---

Quantum Leap: Definition: An abrupt change, sudden increase, or dramatic advance.

Video game sequels are always expected to surpass their predecessors in some fashion. Usually they do so by addressing and remedying any major flaws of their original game as well as capitalizing on what the first one did right, but it doesn't always work out this way. Sometimes sequels are rushed projects that improve upon little from the first game, but occasionally they pull a "Terminator 2" and make giant strides that result in our perceptions of the entire franchise changing dramatically. This past year we've seen a number of sequels move in a very positive direction, most notably Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed sequel released mid-November. The following are some of the most notable examples of games that have shown a true evolution of their respective franchises.

• Assassin's Creed 2

What was wrong with the original: The missions were repetitive and monotonous, and the game's narrative became disjointed and confusing towards the end. The conclusion left many gamers scratching their heads and thoroughly dissatisfied.

Why Assassin's Creed 2 was such a huge leap: Even though the first Assassin's Creed's mission design was flawed, it was by no means a second-rate experience. It explored a refreshingly mature subject (the Crusades), while delivering an adventure that seamlessly blended elements of history with science fiction. The sequel follows a similar pattern, but rather than merely providing a follow-up story with new gadgets and abilities, the game's Montreal-based team went the extra distance to overhaul everything about Assassin's Creed 2.

Patrice Desilets, creative director on both Assassin's Creed games, admits that AC1's missions were monotonous. "There wasn't as much variety in the first Assassin's Creed because we didn't have the proper tools to implement it," he told us. "We came up with set mission types and then reused them, just putting them in different locations. Some players didn't mind the repetition, but others saw this and didn't like what we did."

Restructuring how missions are presented was one of the team's main focuses going into Assassin's Creed 2, and it's clear from the very beginning of the game that there's a lot more variety to the tasks asked of the player. Desilets concedes that a big motivator for improving the sequel was that, "the story in Assassin's Creed 2 is much more compelling, so we had to create new tools for better mission types." The scale of the game is much larger, and while the narrative is no less convoluted than the first (quite the contrary, in fact) the way that the characters of the Italian Renaissance period are fleshed out is far more successful than the one-dimensional medieval thugs of the original. Opinion is split on the game's ultimate conclusion, but no one can accuse Ubisoft of not getting creative with the way it is weaving both historical and sci-fi aspects together. The narrative path that the inevitable Assassin's Creed 3 could feasibly take is far more clear than that of this game after the original.

• Killzone 2

What was wrong with the original: Far from the "Halo killer" for PlayStation 2 that fans had wanted and the media had mistakenly identified it, Killzone was rife with problems to both its game logic and graphics. At a time when multiplayer was more important than ever, it did little more than deliver and underwhelming experience.

Why Killzone 2 was such a huge leap: "During the development of Killzone, the possibility of a franchise was certainly never far from our minds," Hermen Hulst, Managing Director at Guerilla Games told us. "However, our hyper-ambitious plans for an all-encompassing theater of war were difficult to realize the first time." Hulst, who worked on both the original game and the sequel notes that the reason they weren't able to deliver on the promise of the original Killzone was primarily due to a big challenge they all faced: inexperience. "Our team consisted largely of rookie developers back then, and we quickly ran into the technical limitations of that generation of consoles."

Though Guerilla's original failed to be more than a middling shooter, its sequel was a milestone not just for the series but for what could be achieved on the PlayStation 3. Killzone 2 exhibited this evolution of what the brand could be with its intense campaign and equally satisfying multiplayer. "After the team cut its teeth on Killzone and moved on to development for the PlayStation 3 with Killzone 2, we were able to better realize and explore the war-torn universe we had initially envisioned," explained Hulst. "The invasion of planet Helghan, with its intensely dynamic and hostile atmosphere, proved a perfect match for our original ambitions."

• Red Faction Guerilla

What was wrong with the original: Though the original games were an interesting variation on the standard first person shooter format thanks to Volition's "GeoMod" technology (that let you blow holes in walls) they were ultimately very linear games.

Why Red Faction Guerilla was such a huge leap: At first, Red Faction: Guerilla appeared to be little more than an attempt to extend the life of an established but underwhelming franchise. Guerilla not only revolutionized the series, but with it Volition demonstrated how to create a vibrant open world game that didn't feel like a watered down Grand Theft Auto knock off. When we asked the team how they went about reinventing Red Faction as a brand, they described some of the stumbling blocks encountered with the earlier installments. "In the first two Red Faction games, mixing true destruction into a linear experience was both challenging and frustrating," said project lead designer James Hague. "It always felt like there was so much more we could do with destruction, but we often had to gimp it to make the gameplay work. For example, it's obvious to put a destructible wall between you and your objective, but if you run out of ammo then you're completely stuck and it's game over. We had to implement fail-safes for these situations."

On subject of taking the new game into a more open environment, Hague explained that it was actually a level in the original Red Faction for PlayStation 2 that got the team thinking about the possibility. "A lot of people thought the 'Glass House' level in Red Faction 1 was the coolest use of destruction in the game, because it was a mini-sandbox. To a great extent, that was the inspiration for Red Faction: Guerrilla." Hague added that taking the franchise in this direction -- one traditionally dominated by very similar titles such as GTA, The Godfather, and Saint's Row -- allowed them to develop something a lot more interesting to play. "Going open world fixed a lot of problems," he continued. "An open world lets you approach enemy installations from different directions. You can tear apart a building, then when you drive past it later you can see that the damage you did is still there in exactly the same state you left it. You can get in a bad situation and then get the hell out of there instead of having to keep trying over and over again. All of a sudden destruction gives you huge freedom and becomes a toy that you can play with however you like."

• Street Fighter II

What was wrong with the original: The original Street Fighter, released in 1987, did little to suggest the greatness that would lie ahead. It struggled due to sluggish controls and movement, and players could only fight as one of two different characters; Ryu and Ken.

Why Street Fighter II was such a huge leap: If you've never played the original Street Fighter, it can come as a shock if you go back (it's included on the Capcom Classics Collection: Remixed for the PSP, and Capcom Classics Collection Vol. 2 on PS2 and Xbox) and see how far Capcom had to come in order to transform the franchise into what would become one of the most influential video games ever created. "I don't think anyone quite realized the potential at first," Capcom's community manager Seth Killian told us. "The first Street Fighter was not a mega-hit, but it wasn't a failure and it sold well. And even though it sold respectably, a sequel was not planned from the beginning."

Killian explained that one of the biggest reasons we saw such a gigantic leap from Street Fighter to Street Fighter II was that the team had a luxurious four years of development time between projects. "They needed to make something legendary," he told us. He also explained that the US version of the original Street Fighter was severely limited by its controls. "The only trouble came when they created the pressure-sensitive 'slam' buttons for the US market - worried arcade operators demanded the units come with insurance against breakage, and they were right -- those things were all broken pretty quickly. Capcom had to replace the 'slam' buttons, and they came up with the six-button control scheme that's famous today."

• Grand Theft Auto 3

What was wrong with the original: Well, nothing really. The first games (Grand Theft Auto, Grand Theft Auto 2, and Grand Theft Auto: London, 1969) were excellent examples of how to create a sprawling 2D world packed with action and humor. The key here was the move to 3D on PlayStation 2.

Why Grand Theft Auto 3 was such a huge leap: If you go back and look at the first couple GTA games today, the core gameplay elements that make the new titles so popular are still quite evident. As a franchise, it's certainly always had good bones; freedom, variety, and a good story. Back in 2001, when Grand Theft Auto 3 was being put together Rockstar founder Sam Houser, who also served as the game's executive producer, stated "What is so remarkable about the game is just how much freedom the player has, and how easy it is to do a massive variety of activities. The game has no menu screens, and no asset management, beyond how many bullets you've got left. It's just an incredibly immersive world."

What set Grand Theft Auto 3 apart, aside from the obvious shift to a huge 3D city, were the spectacular production values. The game had an extensive cast of voice actors acting out a wonderfully written script that was supplemented with a huge variety of music. It was action packed, it was funny, and it was huge. It's arguable that Rockstar pushed the medium of video games further than any other studio before them with this title, bringing in professionals from all other forms of entertainment to bring the game world to life. Houser stated back in 2001 that "we are taking the industry to a new place with this game - making games for a sophisticated adult audience."

• Metal Gear Solid

What was wrong with the original: Ahead of its time, Metal Gear's only sin was its ambitious story was constrained by the technology available in the late 80s.

Why Metal Gear Solid was such a huge leap: Despite the ten year gap between the first Metal Gear on the Nintendo Entertainment System and Metal Gear Solid, Snake's first foray onto the PlayStation in 1998 broke new ground for reasons other than obvious advancements in gaming technology such as its move to 3D. It showcased Hollywood level production values and storytelling with top tier voice actors and a beautifully composed soundtrack. This was something that had been rarely seen in games before, and paved the way for future installments of the series as well as other franchises with more sophisticated stories to tell.

But Metal Gear Solid's tremendous success wasn't just some stroke of luck. The team had ambitious goals from the very beginning. Metal Gear Solid's lead publicist at the time stated that the "primary goal for the team was to literally make the best PlayStation game ever." Metal Gear series creator Hideo Kojima said in an interview in 1998 that his aim was to construct a world with MGS that came across as something living and breathing. "You can make a world in polygons. If the player isn't tricked into believing that the world is real, then there's no point in making the game. If you can captivate the player without having to trick them, then the game is worthwhile."