There is a lot to be said about video game sequels. On one side, you have those that wish publishers and developers would spend their time resources on new intellectual properties. On the other hand, there are those who would prefer sequels above all else. You could certainly make a case for both sides and as I began to investigate what the pros and cons would hold for each side, I found that it’s possible that there is a deep science and psychological reason as to why sequels happen and perform as well as they do. Think about an old song that at one point was a hit single that you could have heard anywhere on the radio. If you were to listen to this song today, brain patterns would trigger certain emotions. These emotions will probably bring up old feeling on how you felt when you first heard the song. You would remember what was going on in your life and what your state of mind was. I think then, that the same principle may be applied to video game sequels. Not a direct comparison, but in the sense of familiarity. As human beings it is natural to gravitate to what is more familiar than what is unfamiliar. What we know to be safe, rather than what may be unsafe. Not to make this as dramatic as it needs to be, I’ll put it in a different way. What is worth our money, rather than what is not.

Modern Warfare 2 is without doubt, the biggest holiday title of 2009. And you’re going to get it because chances are; you have some form of experience with the first Modern Warfare. Instantly, you know what to expect. The familiarity that you have with the franchise will drive you to spend your money on MW2 rather than that other new, small niche title that you have plenty of interest in trying, though just uncertain whether it may garner the same success as MW2. Why would this be a factor? Because like everyone else following any major purchase, you experience cognitive dissonance, or what is commonly referred to as buyer’s remorse. So I state the obvious in saying that MW2 will do well this holiday. It’s not easy for publishers to break into the market with new IP’s these days. LittleBigPlanet got a lot of great publicity, but unfortunately according to some “did not meet expectations.” Dead Space fell into this category as well. And then there are times when a publisher will try something new, and it will neither review nor sell well. For an example of such, see Mirror’s Edge.

At one point, sequels were not as big in games as they are today. The sequel push all began during the Original Playstation era. In today’s market, any developer and/or publisher will be hard pressed to establish a major franchise. There are very rare exceptions, Halo being one of them, which saw instant success on the original Xbox. But with most major franchises today, they all share a similar pattern. I would now like to turn your attention to the number 4. Metal Gear Solid 4, Grand Theft Auto 4, Street Fighter 4, Devil May Cry 4 (PS2 era), Call of Duty 4. The games listed are considered to be major franchises and all had released their 4installment within the last 2 years. They’re not just big franchises; they are in fact some of the biggest. The significance of this and the reason worth mentioning comes from gamers wanting to experience nostalgia. This is definitely a major element for desiring a sequel. I’m sure it’s safe to assume that we all share fond memories of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Why do we want a new Wii Zelda from Nintendo so badly instead of something new? Because we want to experience those same feeling we had when playing OoT all over again. Even though some may say developers and publishers don’t listen to the public, they in fact actually do. Nostalgia may be the biggest role that plays in the gaming public calling and demanding for a sequel. If you were given the choice of a new Zelda on the Wii, or completely new IP, which would you choose? My guess is that just about everyone would choose the former.

I’ve never really understood why people would proclaim how they desired innovation and new concepts in their games. For the most part, the industry and its inhabitants were keener on new games and concepts than just sequels.  I understand why though. Uncharted 2 is expected to be, for the most part, more Uncharted. Halo 3: ODST is expected to take the same Halo formula that has worked since its introduction. But at the same time it seems that there are those outspoken individuals who will say things like “I wish Square would attempt something other than Final Fantasy 7.” Let it be clear that the only reason Square-Enix continues to introduce new Spin-Offs in the FF7 universe is because YOU simply keep asking for it. So from the publisher’s perspective, they will always stick to what works. And why shouldn’t they, really. Think how many times you’ve heard people cry out for a true Final Fantasy 7 remake. While that would be considered a remake and not a sequel, the same arguments and concepts will apply. Trying new things in an age where the costs of game development are as high as they are may result in failure for sufficient market penetration. Creating a sequel may mean less cost in research and development as the same engine and resources are usually carried over from the first game, to the sequel.

Now take a look from another perspective, your perspective. Here are your options: Purchase the introduction to a new series that innovates and emphasizes on new gameplay mechanics and story presentation. Or, purchase Modern Warfare 2. Your obvious answer to the scenario would of course be Modern Warfare 2. The only reason you pick MW2 is because it’s familiar to what you already know, as stated in the first paragraph. You’ve never played this other mysterious game and can’t possibly know anything about its mechanics. On driving factor that pushes you to what you know is the cost of games themselves. Games are expensive, yes. As such, you gravitate to what you KNOW and what will give you the experience you’re looking for and what you KNOW will give you hours upon hours of entertainment.

We desire sequels and publishers show no objection in giving them to us. And it’s understandable, really. It’s difficult to blame the publishers for providing as many sequels as they do when it is in fact us who continue to ask for them. Publishers and consumers share the same mindset: Don’t fix what isn’t broken. But at the same time, the voice of the consumers is a call for new action, a call for the publishers to move away from what is familiar, and move towards new territory and ideas. But even when publishers do this, it’s meant with skepticism from all of us. We often sit on the side-lines and await the final verdict. The arguments detailed in this article don’t just apply to sequels. If you really think about it, you can apply it to genres as well. I suppose that it’s just the personality of the beast. Neither the publishers nor the gaming public is necessarily wrong for acting the way they do. But it always confuses me to hear people constantly complain about not having anything “New” to play. But something tells me they’re going to forget their complaining come this holiday when MW2, Halo 3: ODST, and Uncharted 2 come out.

The theme of E3 2009 was all about taking the standard game controller you’ve come to know and love out of the players hands. While Nintendo was all about motion controllers from the start of the current generation, E3 for them it was all about the Wii Motion Plus, a motion upgrade to their standard Wiimote. Now some might say that this past E3 was proof as to why gamers should start worrying about whether motion controls will become the standard for all platforms. Nintendo’s main focus thus far has been expanding their audience to more demographics. But for Sony and Microsoft, they seem to still have the attitude that they would be serving the so called “Hardcore” first and foremost. But now things are different. Microsoft introduced Project Natal, their own motion based camera that takes it a step further than Nintendo by allowing gamers to use body motions to manipulate what the game does and how it plays. Sony then introduced a prototype motion control that utilizes the Playstation Eye to track the controllers movements. Hell, even Ubisoft had its own motion camera that will be packed in with their new fitness title. While motion was being introduced at every corner of the show floor at E3, I asked myself if this was the beginning for the big publisher push to make motion controls become the standard. While the “hardcore” public may reject standard motion controls across all platforms, it’s unfortunate that history shows that it’s the publishers that decide what we want, and whether we want it or not. So will they become standard? This is my attempt at answering just that.

The first thing I want to cover is of course, Nintendo. Everyone seemed oddly fascinated with the Wii before its release. Nobody at the time had really seen motion track movement in games like this before. Fast track a couple years later and the Wii are at the top of the world selling more units than can be produced. Some call it a fad, and just a novelty. But it’s really much more than just that. It’s the start for other major entertainment publishers to try their own hand with Nintendo’s new strategy. But let’s look at software. It’s of course no secret that Nintendo has brought casual gaming to a new extreme. It seems that the games that sell on the Wii the best have the word “Party” in it, which has been a major component to the Wii’s success. There are certainly a few hardcore gems on the Wii, but not enough to satisfy an avid gamer that will ONLY be purchasing a Wii. While amongst the Gaming Community, most consider the Wii to be in a league of its own, meaning not in direct competition with Sony’s Playstation 3 and Microsoft’s Xbox 360. But of course to the REAL WORLD, there really is no difference. To those people there is a console that when looked at in direct competition with Sony and Microsoft, is less expensive, more attractive, and much more simple and appealing. Had the Wii not been as successful as it currently is, then maybe things would be different. But due to the fact that Nintendo has been able to capture a new audience that has thus far trumped Sony and Microsoft in global sales, it is Nintendo that has taken the first step into making Motion Controls the Standard. At this point, it’s about a one in a million chance that we would see a new Nintendo console without the inclusion of standard motion.

But nobody had really considered motion controls having a huge impact. There was still Microsoft and Sony. The PS3 and the 360 still adopted the standard game controller that we’ve seen for many, many years. So what happened? E3 2009 is what happened. So let’s take a look at Microsoft’s Project Natal. We’ve heard rumors of Microsoft having some type of new controller in the works but Natal was just completely different. The game community has been discussing Natal with what are mostly just some mixed emotions. But here is the big question: Is Microsoft really serious about Natal? You bet they are. Rumors in the industry tend to vary. There are rumors that are just totally outrages and could never happen, and then there are those that when seem possible, always tend to happen. With most Natal rumors, they are the latter. One rumor is Microsoft possibly “re-launching” the 360 with Project Natal. I can really see this happening. With Natal being compatible with every SKU of the 360, bundling Natal with the Xbox seems like the obvious move. Because of this it is absolutely clear the Microsoft is looking to heavily support Natal. They want everyone who owns a 360 to have one, and anyone who doesn’t to buy a 360 for it. Microsoft’s attitude for the last year or so has been: Chase Nintendo. While their strategy at first was to take it to Sony, they’ve clearly switched gears. After E3, Natal got a whole lot of coverage. It was talked about in the New York Times, and even had its own segment on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. Microsoft is being careful and it’s really too early to say if Microsoft will join Nintendo in making motion standard. Assuming Natal is a major success, it’s possible that it just might.

And then there was Sony. There was a lot that was expected from Sony at E3, such as Uncharted, God of War 3 and MAG. But it came as somewhat of a surprise when Sony took it 3 for 3 and introduced their own motion peripheral that took advantage of the PS Eye to track players movements. Much like Microsoft, their too was a rumor of a new possible motion design coming from Sony. While the Sixaxis has featured some type of motion from the start, it hasn’t been utilized very well and often faces harsh criticism when it’s actually used. The attitude coming from Sony at E3 was if Microsoft shows there’s, we show ours. The presentation of the new prototype motion design seemed a bit rushed. But that didn’t stop it from showing the public just what it was capable of. We were treated to a few tech demos of just how we can expect it to work. While Nintendo is upgrading their current motion designs, and Microsoft is showing off their new design, Sony is the only one that seems to be on the fence. With Sony, it’s sort of a “Lets test out the waters first.” The impression I personally got from Sony was that the standard controller was going know where, but if you want to try out the new motion controller, well then you certainly have that option. Most of the hardcore audience would probably side with Sony should they take that route. However, doing so will cause the new controller to not have any major success. Much like the Sixaxis, it will feel tacked on, and just useless. Which is a real shame because some of the demos shown, seemed really interesting.

Nintendo is already in the motion boat. Microsoft wants on the boat. And Sony isn’t quite sure whether or not they want to be on it or not. Motion controllers for Nintendo are going know nowhere. But at this time it seems as if Microsoft and Sony don’t make it their controller’s standard, then the public will deem it a failure. But making it standard has the potential to lose an essential audience. Motion controllers can certainly coexist alongside the standard controller. But in order for that to happen, it’s going to take a damn intelligent marketing team. Bring in a new audience, while keeping and honoring the current one. That’s going to be a difficult task but the ball is now in Sony and Microsoft’s court. Depending on whether they decide to push as hard as Nintendo for Motion controls, will ultimately depend on whether they become standard or not.  But there is a bit of a pickle. Not pushing the motion as hard as they did at E3 2009 can result in negative publicity from the gaming public. But doing so may then cause even MORE negative publicity coming from the hardcore. It’s like a lose, lose situation.