Sony Announces New Ratchet, Jak, Sly Cooper

Thanks to Yahoo for reprinting a press release revealing third versions of the Jak & Daxter and Ratchet & Clank series for PlayStation 2 are due out Fall 2004. The press release notes the "upcoming sequels will continue to push the boundaries as both teams incorporate revolutionary gameplay elements", although with only 12 months between iterations, either fast work or simultaneous development teams seem needed to really push the envelope. Elsewhere, a sneak peek at the next Official PlayStation Magazine reveals a follow-up to another Sony-published title, in the form of Sly Cooper 2: Band of Thieves, the sequel to the underselling, but critically acclaimed late 2002 PS2 platformer.

Comments

2 part expect, 1 part X factor

[MMaestro]

Jak and Daxter as well as Ratchet and Clank were both expect to recieve sequels. They already had one before and they were both expect, so why not try it again? Expected.

But Sly Cooper? Never sold well, didn't have much marketing, and was certainly not noticed in the mainstream. Where did the idea for a sequel for this come from?

Well..

[hookedup]

One can only hope the commercials for this will be as creative and memorable as the ratchet and clank commercials.

What do you mean, don't get me started on FF?

[Inoshiro]

With the except of X and X-2, no Final Fantasy game has ever had a sequal. Each game that SquareEnix (and previously Squaresoft) put out under the name was a completely different RPG sharing only some character elements (moogles and chocobos, a character named Cid, etc).

To put it in perspective, Suikoden has more sequels than Final Fantasy as of Suikoden 3. Square just happened to label their projects worked on by their lead designers as "Final Fantasy" sort of like a label for a particular kind of RPG that Square's people felt were representitive of their best work.

So how, how in a talk about sequels, can you bag on FF, which has only 1 sequel to its name? At least go, "and don't get me started on X" in a series that is nothing but direct sequels, like the Mario games, or Madden football.

Re:Another Sequel

[CashCarSTAR]

On the other hand, why reinvent the wheel?

Game design is not about completly redoing everything each time out. It's about making small twists, little innovations that make a game more fun. At the same time, some point of reference is a good thing to make a game easier to get in to and learn how to play.

In the case of Ratchet and Clank:Going Commando, they added a ton of new weapons, a few extra game modes (a cool race mode and an even cooler space sim like Wing Commander). The story is NOT just a rehash either. Some of the cutscenes are downright hilarious.

The truth is that there's just not that many simple rehashes in the video game market, outside of expansion packs, of course. As technology has improved, the ability to innovate has gone up, and designers have chosen to make use of that ability, which is a very good thing.

Development Engine

[cgenman]

A game needs a great engine to succeed. The re-use of an existing engine towards that purpose is more common than most people believe and, quite frankly, necessary with the increasing complexity of games these days. Writing a 3d library from scratch is about as difficult as writing a physics engine from scratch. Why not use existing resources and add to them the features you never got a chance to have the first time around?

The same thing goes for theme. Warcraft 3 dumped the engine from Warcraft 2 in a complete re-write, but kept the Orcs / Humans battle in a colorful mythical world. It resonated the first time, and it resonates today. Dungeon Seige 2, Warcraft 3, Thief 2, Super Mario Brothers 3,(world, 64) are some of the best games out there, yet they are sequels. They took what worked, threw out what didn't work, and built up a new experience. This is a good thing.

If you don't like sequels, feel free to buy any one of the thousands of games released every year that aren't a sequel. Quality is definitely not guarenteed, but sometimes you get a Savage or a Halo. Of course, we all know Halo is a sequel to Marathon... so much for that idea.

Really, what it comes down to is quickly and poorly made games vs really great games. Some sequels fall into the first category, and are particularly memorable because the first game was so good. But many sequels fall into the second category. Terminator 3 was a terrible milking of the franchise, but Terminator 2 was just awe-inspiring. Zelda 2 was a quirky game without much going for it, but Zelda 3 was a masterpiece.

Don't paint everyone with the same brush. There are many good reasons to make sequels, and many good reasons to enjoy them. In other words, well-made sequels deserve as much of a place in the gaming ecosphere as any other well-made games. Otherwise you are rejecting gems like the new Prince of Persia game, in favor of more original games like, oh, Daiktana.