Summary
After it spent the last couple of years releasing few sequels, Valve has finally made its grand return withCounter-Strike 2. However, just like withOverwatch 2,Counter-Strike 2is a sequel in name only. Instead of following the model that the video game industry has been using since its inception, these two games are large-scale updates masquerading as sequels, and that feels like a troubling trend.
WhileOverwatch 2andCounter-Strike 2may have redefined their respective games, they also replaced their predecessors. This means that anyone who wants to go back to the older games can no longer do so, which is not a good thing. These titles should serve as sequels rather than replacements for the originals, because erasing games is usually never a good thing. Hopefully, this trend stops here, but there is a chance other studios will take notes.
RELATED:Counter-Strike 2 Has a Decade of Hidnsight on CS:GO’s Biggest Issues
Video Game Sequels Should Not Replace Their Predecessors
The fanbase was mostly excited forOverwatch 2when it was first announced, however, it has garnered much controversy since. Not only had the development of the game ensured that the original had very little notable content for years, but it also failed to deliver at launch. Many hate the new microtransaction model and some felt the gameplay was not as gripping as that of the original title. Additionally,Overwatch 2’s original PvE contenthas been scrapped and replaced with a new framework that involves more microtransactions, which does away with one of the main selling points of the sequel.
Usually, players could just turn off the sequel and continue playing the original game instead. However,Overwatch 2’s release also marked the last day players could play the original game. Instead of existing alongside it, the sequel completely took over the previous one. Now, if anyone wants to experiencethe world ofOverwatchthen they have to play the sequel. There is no other choice, which is a shame as the original was a great genre-defining game.
While it seemed likeOverwatch 2’s release model was just going to be a one-time thing, Valve decided to follow suit withthe release ofCounter-Strike 2. Instead of launching the long awaited sequel separately, it was simply an update toCounter-Strike: Global Offensive. That means that anyone who may want to take a trip down memory lane can no longer do so. Instead, they are also stuck playing this updated sequel for the foreseeable future, which has also proved extremely controversial with the fanbase.
Sequels are supposed to take the core concept of their original games and bring them to new heights, but they are not supposed to actually replace that original game. If they do that, then they feel like nothing more than glorified rereleases pretending to be fully-fledged sequels. It may help market the experience better to get fans excited, but it does a disservice to that original game and its community. There is no reason the titles cannot exist together, yet some studios never even gave them the chance to do so.
IfOverwatch 2andCounter-Strike 2succeed, then more studios will likely consider marketing their sequels this way. Already, some players are accusingCall of Duty: Modern Warfare 3of just being an updatedModern Warfare 2, but luckily that game is not actually replacing its predecessor quite yet. It never should, because sequels should further build out a franchise instead. Players should not be forced into playing the newest titles nor should games be erased from the marketplace like this, so hopefully this trend stops here.
