BioWare: why sequels are good

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 20 June, 2011

"From a gamer's perspective it's a positive."

Some criticised game show E3 2011 for its focus on sequels, but for one game developer they're a good thing.

That developer is BioWare, creator of Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3, the third game in the science-fiction shooter role-playing series.

"There are a couple of reasons why sequels are actually good in the games business," BioWare boss Greg Zeschuk told Eurogamer.

"Actually making one game is really hard. When you have a chance to leverage your tools and technology for a follow-up, it gets easier.

"We talk about how this is probably one of our best demoes ever here for Mass Effect 3, and the game itself we feel will probably one of our best ever. It wouldn't have been that way if it was just a one off. From a gamer's perspective it's a positive."

E3 showcased the likes of Battlefield 3, Modern Warfare 3, Uncharted 3 and Halo 4. For some, it was evidence of a lack of innovation, but for BioWare, that's not necessarily the case.

"You have to innovate," co-founder Ray Muzyka said. "Innovation means taking some risks creatively. When you're doing a sequel, if you're thoughtful and you understand your audience well and you spend a lot of time listening to what they like and don't like, you take risks – sometimes they pay out, sometimes they don't – but if you listen you can continue to refine and make the games better and better.

"You can adjust the right variables in a sequel. They're good if you do them right."

"When it can be a negative is when people get lazy and rest on their laurels and don't use ambition for the sequel and create something that's predictable and there's nothing unexpected," Zeschuk added.

"We use the phrase, 'surprise and delight' our fans with our games, and if you fail at that..."

Muzyka and Zeschuk's comments echo those of Quake and Doom developer id Software, which told Eurogamer at E3 that it hopes to make sequels to upcoming first-person shooter Rage.

"Games that are sequels are unfairly criticised," CEO Todd Hollenshead said. "One regard is they're not original. You can do a lot of original things in a sequel as long as you're consistent and true to the universe that game comes up in."

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (41) Latest comment 11 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Shikasama #1 11 months ago

    Bioware/EA - Once again telling me what I should think and saying I'm wrong for being sick of their bullshit.

    I'm also sick of seeing Ray say the word 'innovate'. Remove features, increase production values, copy WoW. Seems to be the Bioware mission statement of the last 6 years.

  • drchocapic #2 11 months ago

    Money.

  • StolenGlory #3 11 months ago

    If sequels are so good, than give us Jade Empire 2 you clowns, actually no, scratch that. If it ever did get released it would likely make fans of the franchise want to break the disc in half, set it on fire and jump up and down on it; such is the nature of Bioware sequels that they piss off fans of the original game so completely.

  • Evolution #4 11 months ago

    "We use the phrase, 'surprise and delight' our fans with our game"

    I was certainly "surprised" by Dragon Age 2...

  • HoloDust #5 11 months ago

    Sequels are good as long as they improve over game they're sequel to. When you change your sequel beyond recognition (Dungeon Siege 3), water it down in hope to sell more to the "mainstream" (latest Bioware's RPGs), or just repack same old game year after year (CoD) then they represent everything that is wrong with the industry today.

  • frankster #6 11 months ago

    Lately innovation equals downloadable games for me. I haven't seen much innovation or risk taking in the AAA-business as of a couple of years. Understandably though as what sells for them should be followed up by something almost equally the same to make more money. Small developers tend to experiment a lot more given that their budget is small and they tend not to have to sell a lot of copies to make a small profit. FWIW I'm loving the indie games and keep supporting them in the coming years. Project Zomboid being the most interesting of the lot I've played lately.

  • Dubya #7 11 months ago

    EA is on it's way down a slippery slope.

  • metalangel #8 11 months ago

    "When you're doing a sequel, if you're thoughtful and you understand your audience well and you spend a lot of time listening to what they like and don't like, you take risks"

    You're just hearing what you want to hear, aren't you? Nobody wants Mass Effect 3 to be focused on shooting, so don't take the risk.

  • TitusCrow #9 11 months ago

    Wtf happened to Bioware?

  • vx-chemical #10 11 months ago

    It is funny how Bioware, went from being one of the most respected companies in the buisness, to fall into the low regard most gamers hold them in now.

    I reckon it comes with abandoning your core customers.

  • metalangel #11 11 months ago

    I've quoted them before, but Bioware once said that becoming part of EA 'wouldn't change anything'.

  • GiarcYekrub #12 11 months ago

    I like sequels but its very easy to piss off existing fans in the pursuit of new ones (Resi 5, Dragon Age 2, JJ Abrams Star Trek tut tut) and when you care more about new fans than old ones, whats the point in doing a sequel and not doing something original?
    Edited by GiarcYekrub at 20/06/11 @ 10:24

  • Flipper79 #13 11 months ago

    When have EA ever listened to what their audience want from sequels? Their strategy is make a decent first game, remove all the things that made it decent in the second, and then bring them back in the next, advertised as 'all new' and so on...

  • wez_316 #14 11 months ago

    I understand the Dragon Age II irks and whatnot but come on? Does that one misstep mean you should condemn the developer? Plus it was a decent game even if quite inferior to the original. Under any other name a lot of you would have been championing it I imagine.

    Do the haters forget Baldur's Gate 2? One of the best sequels ever made. MDK2 anyone? KoTR II was pretty good as well.

    Oh and if anybody claims that Mass Effect 1 is better than the sequel then they literally have a screw loose. Scanning planets might not be fun but I'd rather do that then have to sell 100 weapons an hour as to avoid clogging my inventory. Not to mention spending half my gameplay time driving around practically empty planets.

    Not dissing Mass Effect as I enjoyed it. The sequel was just so much better though as it took out almost all of the inane things out of the game.

    Also I'm annoyed with the sheer amount of sequels as much as anyone. Give credit to the good ones though guys! A sequel free world would be almost bad as a world where there was only sequels. Developers need to strike a balance.

  • TheApologist #15 11 months ago

    Sequels in gaming isn't even an argument anymore. Indeed, sequels have provided many of the most critically celebrated and bought games of the last few years - Uncharted 2, ME2, Portal 2, various CODs.

    This is just games press generating copy for the sake of it.

  • HyperTails #16 11 months ago

    Sequels are good if they are done right. As in, not yearly updates for the next 6 years that ruin the series, and actually put effort into them.

    Once Mass Effect 3 comes out though, i'd like to see BioWare try their hand at a new IP.

  • Darren #17 11 months ago

    I think there's a danger with sequels getting a little tired past game no. 3 personally when released one or two years apart, or, if not that, then certainly less exciting. But not always. PGR 4 was utterly sublime for example and the best in the series IMO. Dragon Age II, however, was not! ;)

  • agparrot #18 11 months ago

    I'm not sure why bulding a new game means you have to abandon the tools you have developed for another game.

    I know it isn't a perfect example, and that some people just do not like the aiming and combat in GTA generally, but with the 3D GTAs, and with RDR, and to a lesser extent with LA:Noire, Rockstar have been 'evolving' their tools without necessarily ensconsing them in a direct sequel.

    Presumably some of the tools used in the Mass Effect and Dragon Age series have carried over between projects, so it isn't necessarily a case of New Game = New Tools.

    Sequels *can* be good for gamers, though. If you didn't like Mass Effect 1, then you are going to save a load of money not buying Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3. Bioware have made it nice and easy for you to buy other things.

  • teamtink #19 11 months ago

    @wez_316 I agree with you. I think the most restrictive thing in terms of innovation is the actual gamers who want games to "be like the old days". DA2 was a good game in its own right and you're right, mass effect 2 did surpass the original without question. Bring on DA3 and ME3!

  • vx-chemical #20 11 months ago

    Somethings in ME2 were better than in ME. Like the mmm... mmmmmm well texture pop ups werent as bad. The side quests were a bit better, but still.

    I wish bioware would stop using the same schema, create something a bit more openworlded like, Baldurs Gate. Create a game for the true rpg fans, more rpg than even origins.

  • Nazo #21 11 months ago

    It's like he's taunting us.
    If he'd posted that on a forum it would be called flamebait.

  • 32768Colours #22 11 months ago

    I think the really depressing thing about sequels is not so much that they exist at all - because there have been some cracking games as a result - but that commercial success automatically equates to a game becoming a franchise.

    Its got to the point where I cringe ever-so-slightly when I read glowing reviews for a brand new IP because (apart from the odd few like Platinum) I know it'll probably be the only game series that developer will make until they fold.

    Sure they'll use "creative" arguments such as having plenty of story left to tell, but really, its because of the massive expectations many publishers now have for their investments.

    Understandably, only a select few in the industry can come up with fresh AAA concepts every time they decide to make a game (and fewer still probably get the green light), but I suspect many more developers have their ambitions frequently crushed purely by financial obligations. Little wonder the likes of Tim Schaffer have moved into the lower risk download market; where innovation is appreciated and actively encouraged.

    Bioware would be wise to remember that it was a fresh new IP in Mass Effect that earned them kudos this generation, not pumping out annual updates of Baldur's Gate.
    Edited by 32768Colours at 20/06/11 @ 13:00

  • edhe #23 11 months ago

    People that berate sequels must demand a brand new recipe for their meal every night - and then cry when it doesn't work.

  • metalangel #24 11 months ago

    "Gee, they don't like the Mako very much."
    "We'll show them! We'll replace it with mineral scanning, the Mako will seem like a titjob from Gianna Michaels in comparison!"

    @edhe: Once you get to be a good enough chef (or dev), you can make new stuff correctly first time quite reliably.

  • Brownstudy #25 11 months ago

    Damn right it's about money. Believe it or not, the games industry is a business, and a bloody risky one at that. Yes we love innovation, but only if it contributes to a good game, not for the sake of it.

    Bioware made it clear from the start that ME was going to be a three-title franchise, and many of us are counting on that. When Mass Effect was released, I loved the fact that a new SF 'universe' was being created, and that the first game was just the beginning. When ME2 came out, I was really pleased that it was, in my opinion, even better than the first one. I'm not mad on the planet scanning as it was a bit laborious, but some people thought it was great.

    Whether or not you enjoyed them, ME and ME2 were hugely successful, and have a big fanbase. It would be corporate suicide for Bioware to renege on the promise to produce the third title, and as I said, making games is a risky business. If you produce a successful franchise and you think there's more money to be made, you keep going until your fans lose interest. Remember: one flop can sink a developer, and ME3 will almost certainly not flop. Of course, if a particular game is not appealing to you, don't buy it.

    By the way, judging by the angry and aggressive comments on this site, you'd think none of us actually like playing games. For every fan of each game that we discuss, there seem to be 50 more from people who think it's 'shit' or 'retarded'.

  • neems #26 11 months ago

    "When it can be a negative is when people get lazy and rest on their laurels and don't use ambition for the sequel and create something that's predictable and there's nothing unexpected,"

    I have nothing against sequels per se, but that is an interesting comment coming from the people who made Dragon Age 2 - a game that, regardless of your opinion of it, categorically reuses the same locations and art assets over and over. Rushed out the door (Bioware themselves said that they 'didn't have enough time' to make new environments, as if that somehow makes it alright), lacking ambition or indeed any real creativity.

    I suspect it wasn't intended as a comment about themselves, but it ended up being extremely insightful.

  • thiagots85 #27 11 months ago

    "Innovation means taking some risks creatively. "

    ...and taking some risks creatively means just copy whatever other AAA titles do,just to have more fans... and more money, but this is what everyone lies for, so this is excusable

  • intpleeus #28 11 months ago

    The problem with his argument is that tools and technology can be "leveraged" without creating sequels. Bioware did exactly this when creating Jade Empire. It developed on the tools and technology established in Knights of the Old Republic.

    I don't mind developers specialising in particular types of games. In other entertainment media, authors, directors, and musicians tend to specialise in particular types of books, movies, and music. I don't even mind pseudo-sequels like Grand Theft Auto IV, Bioshock Infinite, or Far Cry 3, i.e. "sequels" which share little with their predecessors beyond familiar game mechanics and narrative themes. What bothers me most is getting stuck in the same fictional universe, with the same tired characters, saving the same universe from dire peril again and again.

  • jimr9999us #29 11 months ago

    I'm sorry but the last great single player game I played was ME2...so why all the hate?

  • Gizzle #30 11 months ago

    "We use the phrase "surprise them with shite" our fans with our games, specifically with Dragon Age 2" Well, that's how I read it.

  • InfiniteTed #31 11 months ago

    Bioware are rapidly becoming unashamed game design villains. I know that's the response this article wants from me, and it's true that I've poured hour upon embarrassing hour into both Mass Effect games, but there's definitely something soul-destroying lurking below the surface of ME and Dragon Age. Mass Effect 3 is going to wear its OCD illusion-of-choice inanity a little more openly, and everyone will feel horrible for a few months afterwards.

    Also, isn't it possible 'to leverage your tools and technology' in order to make another game with a different story and some new concepts, rather than a sequel? I'm not sure if reusing and tweaking an existing game engine forces you to make sequels. Obviously ME3 is necessary because it's the final part of a trilogy, but Dr Ray is wrong to imply that's there's this correlation between sequels and refinement.
    Edited by InfiniteTed at 20/06/11 @ 17:38

  • Inmediasress #32 11 months ago

    Bioware lost all credit with me.
    There was a time I believed that EA forces them to make such dickhead moves but now not any more.
    Every time Ray opens his mouth it's always about mass appeal effect, innovations which equal mass appeal effect and of course "push a button and something awsome happens".
    Not to mention that most of these interviews come over as if cliff belinszki was talking.
    Mr Muzyka usually tries to preach to me about what's good for me as the first poster mentioned and also insults my intelligence in the process of his reasonings.
    I know what's innovation is but Mr Muzyka is mixing it up with degradation.

  • Lord_BeeJee #33 11 months ago

    tbh they lasted longer under EA than most purchased studios but now the inevitable corporate brainwash and dumbing down of their products has started and bioware has lost its magic. Sad :/

  • FelixH #34 11 months ago

    Like every dubious political or marketing related speech, they are using words without any definition fixed in reality, and when they're talking about their interests, they're feigning to talk about yours too. What is good for the business is automatically good for the quality, depth and originality of the game. Now I'm a sucker for a good, solid sequel as much as the next guy. But that is grounded in the mostly naive hope that the sequels will offer the same wealth of content, innovativeness and maybe a step up in quality to the predecessor. Bioware have shown that is not their interest. In fact, they haven't offered anything substantial and truly inventive since Baldur's Gate 2 and KOTOR. Mass Effect and Dragon Age were at first slightly underwhelming, and in the case of DA clunky and rambling, continuations of those formulas, but they still can be seen as valid efforts. But their sequels show an increased disinterest to improve their formulas in any way that might be difficult or more mature. They are incompetent at creating their own character and combat systems without resorting to simple industry standards. If they could get it right once, they wouldn't need so many attempts. And they don't have the integrity to create characters which aren't simple fanservice or the ideas to explore their settings in any other way than at gunpoint or ridiculous, stylized splatters of blood. It would be nice if they could just take their time, and leave creative decisions mostly independent of executive control.
    Edited by FelixH at 20/06/11 @ 16:52

  • Inmediasress #35 11 months ago

    @FelixH
    Couldn't agree more.
    Just sad that most people fail to see it as clearly as you.

  • FelixH #36 11 months ago

    @Inmediasress
    Thanks, that's very kind of you to say, though others have said good things too. ^^
    Edited by FelixH at 20/06/11 @ 18:01

  • Bleemo #37 11 months ago

    I never thought I would be sick of the sound of Bioware's two docs but I am, they've spent the years since the EA acquisition paying lip service to their original fans.

    It's ridiculous really, RPG's are niche as hell. You can just about get away with watering down first person shooters ala COD because they are pretty basic to begin with and have a large fanbase. As Deus ex: IW and now Dragon Age 2 have proven however is that the RPG fanbase is pretty tight and specific about what it will tolerate. So going looking for a mythical new RPG audience doesn't work because they're isn't one. I find it mildly ironic that some action adventures like Assassins Creed 2 and Red Dead Redemption actually have atleast as much depth if not more than alleged modern RPG's like FF13, Dragon Age 2 and Fable 3.
    Edited by Bleemo at 20/06/11 @ 18:39

  • sabbede #38 11 months ago

    "One regard is they're not original. You can do a lot of original things in a sequel as long as you're consistent and true to the universe that game comes up in."

    True!
    Too bad you didn't learn that before DA2

  • sabbede #39 11 months ago

    @TitusCrow
    2007 - EA acquired BioWare.
    ME1 had just come out. ME2 is planned.
    DAO was already in development.
    JE2 was rumored to be in the works.

    Things had been great. EA comes along.... Things are shit.

  • kaya08 #40 11 months ago

    I found both of their recent sequels really dissapointing personally.
    The first ME was a rough diamond - there was plenty of areas that really needed to be smoothed out and the pacing with sitting on the citadel for a week at the start was pretty bad, but it was a great game despite that.
    ME2 was just really underwhelming. I honestly cant think of any specific criticisms other than it seeming a bit soulless.
    It got far less playtime than the first from me.

    DA2 was mediocre at best. Every report of new and changed features leading up to its release was full of comments of people criticising their decisions - he should take his own advice and 'understand your audience well and spend a lot of time listening to what they like and don't like'.

    I have no objection to sequels in general but Biowares track record with them is poor.
    Didn't play BG2 so no comment on that but that was a decade (?) ago so its not really relevant, KotOR was made by Obsidian. They really need to rethink how they develop sequels.

  • ShiroBen #41 11 months ago

    Well, sure, if the first game's good. Mass Effect pretty much demanded a sequel, and it got one, and it was great, but most of the sequels I see these days have a single motivation behind them: MORE MONEY.