement and combat has received plenty of attention, while the AI has been restarted from scratch.
BioShock 2, sadly, could be an example of the second type of sequel. The original was so fresh, original and generally brilliant that it was always going to be a tough act to follow, and it generated a significant fan base. Very few of whom are at all happy at the prospect of having to play BioShock 2 as a lumbering, clunky Big Daddy. The prospect of a multiplayer mode is heartening, but again there are mutterings about expecting something a bit more innovative than Deathmatch and Team deathmatch. Maybe we'll be proved wrong, but we're a bit worried about BioShock 2.
Calling Modern Warfare 2 a sequel is stretching it a bit - it is, more correctly, the sixth Call of Duty game. But it's a strong candidate for game of the show. What strikes one about it is its astonishing attention to detail - it's even more cinematic than its predecessors. Super Mario Galaxy 2, on the other hand, could suffer from the same problem as BioShock 2 - it's reassuringly familiar, but will it feel over-familiar in the final analysis?
Efforts like Crackdown 2 and Mass Effect 2 (yes, it will again feature sex with female aliens) could benefit from advances in engine technology since the original was made, and a more relaxed development cycle. Red Steel 2, thanks to the Wii Motion Plus, could be as good as the original was bad.
Maybe, on reflection, it's that third game which is the difficult one. And if ever there was a game that could be described as its predecessor with extra blood (and, surprisingly, currently suffers some frame-rate issues), it's God of War III. Once you get to the third iteration of a franchise, you lay yourself open to accusations of milking it for all it's worth. And gamers are too savvy to tolerate that these days.