This is the second of a three-part retrospective I’m doing on the Bayonetta trilogy. Stay tuned for my thoughts on the third game!
Whenever a book, movie, or game that resonates with consumers is released, they always seem to desire a follow-up. That is the curse of the sequel and it’s tricky to judge what constitutes a good one. Do you play things safe and create more of the same type of content that fans loved? Do you go in a radically different direction to avoid stagnation, but risk alienating your core audience? Or do you try to find a middle ground between both extremes?
I have enjoyed safe, iterative sequels, but I also believe video games are an art form, so my perspective is twofold. For one, developers should feel free to create the games they’re interested in. And secondly, daring sequels will bear more fruit in the long-term. A straightforward sequel is okay every now and then, but we have to remember that the old games aren’t going anywhere. Gaming can’t evolve without taking risks, so we should be thankful when a developer creates a sequel that won’t necessarily sit right with everyone. I agree that a gaming franchise should hold onto core elements between installments, but this process is not always cut-and-dry. Sonic and Paper Mario, for example, made very controversial changes to freshen things up while attempting to hold onto the original appeal. Whether they were successful is up for debate, but at the end of the day, you would be hard-pressed to argue the newer games never offer a fresh experience.
So, what does this all have to do with Bayonetta 2? Well, it’s a weird sequel. It’s both very similar and different from the first game, and not necessarily in a good way. I’ll explain why, but suffice to say I think it’s merely an okay sequel, especially after playing Bayonetta 3.
To start with the positives, Bayonetta 2’s art direction is stunning. It’s a monumental improvement over the first game’s washed-out colors, which was an unfortunate trend during the seventh generation of consoles. Gimmick levels were toned down and the few we do have are better paced and have slightly more gameplay depth. Muspelheims (the equivalent to Bayonetta 1’s Alfheims) are much easier to find and their challenges more reasonable. The addition of demons to the enemy roster alongside some new angels was great and most of them were very fun to fight. Enemy telegraphing was also a lot better, keeping most fights feeling fair. There are no more gotcha QTEs that can one-shot the player. And finally, the weapons were excellent. The new weapons had even cooler designs than the returning ones and they together allow for even more playstyles.
Bayonetta 2 also tweaks the combat with a powerful attack boost called Umbran Climax and a greater emphasis on Witch Time in the enemy designs. These initially seemed like positive changes, but everything is designed around them to the point the player is no longer dictating the pace of the combat. Enemies have larger health pools so that Umbran Climax doesn’t feel too OP, but individual attacks end up feeling much weaker than the first game. This is best seen on Infinite Climax, where enemies not only take forever to kill, but they hit like trucks. Witch Time is still available, but you’re practically required to use it for defeating bosses like Masked Lumen. These fights are blatantly unfair when playing as Jeanne since the boss almost always blocks or dodges your attacks unless you’re in Witch Time. Her activation window is much smaller than Bayonetta’s, so the challenge really falls apart. It’s disappointing coming off of the first game’s elegant difficulty design.
Now, I could forgive these tweaks if there were way more gameplay additions or overhauls. Sadly, that isn’t the case. I get the impression Platinum didn’t want to change the combat too much because it worked so well before. However, it’s clear Bayonetta 2 both altered and didn’t alter aspects about the first game. This is what I meant when I called it a weird sequel. It improves several things outside of combat, but the core gameplay is both identical and completely different from before. As such, it ends up simply being “more Bayonetta” for me. A follow-up to a great action game is practically guaranteed to be a good time when a lot of its features are still present. Just don’t expect that second climax to hit the same as the first.
Whenever a book, movie, or game that resonates with consumers is released, they always seem to desire a follow-up. That is the curse of the sequel and it’s tricky to judge what constitutes a good one. Do you play things safe and create more of the same type of content that fans loved? Do you go in a radically different direction to avoid stagnation, but risk alienating your core audience? Or do you try to find a middle ground between both extremes?
I have enjoyed safe, iterative sequels, but I also believe video games are an art form, so my perspective is twofold. For one, developers should feel free to create the games they’re interested in. And secondly, daring sequels will bear more fruit in the long-term. A straightforward sequel is okay every now and then, but we have to remember that the old games aren’t going anywhere. Gaming can’t evolve without taking risks, so we should be thankful when a developer creates a sequel that won’t necessarily sit right with everyone. I agree that a gaming franchise should hold onto core elements between installments, but this process is not always cut-and-dry. Sonic and Paper Mario, for example, made very controversial changes to freshen things up while attempting to hold onto the original appeal. Whether they were successful is up for debate, but at the end of the day, you would be hard-pressed to argue the newer games never offer a fresh experience.
So, what does this all have to do with Bayonetta 2? Well, it’s a weird sequel. It’s both very similar and different from the first game, and not necessarily in a good way. I’ll explain why, but suffice to say I think it’s merely an okay sequel, especially after playing Bayonetta 3.
To start with the positives, Bayonetta 2’s art direction is stunning. It’s a monumental improvement over the first game’s washed-out colors, which was an unfortunate trend during the seventh generation of consoles. Gimmick levels were toned down and the few we do have are better paced and have slightly more gameplay depth. Muspelheims (the equivalent to Bayonetta 1’s Alfheims) are much easier to find and their challenges more reasonable. The addition of demons to the enemy roster alongside some new angels was great and most of them were very fun to fight. Enemy telegraphing was also a lot better, keeping most fights feeling fair. There are no more gotcha QTEs that can one-shot the player. And finally, the weapons were excellent. The new weapons had even cooler designs than the returning ones and they together allow for even more playstyles.
Bayonetta 2 also tweaks the combat with a powerful attack boost called Umbran Climax and a greater emphasis on Witch Time in the enemy designs. These initially seemed like positive changes, but everything is designed around them to the point the player is no longer dictating the pace of the combat. Enemies have larger health pools so that Umbran Climax doesn’t feel too OP, but individual attacks end up feeling much weaker than the first game. This is best seen on Infinite Climax, where enemies not only take forever to kill, but they hit like trucks. Witch Time is still available, but you’re practically required to use it for defeating bosses like Masked Lumen. These fights are blatantly unfair when playing as Jeanne since the boss almost always blocks or dodges your attacks unless you’re in Witch Time. Her activation window is much smaller than Bayonetta’s, so the challenge really falls apart. It’s disappointing coming off of the first game’s elegant difficulty design.
Now, I could forgive these tweaks if there were way more gameplay additions or overhauls. Sadly, that isn’t the case. I get the impression Platinum didn’t want to change the combat too much because it worked so well before. However, it’s clear Bayonetta 2 both altered and didn’t alter aspects about the first game. This is what I meant when I called it a weird sequel. It improves several things outside of combat, but the core gameplay is both identical and completely different from before. As such, it ends up simply being “more Bayonetta” for me. A follow-up to a great action game is practically guaranteed to be a good time when a lot of its features are still present. Just don’t expect that second climax to hit the same as the first.