Sequels are 'high risk rather than low risk' - Evolution boss

By Tom Bramwell Published 13 December, 2006

Things will change, he says.

Evolution Studios boss Martin Kenwright believes that sequels are actually higher risk than publishers think.

Speaking to our sister site GamesIndustry.biz in an interview published today, Kenwright argues that the industry's obsession with building sequels to feed off a game's success is, "harming the marketplace irreparably".

But, he says, that's going to change in the future.

"People like to tick boxes and play it safe, but sequels are the bane of our industry. 'The last one was good so the board wants ten more the same...' That's actually harming the marketplace irreparably," he complained.

"The reality for many small developers is that publishers are risk averse. But things are going to change. The way games are going to be made is going to change, the way they're funded is going to change.

"It's not going to be like a parent/child relationship with publishers in the future. It's going to become much more of a creative partnership. I think it's going to be an amazing time for games. People are waking up now to the fact that sequels are actually high risk rather than low risk."

Head over to GamesIndustry.biz for the rest of the interview. Part one deals with the origins of MotorStorm - Evolution's first PlayStation 3 title - and can be found elsewhere on gi.biz.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000. Follow him on Twitter.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (30) Latest comment 6 years ago

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

  • Steroyd #1 6 years ago

    He has a point Metal Gear Solid 3 has sold considerably less than MGS2 even though the 3rd one is miles better.

    The same goes for Gran Turismo 4 (only not being miles better than 3).

    In fact the only "sequel" to have sold consistantly is GTA funnily enough.
    Edited by Steroyd at 13/12/06 @ 12:34

  • Penguinzoot #2 6 years ago

    Yeah, FIFA and NFS are huge risks ;-)

  • Cosmopolitan #3 6 years ago

    A little odd hearing this from Evolution boss. Just how many sequels have there been to Evolution's WRC games? I don't say they're bad but...

  • dadrester #4 6 years ago

    he's got a pretty rosy outlook i'd say... though with the cost of producing games on PS3 and Xbox 360 (and the current uptake of the wii) I say we're going to see much more original content created for live arcade and EDI, and more for wii. The fact that in it's whole outlook the wii is pretty focussed on innovation means even when EA churn out stuff for it (i don't mean the inevitable downports that the psp is seeing) it'll have to be at least some way original just to compete.

  • consignia #5 6 years ago

    While, I agree that sequals aren't the golden cows they are perceived to be, I wouldn't call them high risk. You at least have a sizable amount of marketing done before you start compared to a new venture, and development costs will be somewhat lower than an original game, due to certain elements of design already done, etc.

    However, I do agree it kills the smaller devs, because they can't tick the right boxes. In fact, the worst thing about the games industry, is the amount that's done on licensing other popular or successful media.

  • TheMoonRat #6 6 years ago

    The thing with sequels is that its more about defining a genre of gaming. A Gran Turismo game is a racing genre of game yeah, but when you buy it, you know you're getting realistic handling, lots of cars but with crappy AI - so its more of a driving game than a racing game. Buy a game from the Burnout series; and you're talking more about crashing and fun rathar than simulation.

    So the game industry creates new IP with a slight twist on the genre: then sucks that genre dry until people are bored of it and want something new... in which case another IP with a twist will sprint up and that will be bled dry too.

  • L42yB #7 6 years ago

    Um... will someone tell EA this, please

  • marc_si #8 6 years ago

    Can't say I see much substance to his statements to be honest, if you look at games which are sequels compared to games which are new IP I'd almost guarentee that the average sales rate for the sequels is much higher.

    This doesn't mean that sequels can be naff (if they are then thats the end of the series generally fairly quickly) - but if a game has done well and been successful then an evolution of that product is fairly likely to be well recieved by the public.

    This doesn't mean new ideas can't be great and successful but it does show that the risk levels differ somewhat ...

  • sanctusmortis #9 6 years ago

    The problem with a lot of sequels is nothing changes - GT only changes cars and tracks, and even then by increasingly little. Burnout's turned into a series of tweaks, GTA's new settings, and of course any EA Sports game is a roster switch.

    Heck, at least Half-Life 2 brought new stuff to the table - physics, for one - and even the inept (comparative to the original) Halo 2 added a new weapon system, better physics and a new style of play (try handling both MC and Arbiter the same way, especially on Legendary, and you'll see what I mean).

    The issue is "lazy" sequels; I'm sure they'd be less of a risk if there was a point beyond plot to the sequel. Take Final Fantasy: each one is really its own game, only sharing name a lot of the time.

  • ThreeOutsideDown #10 6 years ago

    "I think we really proved ourselves and pulled it together at E3 this year. As a developer you thrive off feedback."

    hello?

    the title failed to meet the standards of the highly publicised target renders.

    you failed.

    sure, it was rush job built on none final hardware, so that sony could tick the driving game box at launch because gran turismo was missing.

    but hey, you still failed.

    i'd hate to think what their vision is for ps4 titles... " ummm. it'll have cars in it'

    ffs!
    Edited by ThreeOutsideDown at 13/12/06 @ 13:54

  • mazzl #11 6 years ago

    sequals focus on brand building, the fifa games are a brand so is mariokart and the splintercell(gta, burnout, gothem etc etc) games. people know wat they get, and they want that kind of game.
    a good series of games isn't the problem. it becomes a problem when an developer doesn't want to create new brands beceause of the risk of failure.
    it's not fault of burnout 3 that a new product failes. just deliver good product!
    and a new brand is born

  • jaxon58 #12 6 years ago

    Tosser

  • SBfistfun #13 6 years ago

    lol Jaxon

    "industry's obsession with building sequels to feed off a game's success is, "harming the marketplace irreparably".

    Well call me gobsmacked.

    WRC3010 anybody?

    Jesus there really is no hope.

  • Rambaldi #14 6 years ago

    There's nothing wrong with sequels if they're well done follow-ups to great games:

    Halo 2
    PGR3
    MGS3
    Rainbow 6 Vegas
    Call of Duty 2
    Zelda TP
    Mario 64
    Oblivion
    FF10

    etc.etc.etc....
    Edited by Rambaldi at 13/12/06 @ 14:06

  • Mr_Brown #15 6 years ago

    Too true. Sequels are generally just lazy. If a franchise is hugely sucessful why the hell not. But its stupid to make a sequel just because its an established franchise. In fact, that could against them. A large amount of people may have brought it...but more people may have hated it and when they see the name again avoid it. Innovation is key, if you've never tried it, you have to buy it.

  • ParkerDigital #16 6 years ago

    "sequels are the bane of our industry". So was he forced at gunpoint to greenlight all those WRC sequels or what? Idiot

  • krudster #17 6 years ago

    If Kenwright and co. could go back to being as creative as they were in the DID days, I would be a very happy man. Having personally reviewed about 4 WRC games, it made me cry inside that such talent was being wasted on something like that.

    Not that WRC wasn't a solid game, but after five years of making them, wouldn't you want to kill yourself?

  • Clive_Dunn #18 6 years ago

    Of course publishers are risk adverse, they are the ones paying the dev costs. I tend not to be surprised publishers are so nervous about investing in new IP when developers have a very low percentage chance of actually delivering something both critically well received and financially successful.

    The most risky thing about a sequel is ensuring that the standard is good enough and it brings something new to the table. Too often corners ( and therefore both quality and features ) have been cut to hit a date ( usually Xmas of end of an FY ). Publishers do need to understand you can't take liberties with their golden IP - gamers will forgive the title slipping 6 months, they won't forgive it being shite.

  • spongebob #19 6 years ago

    Less sequels means more original IP means more interesting games. I'm with Evolution on this.

  • Rambaldi #20 6 years ago

    @krudster

    Is that DID as in Wargasm? That game rocked!

  • Xerx3s #21 6 years ago

    I bet that there will be at least 4 motorstorm incarnations. -_-

    As for sequels...If they are done properly they can enrich the franchise and stand on their own two legs. But they are usually used as a cheap method of getting more out of the same for relatively little money.

  • Steroyd #22 6 years ago

    Yes one only has to look at Ridge Racer to see what he's talking about.

    But the rules don't ring true for MGS, or Final Fantasy.

  • RexRunti #23 6 years ago

    What people often forget with sequels is that they weren't always sequels. Tomb Raider 1 was an absolout classic even though every sequel until Legend ranged from dissapointing to down right pap. GTA was genre defining, as was Driver.

    Also sequels do sell. How many of you would have a Wii if it wasn't for Zelda or the prospect of Super Mario Galaxy? After all it's a good way for devs to start out, afterall they can't all stick "BioWare" at the top of their boxes.

  • krudster #24 6 years ago

    Yes, they did Wargasm and tons of great stuff. Who could forget Robocop 3 on the Amiga?

  • jaxon58 #25 6 years ago

    @Krudster

    That's because most of the artistic talent that created those DID games didn't form Evolution, they went to Rage then created Juice Games, which is where they are now. Evolution was created from about 8 members of DID staff, out of about 60.

  • krudster #26 6 years ago

    Good to know. I guess the Kenwright associations make it easy to assume it was DID re-formed.

    Shame Juiced was a bit of a me-too pimp-my-ride affair. Solid, but by no means the best. Some of their other stuff for Rage was great, mind.

  • davisorle #27 6 years ago

    Post deleted at 20:44:35 16-04-2012

  • YourMessageHere #28 6 years ago

    I don't think he's saying sequels won't sell. To me it reads like he's saying the money people/publishers don't understand the gaming public, and think that because brand X sold well another thing with the same brand will sell just as well. That therefore means they believe it's OK to scrimp on quality and original ideas to get a game out faster than the other company. Basically, believing sequels are universally appealing is what's resulting in rubbish games.

  • nightsparkle #29 6 years ago

    where are the arguments. these are just statements!
    altough i'd like to agree, it's not realy true. even for someone who knows a more than your average bloke about games. when i see something with the name gran turismo, metroid, or ninja gaiden, i'll imediatly buy it. altough if they make a different game with the same gameplay, i'd much sooner go for that. for example halo, there's realy nothing to the story that makes me want to see more.

  • Muddtallica #30 6 years ago

    I've said it repeatedly, and I'll say it again - saying "sequels + bad" is just a silly statement. Yes, lazy, churned-out cash-in sequels with no original thought put into them are indeed bad, but that's because lazy, churned-out cash-in GAMES are bad, not because the game's name has a "2" on the end of it.

    A sequel can be as good and original as you want to make it. Mario 64 was a sequel that revolutionised the industry. So was GTA3. Ocarina of Time? Street Fighter II? Super Mario Bros? And even if they don't reinvent the wheel, you can still have sequels that take the ideas established in the original and take them on to the next level...Half-Life 2, Soul Calibur, Oblivion, FFVII etc. If a sequel is lazy, regressive and uninnovative, that's down to the developer, not the fact it's a sequel; if they'd put the same amount of effort into an original game, it wouldn't have been any better. There are countless "original" games that are every bit as lazy and derivative as any of the worst kind of sequel could be - True Crime, anyone?