In one of my last blog posts I wrote about the imminent re-release of Metroid Prime in the New Play Control Series. Being ultra-hyped myself I found the time to go through Metroid Prime 2: Echoes again. One thing that struck me the most was that the game truly holds the test of time; it still looks marvelous of my HD set and the art in it is second to none. It also struck me how similar it felt to the first game in the Prime series and, as always, it got me thinking...

How should sequels be? More of the same? Or completely new? Retro studios had just reinvented the series merely two years before in 2002 so it was logical that the obvious route for the sequel was to capitalize on the success of the first one. Those of us who absolutely loved the brilliant Metroid Prime (there is no such thing as "too much praise" for Metroid Prime!) were in for a treat; those who didn't would probably hate it more if they bought the sequel. Some would argue that when a sequel is more of the same it might as well have been an expansion pack. Although they might have a point sometimes the sequel is far bigger (occasionally even better) than its predecessor to merit the title of an Expansion Pack.



I myself am happy with whatever route developers pick up. If they want to go with more of the same I'd be more than happy as long as the first one was quality. I would also accept something completely new. Take Shadow of the Colossus for example. My personal favorite game of all time (yet) is the spiritual successor to the cult hit ICO. Team ICO could have probably gotten away quite well by simply giving fans more of the same but they not only reinvented the whole concept of the game but they also gave it a new name to go by.

What would you expect from a sequel? Should developers reinvent their games every time? Or should they stick to their winning formulas? Discuss in the comments section below!