Sequels are inevitable in today's commercial industry, but so are long-legged products with multiple online updates and a sustainable design model.
For a game like 2K and Gearbox's Borderlands, whose quest-based design, randomly-generated items and multiple expansion packs give it an unusually long lifespan with players, how does the development team know when it's the right time to create a new title in the series, and what's the process like?
Producer Matt Charles told Gamasutra that it's a surprisingly complicated decision with multiple components, dependent on resources, design ideas and on the business environment. After a period of assigning smaller teams to downloadable content -- "which we loved," Charles caveats -- it felt like the time to tackle a bigger beast. Currently, Borderlands 2 is slated for a September 2012 launch, nearly three years after the original released.
"One of the first things we did was a critical review analysis -- it included not just published reviews, but also fan feedback that we'd get through official channels, like Gearbox forums. We also merged that with our own feelings about the game... and collated and collected that information into, 'here are the areas that keep coming up, in both a positive and a negative way.'"
The team also had its own internal wishes; for example, having gotten attached to some of their characters, they wanted to invest more time and energy in developing them, Charles says. There were also decisions to be made about whether or not to branch off from the existing cast and story: "At the end of the first game, we felt like we could do anything -- that was both exciting and nerve-wracking."
Keeping a close eye on players that continued to be devoted to the existing game was also an inspiration, says Charles. "We were receiving feelings from our fans... we made a game people still enjoy playing months after the first release, so that became important to us as well: To make sure Borderlands 2 would also be a game that had depth and longevity.
Shifting from a small-team DLC approach back into a full production structure actually helped, since there was "a really high sense of momentum," Charles says. "When you have that many people focused on a goal for any length of time, you can feel the energy throughout the team, and we carried that momentum pretty steadily."
"It was at about that point we felt we'd created what we wanted to create with the DLCs," he adds. "If you're trying to force something into an existing infrastructure, you should actually invest that effort into a full sequel, where you have the freedom to change things much more easily."
I think Gearbox did a pretty good job with DLC - it was substantial, there was only one misfire (Mad Moxxi), and it ended at about the 'Yeah, I think I'm done' time. You've now given it long enough that people have completely forgotten how 'done' they were with Borderlands and start longing for the fun again (that's not a criticism, just a measure of how much I played it). I know my fingers are twitching in anticipation.
As to whether you should even make a sequel instead of something new, well, bold new IP deserves a chance to really polish it up after the first wildly successful try. Then maaaaaaybe a third one to perfect it. After that, though, my god, enough.
Borderlands is one of my all-time favorites: innovative yet doing the conventional just right, and tons of F'ing fun.
I disagree on the 'more than three is too much' sentiment - it all depends on the IP and the way the games are designed. Oh and several million CoD fans would disagree too =)
I think that with the right differences in iteration and expansion (of the mechanics and narrative universe, not DLC although you're right they knocked those out of the park) Borderlands could easily support 4-5 games over a 12 year period (starting with original release).
I still feel the original was very overrated. The game was completely boring if you played it solo, and multiplayer got boring for me and my friends after a couple of days. The envionment all looks the same and the enemies look the same. It's just too damn repetitive overall. The lackluster story didn't help either. Sure, the variety in guns was cool at first, but that only goes so far.
If they flesh it out more with the sequel, I might give it another shot. The game is in dire need of some actual depth and variety though.
I'm more in agreement with Ujn, they have taken their time to make a new game and a sequel with the principles of the predecessor. The rush to have something to add to the market every single year drives player anticipation into the ground faster than a bland FPS gets old. The addition of many of the newer features in Borderlands 2 have(from the looks of the gameplay videos and interviews) taken strong notes from many sandbox-shooters and improved upon the basics which made Borderlands 1 attractive in the first place. More than just the fun gameplay I personally am looking forward to the story/lore of this appropriately timed sequel.
As to whether you should even make a sequel instead of something new, well, bold new IP deserves a chance to really polish it up after the first wildly successful try. Then maaaaaaybe a third one to perfect it. After that, though, my god, enough.
I disagree on the 'more than three is too much' sentiment - it all depends on the IP and the way the games are designed. Oh and several million CoD fans would disagree too =)
I think that with the right differences in iteration and expansion (of the mechanics and narrative universe, not DLC although you're right they knocked those out of the park) Borderlands could easily support 4-5 games over a 12 year period (starting with original release).
If they flesh it out more with the sequel, I might give it another shot. The game is in dire need of some actual depth and variety though.