Tom HappVerified account

I've had a few people ask why Axiom Verge 2 looks different than Axiom Verge 1, or why I still call it "Axiom Verge" when it doesn't have Trace, etc. There are a lot of reasons, and the pre-written story is one of them. But it goes further than that.

From the very beginning of my gaming life, I've noticed a kind of spectrum in how sequels are handled. Either 1. The sequel is a reskin of the predescessor with re-arranged levels and story (think of the Uncharted series)

2. The sequel changes somewhat between iterations, but always features some consistent core mechanic (like Mario always jumps on Goomba heads, but he might do so wearing a tanooki suit or flying through space)

3. The sequel is wildly different, keeping the same basic genre and maybe some aesthetic element (Final Fantasy is usually an RPG with Chocobos somewhere, but basically it's a really vague connection from one iteration tot he next)

As a gamer, I always get a little bored with sequels that are mostly reskins; after the 3rd Uncharted game I really started to question whether I wanted to play the 4th, but I still did, and then the 5th, because the story was enough to make me interested.

On the other end of the spectrum, sequels that are wildly different can sometimes turn me off. I love Final Fantasy VI, but Final Fantasy XV just didn't appeal to me somehow. But without these drastic changes, there never would have been FFVII, which I also love.

I feel like there is a sweet spot in how much sequels can change. The difference between SMB2 / Doki Doki Panic and SMB1 was huge but somehow, at the time, it still felt right and awesome (even though you never squash a goomba or kick a koopa).

Simon's Quest was a departure from Castlevania and considered a failure, but SotN was also quite different from predecessors and in many ways has come to exemplify the series more than the earlier iterations.