Are sequels ever really worse than the originals?

[Stabby Joe]

Regardless if they've been said or not, here are the game I and most others think are worse than the first (some of which are still good enough games):

Mercenaries 2
Driver 3
Deus Ex: Invisible War
Perfect Dark Zero
Fighting Force 2
Devil May Cry 2
KOTOR II
Red Alert 3
Supreme Commander 2
Empire Earth III
Age of Empires III
Silent Hill 3 - 5
Sonic... anything

And of course anything from the early PlayStation lineup like Spyro, Crash, Tomb Raider, Tony Hawk etc that are no longer popular.

But in general sequels are usually better for video games.

 

[Kurokami]

Almost all of them.

Really? You prefer sequels?

Doom II is better than Doom.

Unreal Tournament 2004 is better than Unreal Tournament.

Feeding Frenzy 2 is better than Feeding Frenzy.

Geometry Wars 2 is better than Geometry Wars.

Gran Turismo 2 is better than Gran Turismo.

Super Mario Bros 3 is better than Super Mario Bros (2 doesn't count, it's Doki Doki Panic).

Quake 2 is better than Quake.

Descent 2 is better than Descent.

Civilization IV is better than Civilization III (Civilization 2-3 was an odd switch where it wasn't better or worse as much as different).

Street Fighter II is better than Street Fighter.

Gears of War 2 is better than Gears of War.

Grand Theft Auto 2 is better than Grand Theft Auto.

Soul Calibur is better than Soul Blade.

WarCraft 2 is better than WarCraft.

Windows 7 Minesweeper is better than the previous iteration that existed since 3.1 through Vista.

I could go on.

The closest thing to an exception I could see is Burnout Takedown & Revenge to Paradise City, where I don't like it because it's a different game, rather than a subsequent game actually being worse.

Halo sequels,
certain MK sequels,
Fable 2, and like 3,
Assassins creed 2 (The path the story took dissapointed me is all)

I could probably name others but to be completely frank I thought it would be easier because when I think of sequels I immediately think the same rule as applies for movies stands, but I still feel that sequels aren't generally so great. If the game was great its just another opportunity to fail, if its crap then it generally takes down another notch on account of being the clone of an already shit game, even if it did have some upgrades.

I'd also mention several final fantasy's but lets face it, they don't count as sequels.

(Many people would also agree on Elder Scrolls and Fallout as disappointing sequels for the reason you brought up, that its pretty much become a different game)

 

[s0denone]

I've noticed in a lot of cases the sequel is unquestionably better than the original, even if it isn't received as well. If the game was good to begin with, the sequel ends up being better, and the only case of a sequel seeming worse is if the game originally rode on hype or just had something that seemed cool for the time and wasn't actually that good to begin with.

So, are there any games where the sequel is actually bad, and the original is still good when you go back and play it years later?

Look at that bolded part.
Look at it again.

Skip to the italic part.
Look at that again.

Really?

REALLY!?

I mean... Wow!
What the fuck!?

I would rather you maybe started listing all these "unquestionably better than the original"-sequels. Really. Do it.

 

[Arachon]

S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Shadow of Chernobyl > S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Clear Sky.

 

[Meemaimoh]

KOTOR is miles ahead of KOTOR 2

Deus Ex Invisible War... it took out everything I loved about the original...

These two, definitely. I'd personally throw Neverwinter Nights in there, too. But yeah, mostly sequels are better.

 

[ca_jas]

Devil May Cry 2 was awful in comparison to the first but it did introduce the very helpful dodge button. And as much as I disliked it I tore that game up on Dante Must Die mode.

 

[Vicarious Vangaurd]

Halo 3, case and point. It was bogged down by way too many new and ultimately useless items.

 

[Boredom13]

While I do understand where the point is coming from, Legend of zelda was better than Zelda 2, Kotor was better than Kotor 2, Left 4 Dead was better than Left for Dead 2, Mario Galaxy is better than Galaxy 2, etc., etc., and so forth. I see why you think that sequels are consistently better, but I personally disagree.

 

[SimuLord]

Let's see...with sequels in general? Not all of these are "1 and 2", but...

Original Legend of Zelda over Zelda II: Adventure of Link
KotOR over the unfinished, buggy KotOR 2
Morrowind over Oblivion (by the thinnest of margins, mind you)
Hearts of Iron 2 over Hearts of Iron 3
Civilization 2 over Civ 3 (but not over Civ 4)
Super Mario World over SMW2 (Yoshi's Island)
Final Fantasy Tactics over anything else bearing the FFT name
Railroad Tycoon 2 over RRT3
Tropico over Tropico 3 (T2 wasn't a true sequel, but Tropico's better than it too)
Caesar 2 ("Plebs are needed!") over Caesar 3 (but not over Caesar 4)
Colonization over Civ4Col (aka "Colonization 2", unless you use Dale's Age of Discovery mod)
Age of Empires 2 over AoE3 (though YMMV)

 

[Korey Von Doom]

Generally yes, but not always.

Mass Effect 2 was nowhere near as good as the first.

But God of War 3 was just as good if not better than the previous games.

 

[Fenring]

Rainbow Six: Vegas 2. It looked worse, played like a CoD game, and generally wasn't as fun.

 

[migo]

I've noticed in a lot of cases the sequel is unquestionably better than the original, even if it isn't received as well. If the game was good to begin with, the sequel ends up being better, and the only case of a sequel seeming worse is if the game originally rode on hype or just had something that seemed cool for the time and wasn't actually that good to begin with.

So, are there any games where the sequel is actually bad, and the original is still good when you go back and play it years later?

Look at that bolded part.
Look at it again.

Skip to the italic part.
Look at that again.

Really?

REALLY!?

I mean... Wow!
What the fuck!?

I would rather you maybe started listing all these "unquestionably better than the original"-sequels. Really. Do it.

I find it amusing that I already posted a list of them that was also quoted right above your post. Read the fucking thread.

 

[migo]

Halo sequels,

Halo actually wasn't that good in the long run. It was great when it came out, doing a number of things well compared to what had come before, just like Half-Life, but when you go back at them they never seem as good as they were in the first place.

certain MK sequels,

I can't stand any of the early MK games. They were popular based on the gore, not on good gameplay.

Fable 2, and like 3,

Fable underdelivered, it promised so much, but really wasn't nearly as good as it was supposed to be. It was still more than what games were available at the time, but it rode on hype and was well received because of that.

Assassins creed 2 (The path the story took dissapointed me is all)

All the reviews I've read suggested that AC1 was crap compared to AC2. There's a pretty solid consensus among all the reviewers that Metacritic lists that show AC2 being better.

 

[SillyGodDisco]

In my opinion,

Fable 1 > Fable 2

The story really wasn't that good in Fable 2.

 

[natster43]

I didn't like Crackdown 2 as much as the original. Pretty much the fact that there were no bosses and the difficulty curve never really changed. Though I did love the end.

 

[Kurokami]

Halo sequels,

Halo actually wasn't that good in the long run. It was great when it came out, doing a number of things well compared to what had come before, just like Half-Life, but when you go back at them they never seem as good as they were in the first place.

certain MK sequels,

I can't stand any of the early MK games. They were popular based on the gore, not on good gameplay.

Fable 2, and like 3,

Fable underdelivered, it promised so much, but really wasn't nearly as good as it was supposed to be. It was still more than what games were available at the time, but it rode on hype and was well received because of that.

Assassins creed 2 (The path the story took dissapointed me is all)

All the reviews I've read suggested that AC1 was crap compared to AC2. There's a pretty solid consensus among all the reviewers that Metacritic lists that show AC2 being better.

Assassins Creed 1 was INCREDIBLY repetitive, that being said however, each of the main assassinations was very interesting to view and the story showed a lot of promise, riding alot on clues and what-not, the second focused on the gameplay which... I guess is good, but having been a fan of the first solely because of the story, I was disappointed to see it take a turn far inferior to the many I have developed in my mind. Not to mention that while 2's gameplay had been upgraded, it still wasn't 'good' by my standard, I mainly liked the code breaking sequences and historic portions.

Mortal Kombat keeps coming out more or less the same, my problem is that while it still focuses on gore, it hasn't really seemed to change that much for me. Also I have to admit that my favorite is and likely always will be 4. Perhaps its simply a personal preference, Armageddon I also somewhat enjoyed because you could create your own characters.

Fable you've got right, I suppose. My problem with it, as with MK is that it hasn't really changed, it promised alot of change and while it didn't deliver, it didn't even seem to try. Same land with extended boundaries, same spells apparently more or less to. (with fewer spells, is that right?) The story is not as dramatic as number 1 though they pretty much did the same. (allegedly) I'm also not a huge fan of the change to guns, personally.

 

[Roganwilson]

I much prefer the first Ty the Tasmanian Tiger game to the first. The game's pretty unheard of so I'm not sure what the overall opinion of the situation is, but I found the original to have a way more memorable storyline, and preferred the simpler gameplay style.
No going to shops for keys for suits and crap. Plus no driving around in Shazza's truck thing to go pretty much anywhere.
And as for the story, I just didn't follow. Boss Cass is still there, but there's some lizard chick as well? And then there's some guy who was your rival and now's your best pal? I dunno...

But yet, talking about it makes me want to play it again. Can't have been that bad then, I guess.

My god, someone else played that game? I thought the first one was alright, but the second one was incomprehensible.

OT: I think that it really depends on the balance between trying new things and keeping with the old game. Too much of either, and the game could very well be a disaster. Age of Empires II is an example of a game that balanced both almost flawlessly.