View RSS Feed

Serra

On the Future

Rate this Entry
How often do you think about the future? Are you the type of person who lives in the moment, or are you the type of person who needs to have a plan (and a series of backup plans for when the original plan inevitably fails)? If you fall into the latter camp, how far ahead into the future do you plan? Tomorrow? One week? A year? Ten years? The reason I ask this question is to posit another question -- how many of our favorite gaming franchises started with a plan? Some of the oldest gaming franchises have been around for around thirty years, and some of these franchises continue to build on an ever-expanding narrative. It is interesting to think how approaches to continuity and planning have changed over time as gaming has grown larger, and how this more modern era has been forced to work with the past while the blank slate that newer franchises start with allows for a different approach to storytelling.
(There are going to be spoilers for a number of games, so fair warning~)

Sometimes games don’t have complicated timelines, new games are just the next step in an ever-growing progression. Take the Super Mario franchise. These games do not have the deepest story and save for a few exceptions (Super Mario Galaxy preceding Galaxy 2, for instance), do not really have a chronological progression with each game serving as a self-contained entity. In most cases, it is probably a safe assumption that each game is followed by the next game released, with Peach getting captured again and Mario setting out to rescue her. Then again, continuity might not be the biggest concern in a franchise where seemingly bitter enemies can play golf so easily. The Mega Man franchise is another example of continuous narrative progression. Each game begins with a threat from Dr. Wily and ends with his defeat and/or capture. The next game occurs when Wily either escapes or fakes reformation and begins the cycle anew. The franchise has also used large leaps in years to separate eras (Mega Man X occurred after the original series, followed by Zero, and then Mega Man ZX), but each era has used the same approach to storytelling. And apart from the significant jumps, the sequence of the games is not that important. While somewhat greater planning in terms of continuity appears to have gone into some of the later eras, the franchise as whole still has feeling of independent games without much overall forethought. Similarly, the Pokémon franchise continues to build an ever-expanding world and where each generation can be assumed to occur after the previous generation. Red, Blue, and Yellow are followed by Gold, Silver, and Crystal, which are followed by Ruby. Sapphire, and Emerald and so on. Again, time is not really important to the franchise as each generation is mostly a self-contained entry and each generation does not take steps to set up the next (unless you buy into the crazy Pokémon timeline theories..).

On the other hand are games which have sometimes taken on complex and confusing timelines in an effort to introduce continuity years later. One of my favorite franchises, The Legend of Zelda, has one of the most convoluted timelines and the release of Breath of the Wild and its uncertain placement on the timeline has reinvigorated discussions of the Zelda timeline. Let me preface this by saying that I do not believe that Nintendo had a definitive timeline in mind when they released many of the early entries in the Zelda franchise. However, following the release of Ocarina of Time in 1998, I believe that Nintendo began to conceptualize a rough timeline for the Zelda franchise based on statements by Miyamoto in 1998 and later statements by Aonuma and Miyamoto in 2002. However, I also believe that it wasn’t until the release of Hyrule Historia in 2011 that Nintendo sat down and formalized their rough timeline (a position which is arguably supported by the timeline changes found in 2017’s Hyrule Encyclopedia). Over time, Nintendo has built upon the story of the Zelda franchise, creating a narrative comprised of largely individual entries which spans numerous games. In fact, many of the modern Zelda games are clearly designed with a definitive position on the timeline in mind. While not as convoluted as the Zelda franchise, the Metroid franchise is another example of a franchise where the chronological order of the games do not follow the release order. The original game, released in 1986, tells the story of Samus’ first encounter with Metroid species, but is then followed by the four Metroid Prime games (released from 2002 to 2007), Metroid II (1991), Super Metroid (1994), and Other M (2014). 2002’s Metroid Fusion is currently the last game on the timeline. Unlike the Zelda franchise, each game fits a clear and defined point in a linear timeline, telling the ever-expanding story of a single bounty hunter named Samus Aran. Each game is separate, but they also build upon her interactions with the Metroids, Ridley, and the Space Pirates.

While most of the preceding games have told separate narratives, some franchises tell their complete story across multiple games. These franchises can fall into two categories, the more rare franchises that were always intended to consist of multiple games from the beginning, and the more common franchises which receive sequels and expansions based on the success of the first entry. One of the best examples of a franchise which was always intended to cover numerous games is the original Mass Effect trilogy. From the start, the first game was seen as the first entry in a trilogy and introduced players to Commander Shepard, the vast universe, and the threat of the Reapers. In the game’s climax, Shepard defeats the Reaper known as Sovereign and vows to stop the encroaching Reaper threat. The second game continued the narrative and built on the events of the first game. The third game finished Shepard’s story with the arrival and final confrontation against the Reapers and carried the decisions players had made across the previous games to influence the outcome (somewhat less significantly than players had been led to believe). The Darksiders franchise is another example of a franchise that was clearly intended to tell a story across multiple games. The first entry in the franchise ends with War summoning his siblings, the other Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Vigil Games clearly planned to leave players with a cliffhanger that would entice them to pick up later games in the franchise to learn the full story, a strategy that has seemingly succeeded, considering the excitement surrounding the recent announcement of Darksiders III. Of course, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that it is safe to assume that the story of the Darksiders franchise has probably changed course since its inception due to the sale of Vigil Games’ parent company, THQ, in 2012.

More commonly, developers leave the door open for a sequel, but do not commit themselves to it with the first game in a new franchise. After all, who wants to appear so arrogant to assume they are guaranteed a multi-game franchise only to end up with an open-ended dud without a conclusion? At the end of Halo: Combat Evolved, Master Chief destroys the Halo, and as he is escaping, removes his helmet and tells Cortana, “I think we’re just getting started.” This opened the door for subsequent games, but didn’t lock Bungie into producing another Halo game. Of course, Halo ended up being a massive hit which defined the original Xbox and Bungie would release Halo 2 three years later. Given the success of the first game (and due to time and development constraints) Bungie left Halo 2 with a cliffhanger that left players anxiously waiting for Halo 3. Similarly, the Kingdom Hearts franchise began with a single game and conceptualization of a sequel only began after the first game’s release -- who really imagined a game which blended the Final Fantasy universe with the Disney universe succeeding on such a level? Sure, the original Kingdom Hearts planted seeds for a sequel with its secret movies Another Side, Another Story and Deep Dive, but look at the differences between those movies and Kingdom Hearts II. In an interview, Nomura even stated that development of Kingdom Hearts II did not begin until Disney was convinced to allow Mickey to have a greater presence in the game, which reportedly did not occur until 2003. Given the success of the Kingdom Hearts franchise, it is somewhat surprising how unplanned the whole franchise appears, with sequels, prequels, and time-travel filling in holes as it goes.

Of course, I’ve left off a third option: a game which tells a complete narrative, but then receives an unplanned sequel some time later due to the success of the first game. While there are many games that fall into this category (Final Fantasy X/X-2, Injustice/Injustice 2, BioShock/BioShock 2/BioShock Infinite), arguably the best recent example is The Last of Us which had its sequel announced a few months ago. The Last of Us told the story of Joel and Ellie as they traveled across a world that had been ravaged by a zombie fungal infection. Their story was an emotional journey which saw Joel become a father-figure to Ellie as he grew to see her as a daughter. In addition to its phenomenal gameplay and environment, The Last of Us did an exceptional job telling an emotional story. In fact, many individuals, myself included, regarded The Last of Us as the best game of 2013. The Last of Us Part II looks to pick up several years after the first game and tell a new, darker story. One of the things that has me truly excited about this sequel is that it wasn’t just about revisiting the world of The Last of Us, but that Naughty Dog wanted to do The Last of Us justice and took the time to come up with a suitable second act. In fact, Naughty Dog has stated that they spent years coming up with different ideas and only decided to make this sequel after developing a story that felt worthy of the first game.

As gamers, I think it’s natural to become invested in a world and sequels are a natural way for companies to offer gamers the opportunity to remain connected to a world over time. As such, the simplest way to ensure such an emotional investment from fans is to announce a game is a piece of longer story that will cover several games over many years. Still, sometimes plans change and promises regarding extended franchises can undergo drastic changes. Take the current Halo non-trilogy being developed by 343 Industries. When Halo 4 was revealed, it was announced that it would be the first story in a new Halo trilogy. A few years later, following the announcement of Halo 5, 343 announced that the trilogy had been expanded to a longer series of games. As a long-time fan of the original Halo trilogy, I can’t help wondering where the story of this new saga is going and how much of the original plan remains in place. Destiny is another example of a game sold to gamers on a plan which has seen drastic changes over time. When it was originally announced Bungie repeated stated they had a ten-year plan for Destiny and wanted players to feel their journey continued across the franchise. Personally, I was drawn to Destiny in part due to my many years playing Final Fantasy XI. A few months ago, Bungie announced that their original plans had changed and Destiny 2, the first true sequel, will essentially hit the reset button. Amongst the Destiny community, there have been numerous debates regarding how much of the game changed before its initial release, and when Bungie breaks one of the major promises from before the game’s release, I can’t help wondering how much of the original plan for Destiny has changed and allowed such a drastic change of course.

That’s not to say that games need a long-term plan in place to extend for a decade or longer. The best example of games which do what Bungie initially set out to do are of course MMOs. Like many of you here, the best example for me is Final Fantasy XI. Using expansions, Square Enix was able to expand the world, offer new jobs, enemies, areas, arenas, and content. They did not abandon the groundwork they had originally built, but they found ways to expand the game (ignoring the level cap increase beyond level 75, which is a completely different discussion..). When it comes to planning, there is no doubt that Square Enix did not have Final Fantasy XI’s expansions planned from the very beginning (look at the fact that at one point, Wings of the Goddess was supposed to be the last expansion). Yet, I think most would agree that each expansion served a role and felt like another piece of a larger whole. The success of Final Fantasy XI’s expansions shows that the entirety of a game doesn’t need to be planned from the beginning, but that working with existing frameworks can allow expansions to a game to feel like natural evolutions.

So how important is it that a developer has a long-term plan for a game or franchise? Does it matter if a sequel quickly arises from the success of a first game, or is it better to wait years as a developer crafts a follow-up that does the original justice? And is there a real difference between the more modern format of storytelling in gaming, where each game released is more or less a sequential story, or the older format where games are just released and fit a timeline that might not coincide with their release dates? As I said in the beginning, I find it interesting to consider the way that storytelling has changed when it comes to video game franchises over the history of gaming. As someone who has been gaming for nearly thirty years, it makes me appreciate where we’ve been, and where we might be going.

Comments