The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Nowadays, it’s not uncommon to hear of a developer making a prequel to a hit game. It’s the same in movies too, Star Wars being the prime example. But why do they do it? Surely, by making a prequel, they’re taking the game back a step, which can’t be good right? Well, let’s take a look and see why!
For those of who don’t know (and if you’re reading this thread, I expect this isn’t the case), prequels are games set before the original game in the series; like Resident Evil 0 / Perfect Dark 0 on Gamecube.
Making a game set before the first one is a relatively new idea (the first that springs to mind is Tomb Raider) and opens up all sorts of possibilities for the developer. On the contrary, it also sets some limitations as well.
For the purpose of this topic, I’ll have two games, dubbed X1 and X2; X2 being the original game and X1 being the prequel developed afterwards.
In X1, the developers have the opportunity to create new characters. How so, you may be asking. Well, the main characters from X2 will obviously be younger in X1, possibly too young to play the role in the prequel that they could in X2. So why not use an older relative, such as the father/mother that may have died before X2?
Or maybe even a completely different character that is somehow linked?
The point is, if the characters in the original game were unoriginal, uninspired, downright dull characters, the developer has the opportunity to right that by using new ones. If the game was a sequel however, they’re often forced to use the same one again (insert just about any sequel as an example here).
Sometimes it can be said that making a prequel to a previous game is the easy way out. Take Tomb Raider for instance. It used to be Core’s mission to release a Tomb Raider game every Christmas. The game is always a massive success, particularly at Christmas, and the team don’t want to miss out on yet another chance to rake it in, big style.
However, by the time they got round to designing the fifth game in the series, they were fresh out of ideas. They’d milked the Tomb Raider franchise so much over the past four or so years that there was simply nothing left to do with her. So, they went back in time and let the player control the 16-year-old Lara Croft, among other versions. Quite simply, if a developer can’t think how to progress a game, they often decide to take it back to its roots.
Still, is this the only reason why developers make prequels? It can’t be. After all, there’s loads of room for advancement with Perfect Dark. Now, we don’t know for certain that the game will be a prequel, but again, for the purpose of this topic, let’s assume that it is.
Perfect Dark was a phenomenal success and deservedly so. About a month or so after release, when gamers were wrapping up the single player, they began to dream up a sequel and magazines such as N64 magazine devoted a whole section of their magazine to these sequel ideas. But when some reporter spotted the title ‘Perfect Dark Zero’, gamers the world over were left to pick up their jaws from the shock. A prequel? A PREQUEL?! Why?!
Well, here’s what I think. The Tomb Raider series has been stupidly successful, as previously stated. But only because know-nothing casual gamers go out and buy any old rubbish without reading reviews of the game beforehand. Successful? Yes. Continually, refreshingly good? No. With every subsequent title pumped into the series, it’s becoming more and more stale. It seems the team used up all their creativeness for the first title and then slapped together any old rubbish, printed ‘Lara Croft’ in bold letters on the front of the box and called it a day for the rest of the games (probably slightly harsh, but still).
Now, back to Perfect Dark and Rare. Rareware are world-renowned for continually advancing gameplay as we know it. Just about every game that leaves their doors features innovative, refreshing gameplay. Now, I very much doubt Rare want to lose such a reputation. After all, I’m sure there are people out there that buy their games just because they make them.
With Perfect Dark, they continued this trend and also made themselves a lot of money. They know that Perfect Dark has a lot of potential to be even more successful on Gamecube, but they won’t want to do a ‘Core’ and lose that reputation I mentioned. So, by making a prequel before the game turns into a Tomb Raider-alike, the team stands a better chance of accomplishing both those tasks – earn lots of money whilst keeping reputation intact.
Well, there’s what I reckon anyway. Any ideas from you guys? I’d be interested to hear (read) them!
You have been reading…
Uncle Albert
For those of who don’t know (and if you’re reading this thread, I expect this isn’t the case), prequels are games set before the original game in the series; like Resident Evil 0 / Perfect Dark 0 on Gamecube.
Making a game set before the first one is a relatively new idea (the first that springs to mind is Tomb Raider) and opens up all sorts of possibilities for the developer. On the contrary, it also sets some limitations as well.
For the purpose of this topic, I’ll have two games, dubbed X1 and X2; X2 being the original game and X1 being the prequel developed afterwards.
In X1, the developers have the opportunity to create new characters. How so, you may be asking. Well, the main characters from X2 will obviously be younger in X1, possibly too young to play the role in the prequel that they could in X2. So why not use an older relative, such as the father/mother that may have died before X2?
Or maybe even a completely different character that is somehow linked?
The point is, if the characters in the original game were unoriginal, uninspired, downright dull characters, the developer has the opportunity to right that by using new ones. If the game was a sequel however, they’re often forced to use the same one again (insert just about any sequel as an example here).
Sometimes it can be said that making a prequel to a previous game is the easy way out. Take Tomb Raider for instance. It used to be Core’s mission to release a Tomb Raider game every Christmas. The game is always a massive success, particularly at Christmas, and the team don’t want to miss out on yet another chance to rake it in, big style.
However, by the time they got round to designing the fifth game in the series, they were fresh out of ideas. They’d milked the Tomb Raider franchise so much over the past four or so years that there was simply nothing left to do with her. So, they went back in time and let the player control the 16-year-old Lara Croft, among other versions. Quite simply, if a developer can’t think how to progress a game, they often decide to take it back to its roots.
Still, is this the only reason why developers make prequels? It can’t be. After all, there’s loads of room for advancement with Perfect Dark. Now, we don’t know for certain that the game will be a prequel, but again, for the purpose of this topic, let’s assume that it is.
Perfect Dark was a phenomenal success and deservedly so. About a month or so after release, when gamers were wrapping up the single player, they began to dream up a sequel and magazines such as N64 magazine devoted a whole section of their magazine to these sequel ideas. But when some reporter spotted the title ‘Perfect Dark Zero’, gamers the world over were left to pick up their jaws from the shock. A prequel? A PREQUEL?! Why?!
Well, here’s what I think. The Tomb Raider series has been stupidly successful, as previously stated. But only because know-nothing casual gamers go out and buy any old rubbish without reading reviews of the game beforehand. Successful? Yes. Continually, refreshingly good? No. With every subsequent title pumped into the series, it’s becoming more and more stale. It seems the team used up all their creativeness for the first title and then slapped together any old rubbish, printed ‘Lara Croft’ in bold letters on the front of the box and called it a day for the rest of the games (probably slightly harsh, but still).
Now, back to Perfect Dark and Rare. Rareware are world-renowned for continually advancing gameplay as we know it. Just about every game that leaves their doors features innovative, refreshing gameplay. Now, I very much doubt Rare want to lose such a reputation. After all, I’m sure there are people out there that buy their games just because they make them.
With Perfect Dark, they continued this trend and also made themselves a lot of money. They know that Perfect Dark has a lot of potential to be even more successful on Gamecube, but they won’t want to do a ‘Core’ and lose that reputation I mentioned. So, by making a prequel before the game turns into a Tomb Raider-alike, the team stands a better chance of accomplishing both those tasks – earn lots of money whilst keeping reputation intact.
Well, there’s what I reckon anyway. Any ideas from you guys? I’d be interested to hear (read) them!
You have been reading…
Uncle Albert
Interesting post...
PD0 a prequel? Could be, they've kind of boxed themselves in by making Jo a newly qualified agent when PD began, but as you say, they don't even have to use Jo for the game. Rare haven't given us much to speculate on though.
The only problem i have with prequels is that they can mess up the plot running between instalments almost as badly as the highlander trilogy did (ie, no continuity between certain instalments at all!), still, if it's done with care, it can develop plot very nicely.
PD0 a prequel? Could be, they've kind of boxed themselves in by making Jo a newly qualified agent when PD began, but as you say, they don't even have to use Jo for the game. Rare haven't given us much to speculate on though.
The only problem i have with prequels is that they can mess up the plot running between instalments almost as badly as the highlander trilogy did (ie, no continuity between certain instalments at all!), still, if it's done with care, it can develop plot very nicely.
Nowadays, it’s not uncommon to hear of a developer making a prequel to a hit game. It’s the same in movies too, Star Wars being the prime example. But why do they do it? Surely, by making a prequel, they’re taking the game back a step, which can’t be good right? Well, let’s take a look and see why!
For those of who don’t know (and if you’re reading this thread, I expect this isn’t the case), prequels are games set before the original game in the series; like Resident Evil 0 / Perfect Dark 0 on Gamecube.
Making a game set before the first one is a relatively new idea (the first that springs to mind is Tomb Raider) and opens up all sorts of possibilities for the developer. On the contrary, it also sets some limitations as well.
For the purpose of this topic, I’ll have two games, dubbed X1 and X2; X2 being the original game and X1 being the prequel developed afterwards.
In X1, the developers have the opportunity to create new characters. How so, you may be asking. Well, the main characters from X2 will obviously be younger in X1, possibly too young to play the role in the prequel that they could in X2. So why not use an older relative, such as the father/mother that may have died before X2?
Or maybe even a completely different character that is somehow linked?
The point is, if the characters in the original game were unoriginal, uninspired, downright dull characters, the developer has the opportunity to right that by using new ones. If the game was a sequel however, they’re often forced to use the same one again (insert just about any sequel as an example here).
Sometimes it can be said that making a prequel to a previous game is the easy way out. Take Tomb Raider for instance. It used to be Core’s mission to release a Tomb Raider game every Christmas. The game is always a massive success, particularly at Christmas, and the team don’t want to miss out on yet another chance to rake it in, big style.
However, by the time they got round to designing the fifth game in the series, they were fresh out of ideas. They’d milked the Tomb Raider franchise so much over the past four or so years that there was simply nothing left to do with her. So, they went back in time and let the player control the 16-year-old Lara Croft, among other versions. Quite simply, if a developer can’t think how to progress a game, they often decide to take it back to its roots.
Still, is this the only reason why developers make prequels? It can’t be. After all, there’s loads of room for advancement with Perfect Dark. Now, we don’t know for certain that the game will be a prequel, but again, for the purpose of this topic, let’s assume that it is.
Perfect Dark was a phenomenal success and deservedly so. About a month or so after release, when gamers were wrapping up the single player, they began to dream up a sequel and magazines such as N64 magazine devoted a whole section of their magazine to these sequel ideas. But when some reporter spotted the title ‘Perfect Dark Zero’, gamers the world over were left to pick up their jaws from the shock. A prequel? A PREQUEL?! Why?!
Well, here’s what I think. The Tomb Raider series has been stupidly successful, as previously stated. But only because know-nothing casual gamers go out and buy any old rubbish without reading reviews of the game beforehand. Successful? Yes. Continually, refreshingly good? No. With every subsequent title pumped into the series, it’s becoming more and more stale. It seems the team used up all their creativeness for the first title and then slapped together any old rubbish, printed ‘Lara Croft’ in bold letters on the front of the box and called it a day for the rest of the games (probably slightly harsh, but still).
Now, back to Perfect Dark and Rare. Rareware are world-renowned for continually advancing gameplay as we know it. Just about every game that leaves their doors features innovative, refreshing gameplay. Now, I very much doubt Rare want to lose such a reputation. After all, I’m sure there are people out there that buy their games just because they make them.
With Perfect Dark, they continued this trend and also made themselves a lot of money. They know that Perfect Dark has a lot of potential to be even more successful on Gamecube, but they won’t want to do a ‘Core’ and lose that reputation I mentioned. So, by making a prequel before the game turns into a Tomb Raider-alike, the team stands a better chance of accomplishing both those tasks – earn lots of money whilst keeping reputation intact.
Well, there’s what I reckon anyway. Any ideas from you guys? I’d be interested to hear (read) them!
You have been reading…
Uncle Albert
For those of who don’t know (and if you’re reading this thread, I expect this isn’t the case), prequels are games set before the original game in the series; like Resident Evil 0 / Perfect Dark 0 on Gamecube.
Making a game set before the first one is a relatively new idea (the first that springs to mind is Tomb Raider) and opens up all sorts of possibilities for the developer. On the contrary, it also sets some limitations as well.
For the purpose of this topic, I’ll have two games, dubbed X1 and X2; X2 being the original game and X1 being the prequel developed afterwards.
In X1, the developers have the opportunity to create new characters. How so, you may be asking. Well, the main characters from X2 will obviously be younger in X1, possibly too young to play the role in the prequel that they could in X2. So why not use an older relative, such as the father/mother that may have died before X2?
Or maybe even a completely different character that is somehow linked?
The point is, if the characters in the original game were unoriginal, uninspired, downright dull characters, the developer has the opportunity to right that by using new ones. If the game was a sequel however, they’re often forced to use the same one again (insert just about any sequel as an example here).
Sometimes it can be said that making a prequel to a previous game is the easy way out. Take Tomb Raider for instance. It used to be Core’s mission to release a Tomb Raider game every Christmas. The game is always a massive success, particularly at Christmas, and the team don’t want to miss out on yet another chance to rake it in, big style.
However, by the time they got round to designing the fifth game in the series, they were fresh out of ideas. They’d milked the Tomb Raider franchise so much over the past four or so years that there was simply nothing left to do with her. So, they went back in time and let the player control the 16-year-old Lara Croft, among other versions. Quite simply, if a developer can’t think how to progress a game, they often decide to take it back to its roots.
Still, is this the only reason why developers make prequels? It can’t be. After all, there’s loads of room for advancement with Perfect Dark. Now, we don’t know for certain that the game will be a prequel, but again, for the purpose of this topic, let’s assume that it is.
Perfect Dark was a phenomenal success and deservedly so. About a month or so after release, when gamers were wrapping up the single player, they began to dream up a sequel and magazines such as N64 magazine devoted a whole section of their magazine to these sequel ideas. But when some reporter spotted the title ‘Perfect Dark Zero’, gamers the world over were left to pick up their jaws from the shock. A prequel? A PREQUEL?! Why?!
Well, here’s what I think. The Tomb Raider series has been stupidly successful, as previously stated. But only because know-nothing casual gamers go out and buy any old rubbish without reading reviews of the game beforehand. Successful? Yes. Continually, refreshingly good? No. With every subsequent title pumped into the series, it’s becoming more and more stale. It seems the team used up all their creativeness for the first title and then slapped together any old rubbish, printed ‘Lara Croft’ in bold letters on the front of the box and called it a day for the rest of the games (probably slightly harsh, but still).
Now, back to Perfect Dark and Rare. Rareware are world-renowned for continually advancing gameplay as we know it. Just about every game that leaves their doors features innovative, refreshing gameplay. Now, I very much doubt Rare want to lose such a reputation. After all, I’m sure there are people out there that buy their games just because they make them.
With Perfect Dark, they continued this trend and also made themselves a lot of money. They know that Perfect Dark has a lot of potential to be even more successful on Gamecube, but they won’t want to do a ‘Core’ and lose that reputation I mentioned. So, by making a prequel before the game turns into a Tomb Raider-alike, the team stands a better chance of accomplishing both those tasks – earn lots of money whilst keeping reputation intact.
Well, there’s what I reckon anyway. Any ideas from you guys? I’d be interested to hear (read) them!
You have been reading…
Uncle Albert