There's that saying "if it's not broke, don't fix it". During that period in video games where expectations for a sequel had no basis to be met, this essentially means that studios were free to experiment with a conventional concept. This is pretty much what Namco did as a follow-up to their eternally entertaining arcade smash hit Dig Dug with Dig Dug II, a follow-up that left a lot of people scratching their heads; is this a progressive sequel, or an unnecessary game with an idea too over indulgent for its own good?

Developed in 1985 for arcades and later seeing a home port for the Nintendo Entertainment System, Dig Dug pulls the puzzle adventure game from underground and instead placing Taizo Hori above ground and on a remote island. Digging is repurposed in this game, not as a means of traversing through the ground, but you use your jackhammer at fault lines to break off parts of land mass. Depending on which direction you strike, and the adjacent lines will determine how much island breaks off. You can run the risk of tanking yourself, which will happen a lot when you first play this. 

This establishes a really strange relationship with Dig Dug II, it has a cumbersome difficulty curve that likely shied away newcomers. The Pookas and the Fygars return, and like the first game, you proceed by defeating all the enemies on screen. When you spend more time with it and get the hang of it, the meta makes sense, but the mechanic doesn't really tie the game together. I can go long stretches and seldom feel I should jackhammer ANY land off. Sure, it'll net a higher score for combos, not unlike dropping the boulders onto the monsters in the first one. It's just not as satisfying to execute and the payoff is moderate at best.

Some elements return, with a mild twist. In Dig Dug II, when there's three enemies left, they all make a break for water and kill themselves, ending the level, but effectively ruining your high score potential. I guess that adds some stakes in how you eleminate the monsters, Hori feels like he moves pretty fast, so when a Fygar or Pooka is even half a screen's distance, it feels like you can just rush them down and catch them with ease. Air pumping them still is the most efficient means of dispatching baddies.

The time spent with Dig Dug II, the better it feels. It's not necessarily a bad game, the problem with this game is what it brings new to the table isn't enough to pull you away from its predecessor for any reason beyond morbid curiosity. Jr. Pac-Man, for instance, had larger maps and removed the exit tunnels. Those small changes made it a pretty interesting sequel, like a variation of Tetris. 

Dig Dug II had a brief spike in interest in arcades, but it doesn't have the lasting appeal of the first. I actually never heard of the game until we rented it once at our local video store. We played it for a handful of minutes, but it hardly got any kind of attention in our house. Not as bad as history treats it, yet not really worth going out of your way to tinker with.