"Kill off the pointless sequel!" cries a zappy Edge editorial from yesterday, which pours cold water on repeated Ubisoft claims that high-intensity sequel-making is the secret to success on next generation hardware. The piece argues on the one hand that hammering out another instalment every year can stretch a series narrative (and fan patience) to breaking point, and on the other that such practises aren't as financially watertight as they seem, because consumers will only buy a certain number of games a year, regardless of how punctually they're plied with sequels.

I have a lot of sympathy (with reservations, below) for the first line of reasoning, as a man who sat through both Dead Space 3's meandering, bloodless storyline and that of its first campaign add-on, which can be summarised as "Hey you guys, there were some spaceships we didn't check". The second point strikes me as a touch idealistic, however.



True, people only have so much disposable income to throw around, but I'd challenge any industry seer to ascertain the exact sum in advance, and in any case, sales figures continue to show that the bulk of that coin is spent on sequels. The cry for new IP will never go out of fashion, but it doesn't always manifest itself at the point of sale - quite the contrary. However much online pundits love to gossip about emerging videogame properties, there's a tendency to play it safe when it comes to parting with 40-odd quid (on top of 400-odd quid for a new console). Better the devil you know, in short.

This isn't an argument against new IP, as such. No publisher can afford to trade exclusively on existing quantities, especially not juggernauts like Activision, EA and Ubisoft, whose unfathomable revenues must be stacked against equally swoon-inducing development and marketing budgets. Sooner or later, every franchise will run out of steam, however surgically companies shave off iterations, and as a recent Activision earnings call makes plain, you don't want to be caught with your trousers down when that happens.

But let's not go nuts. New IPs are a costly liability, and even if it weren't, there's no reason the two approaches can't coexist. As the Edge piece notes, Ubisoft is a Jack of both trades - the publisher has no less than three new Assassin's Creed games on the boil, including this year's Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag, but it'll come out swinging on Xbox One with three new IPs - The Crew, Tom Clancy's The Division and Watch Dogs (which will also be available on Xbox 360). It's suggested that Watch Dogs is proof that new IPs are the way forward - hence the ultra-enthusiastic E3 2012 reception - which seems rather premature given that the game isn't on sale yet, and will probably need to sell a fair few million copies just to break even.



Thank heaven, then, that Ubisoft has Black Flag on shelves roundabouts the same time as back-up, notwithstanding the risk that the two open worlders will cannibalise each other's sales. This seems a crucial balancing act at the outset of a hardware generation in particular, with research costs at peak. Yes, you've got to think of the future, of the IPs you'll bank on five years from now, but that doesn't mean you turn a proton torped0 launcher on the ground beneath your feet.

I'd also like to gently resist the first point - that sequels are infallibly a question of diminishing returns, a slow-acting "poison" that'll bring every franchise to its knees. For starters, the newness of new IP is often overrated: these games are just as likely to trade on established ideas as their numbered brethren. Dishonored, The Last of Us and Sleeping Dogs are perhaps the most celebrated new IPs of recent times, and all three of those perch on the well-fatted shoulders of older titles - Thief, Uncharted and GTA, to be precise.

These games transcend their derivativeness because they continue the artistic trajectory, adding new mechanics such as Dishonored's Blink power alongside well-honed tricks, or bundling the concept up in a new fiction. There's no reason sequels can't do the same: indeed, Assassin's Creed is built for just this sort of wry, playful expansion, its premise theoretically available to every gametype and historical setting. That the obese, befuddled Assassin's Creed 3 squandered this opportunity is a count against the implementation, not sequels in general - and Black Flag's more player-led tropical island getaway has the makings of a deft evolution, that restores the second game's colour and freedom while building on the third game's subgames and mechanics.



There comes a point when every franchise needs to bow out graciously, but I suspect some players are becoming over-invested in the concept of new IP right now, with next generation hardware on the horizon. Here and elsewhere, people seem unwilling to concede that sequels are both financially necessary and as valid a basis for great artwork as the potential pan-flashes offered by more "ambitious" studios. At the end of the day, incredible games can come from anywhere. Let's not deny them their share of love and admiration for the sake of a number.

Source: Rheena.com