Straight Up Gaming

Monday, September 11, 2006

Videogames 1.5?

I've noticed a somewhat unsettling tread emerging in both old generation, and next generation videogames, and that trend is pseudo-sequels. What really called this to mind was the recent sequel announcement of Call of Duty 3. It appears to use the same engine, the same animations, and even the same character models as the previous game, and yet it's got a shiny new number after the title. Are consumers really being asked to pay a premium price for content they already paid for once? What gives man!


Call of Duty 2

Call of Duty 3

I of course would expect this sort of thing from your sport'’s franchise games, although I don'’t particularly agree with it. I did not however welcome this practice into the shooting genre or even the 3rd person action genre. The pill would be much easier to swallow if they would instead call their games perhaps Call of Duty 2.5 or perhaps released at a lower price point. Instead game publisher'’s are essentially releasing expansion packs for the same price as a fully developed original title. Take for example the game Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow. Ubisoft Shanghi utilized the exact same game engine as the original game, the same animations, and most of the same character models from the first game, while secretly developing it's true sequel Splinter Cell Chaos Theory in tandem. Although an excellent business strategy, it's also a great way to milk the blood out of your customers.


Orginal Splinter Cell


Splinter Cell Pandora Tommrow

Ubisoft continued the trend with the brothers in arms series, it'’s sequel earned in blood utilized the same engine, animations, with a few tweaks here and there. Although both Panodra Tomorrow and Earned in Blood were well received games, aren'’t we as consumers paying a bit much for a few new maps and weapons? I guess time will tell, but gazing into the future the trend does not seem to be ending. The next generation version of Splinter Cell looks to use a tweaked engine of Chaos Theory, it's also being put out by the same team responsible for Pandora Tomorrow, so I expect plenty of the same animations to return.

As mentioned before, I don't particularly disagree with the practice of re utilizing a perfectly good engine, with a few spices here and there. But if your going to re-season the same chicken, at least pluck a few feathers off the price while your at it. Otherwise eventually you'’re bound to choke the life out your customers, and then your proper clucked.

2 Comments:

  • I think you're off base with Pandora Tomorrow - firstly, as gamers, we shouldn't care about the engines used (only problems they bring such as lack of stability or other limitations) - they're merely vessels for solid gameplay. Also, there were significant graphical improvements to those engines in my opinion.

    Pandora Tomorrow offered new levels and story, but most importantly, a totally kick-ass multiplayer mode that didn't exist at all in the original. I'd have bought that instead of the single player if I had a choice!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:51 AM  

  • Those are both pics of COD2, not COD2 + COD3.

    COD3 uses a totally different engine, by a different company, using all new assets. Completely different game.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:52 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home