bioshock two
halo 2
spiderman 2
KOTOR 2
Star Wars V: the Empire Strikes Back
Supreme Commander 2
need i go on?
halo 2
spiderman 2
KOTOR 2
Star Wars V: the Empire Strikes Back
Supreme Commander 2
need i go on?
Are sequels ever really worse than the originals?
- Thread starter migo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
oh and dynasty warriors
any of the hardy boys mysteries after the first 8
airplane 2
crackdown 2
the list goes on and on
any of the hardy boys mysteries after the first 8
airplane 2
crackdown 2
the list goes on and on
Yeah, disclaimers are always a good way to workHG131 said:
Honestly? In games it works far more than books, movies etc. but that's often due to the new one being fresh and the second tries to improve on the first and fails. Usually the third either beats the first or falls into laughable.
Bioshock is generally the same as Bioshock 2, but with a much better story.
Crackdown 2 wasn't nearly as good as the original.
And Assassin's Creed was better than Assassin's Creed 2 in almost every conceivable way. I mean the only real similarity is the hidden blade. Oh wait, they changed that by adding a bunch of gadgets to it. I don't know a single person who used the poison blade for anything other than humour, or to get the "Doctor" achievement. And the story, when I first started the game, I thought: "Oh God, don't tell me I'll be playing as this 'Ezio' tool for the whole damn game." He's not even an Assassin! Just some guy in assassin clothing who wants to avenge his father's death. Which he never actually does, I might add.
Crackdown 2 wasn't nearly as good as the original.
And Assassin's Creed was better than Assassin's Creed 2 in almost every conceivable way. I mean the only real similarity is the hidden blade. Oh wait, they changed that by adding a bunch of gadgets to it. I don't know a single person who used the poison blade for anything other than humour, or to get the "Doctor" achievement. And the story, when I first started the game, I thought: "Oh God, don't tell me I'll be playing as this 'Ezio' tool for the whole damn game." He's not even an Assassin! Just some guy in assassin clothing who wants to avenge his father's death. Which he never actually does, I might add.
It's hard to say. I usually find myself thinking with sequels, "If I had never played or seen the first game, would I like this more." But of course I have played or seen the first, so that's impossible to judge.
Remember Speed the movie? Great movie, I loved it. Speed 2? Absolute crap.
Video game wise?
Team Fortress 2 beats Team Fortress out of the water.
I'm too lazy to think of a bad video game sequel right now. Read other peoples examples if you want to.
Video game wise?
Team Fortress 2 beats Team Fortress out of the water.
I'm too lazy to think of a bad video game sequel right now. Read other peoples examples if you want to.
Fable wasn't that good to begin with, so Fable 2 isn't worse, people are just realising the limitations of Fable with it. Halo also wasn't that good to begin with in the long term. Go back to it and it doesn't seem as good as it first did. Super Mario Bros 2 is really Doki Doki Panic, it doesn't count. None of the Final Fantasy games count, they're not sequels. I haven't played KOTOR so I can't say, but you've been wrong about everything up to this point. Sunshine isn't any worse than Mario 64, although I don't like any of the 3D Marios. I never liked the CoD series, but given how many people still play MW2 I'd say you're wrong. Haven't played GTAIV, but I was never impressed with any of the GTA games, they don't age well. Devil May Cry 1 was horrible. Can't comment on Spyro, only played Dawn of the Dragon. Sonic 1 was bad, and it never got better, horrible level design. Zelda was always a bad game, just popular when it was released because of the theme. Haven't played Castlevania.MMETEORAGA1994 said:
Basically, every game you listed that I do have experience with doesn't have a worse sequel, it just had a bad game to begin with.
So from what I've gathered through this, you hate every game ever.migo said:
I'm sorry but that's how it seems. I'd hate to be so jaded that I can't even find enjoyment in even a Zelda game
And on the topic of Final Fantasy, I'm pretty sure that if a game has the same title as another game with a larger number on the end of it, that makes it sequel. But that's probably just me
No, in fact a good half of them I liked the first time around, it's just going back to them I see how poorly they aged, and with little inovation in the sequel that just becomes obvious but is perceived by people who loved the first game as the sequel sucking, rather than nobody realised how not good it is.MMETEORAGA1994 said:
Zelda was never a good game, it was just the only fantasy game at the time and that's why people played it (The same could be said for Final Fantasy 1, I have a strong case of nostalgia for it, and every new platform that it gets a re-release for I try it out, but I can never bring myself to finish it because it stops being good right around when you get the boat). It didn't age well. Crystalis on the other hand, while being a Zelda clone, is much better in that it's still fun to play decades later. If Crystalis II were to ever happen, and it somehow sucked, I'd say that yes the sequel was worse because Crystalis is still fun, but looking at any Zelda sequel and saying it sucks isn't surprising because the original was never good to begin with.
Half-Life is another good example, it was great when it came out and did everything better than any previous game, but when Deus Ex followed and did everything infinitely better, you can't really go back to it and enjoy it, and since Half-Life 2 is really just an upgrade to Half-Life it seems bad simply by a matter of comparing it to actually better games. Half-Life 2 wasn't worse than Half-Life, it's just by the time it came out it wasn't the slightest bit impressive.
I'm not arguing anymore, as this is all a matter of opinion. i think the Zelda series is FAN-FUCKING-TASTIC but you don't seem to agree. Whatever. But...did you just say Deus Ex is the sequel to Half-Life? I mean (alright I AM arguing again) you just shot down all of my examples by saying (A) The original wasn't good in the first place or (B) You haven't played the game. If you haven't played so many games where I stated that the sequel isn't as good as the original...why did you begin this post?migo said:
Please correct me if I'm wrong but from what I can tell the only games you've played are Final Fantasy titles (hence the avatar of Kamari) Mario games, and ummm Half-Life. OH OH and Crystalis, a poor clone of a FAAAAAAAR superior game *ahem Zelda ahem* that many people cherish as a masterpiece. So is this post based on your opinion or can I add mine as well?
The controls are poor, and you've got puzzles that you need to do the control pad equivalent of pixel bitching to figure out. It's a pain in the ass to play. I'm not the only one who thinks this.MMETEORAGA1994 said:
No, I said after playing Deus Ex, Half-Life isn't impressive anymore.
Because they weren't.
I played more of them than not, obviously I haven't played every game in existence. I'm just saying that I haven't played the ones I haven't played because then I don't have people asking me to justify that.
Of course you're wrong.
It's funny how often a variation of this argument comes up, and it never stops being stupid. Read the thread, it already disproves it.
People consider Zelda a masterpiece in the same way they consider Pac-Man a masterpiece, it was the first game to do something, although at least Pac-Man still has gameplay value. Zelda is just tedious, and people stuck with it because of the constraints of the system at the time. Limited storage space required minimal presentation and for you to figure most things out for yourself. Better games actually explain stuff to you, but years and many Zelda sequels later, despite having much more storage space and the ablity to explain things better, those justifiable, but still crappy, gameplay elements still show up. Crystalis had a linear level design, you had some exploration you could do, but A->B was clear. Zelda had a linear story progression but nothing was laid out in a way to make it clear where you were supposed to go next, so you're just stumbling around until you figure it out. That's not a good game.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.223929-Any-games-where-you-liked-the-sequel-more-than-the-first
Irony much?
And I'll go with Rayman: Raving Rabbids. Seriously, way to ruin an awesome franchise. Minigames sold at full price are complete bullshit.
Irony much?
And I'll go with Rayman: Raving Rabbids. Seriously, way to ruin an awesome franchise. Minigames sold at full price are complete bullshit.
its all down to the people making it, and whether its actually suited to a sequel.
starcraft for example; iirc it ended with character who was by that time the main villian proclaiming her universal badassery and the, the protagonists running off to lick their wounds, and the "hi, were making a sequel" epilogue. the gameplay wasgood great but left room for improvement and wasnt too gimicky so it could be changed around quite a bit and still have that starcraftesque feel to it. it also had a heavy multiplayer element, which never hurts. it was also popular enough that fans would have hunted down the families of blizzard employees and beaten them to death with bags of cheetoes* had a sequel been crap, so theres that too.
bioshock on the other hand had a thoroughly self contained story, and while a fantastic game it simply didnt leave room for a sequel within the story without massive ret-con. it was a stand alone masterpiece. the game play while very slightly unique was a dumbed down (though shinied up and modernized) version of a better game. which means it was a little above normal and slipped past as brilliant on novelty. it also had no multiplayer to expand (though i hear the second one had decent multiplayer)
*and now i have a craving for carbs dairy and violence. wonderful.
starcraft for example; iirc it ended with character who was by that time the main villian proclaiming her universal badassery and the, the protagonists running off to lick their wounds, and the "hi, were making a sequel" epilogue. the gameplay was
bioshock on the other hand had a thoroughly self contained story, and while a fantastic game it simply didnt leave room for a sequel within the story without massive ret-con. it was a stand alone masterpiece. the game play while very slightly unique was a dumbed down (though shinied up and modernized) version of a better game. which means it was a little above normal and slipped past as brilliant on novelty. it also had no multiplayer to expand (though i hear the second one had decent multiplayer)
*and now i have a craving for carbs dairy and violence. wonderful.
Full Spectrum Warrior: Ten Hammers.
I haven't played the first one. It can be worse than that pile of shit I just mentioned above.
I haven't played the first one. It can be worse than that pile of shit I just mentioned above.
