Temple of Doom would be a good example. Not bad, but sort of lost the magic that made Raiders of the Lost Ark so good.
Are sequels ever really worse than the originals?
- Thread starter migo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No it's not, and I liked 2 even more than 3..=)Ekit said:
Wow, I've been waiting for 20 years to say that...=D
Oh shit, I get to kill two birds I've been meaning to do for a long time now, with one stone?Of-the-Lion said:
No it's not!!!
That just made my day...^^
Bioshock 2, compared to the first it's a peice of shit.
also:
Army of Two the 40th Day
Donkey Kong Country 2
Mercenaries 2
Metal Gear Solid 2
Condemned 2
Devil May Cry 2
Tomb Raider 2
Gex 2
Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2
shenmu 2
Def Jam Icon
Tony Hawk Undergournd 2
Kingdom Hearts 2 (i know i'll catch flack from this but i stand firm)
Onimusha 2
sonic adventure 2
doom II
Deus Ex 2
Toe Jam and Earl 2
The Suffering 2
also:
Army of Two the 40th Day
Donkey Kong Country 2
Mercenaries 2
Metal Gear Solid 2
Condemned 2
Devil May Cry 2
Tomb Raider 2
Gex 2
Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2
shenmu 2
Def Jam Icon
Tony Hawk Undergournd 2
Kingdom Hearts 2 (i know i'll catch flack from this but i stand firm)
Onimusha 2
sonic adventure 2
doom II
Deus Ex 2
Toe Jam and Earl 2
The Suffering 2
Sometimes they are sometimes not so much Morrwind is better than Oblivion, Half life 1 is more polished than HL2, Halo 1 is more polished and has better level layouts than H2 and H3, System shock 2 is better than Bioshock, Bioshock is just a watered down messed its sequel in some ways is better mechanic wise but tis still a watered down mess.
Fallout 3 is also a watered down mess its far more buggy and imbalanced than FO1-2.
Prince of Persia sands of time is better than most of its sequels.
Any final fantasy past 9 with the exception of 8 SUCK(8=suck even 5 was better...)
Fallout 3 is also a watered down mess its far more buggy and imbalanced than FO1-2.
Prince of Persia sands of time is better than most of its sequels.
Any final fantasy past 9 with the exception of 8 SUCK(8=suck even 5 was better...)
...sequels that are worse than the originals. so all these would be worse than.ZippyDSMlee said:
it depends weather or not the first game wrapped up the story or not
like half life left some opened strings-you killed the big alien...then what?
so half life two was great, given it left ALOT of open strings but they can continue the series with the same original series
but games like bioshock held up the story very well, no questions at the end, then a different group of people make bioshock 2, and it mucks up the story
like half life left some opened strings-you killed the big alien...then what?
so half life two was great, given it left ALOT of open strings but they can continue the series with the same original series
but games like bioshock held up the story very well, no questions at the end, then a different group of people make bioshock 2, and it mucks up the story
I love the events in L4D2, but just look at the plane crash at the end of Dead Air. There are no moments like that. Of course, I've spent 180+ hours on L4D2 while I've only spent 80 on L4D... but I still think the pacing was a lot better in the first game.ForgottenPr0digy said:
I'm obligated to pipe in and defend Knights of the Old Republic 2 here. Sure, it was unfinished and buggy, but even without a proper ending, the story, writing, gameplay, and mechanics were far better than KotOR1.
As for sequels that suck more than the original...sketch_zeppelin posted a pretty damn good list, but I think if you were to actually sit down and consider sequels throughout the span of video game history, you'd find that sequels tend to be better.
Here's some controversy for you all: Half-Life 2 was great, but Half-Life 1 was better.
As for sequels that suck more than the original...sketch_zeppelin posted a pretty damn good list, but I think if you were to actually sit down and consider sequels throughout the span of video game history, you'd find that sequels tend to be better.
Here's some controversy for you all: Half-Life 2 was great, but Half-Life 1 was better.
Terminator 2 was the best sequel of all time. The Empire Strikes Back and the Back to the Future films are also excellent sequels. Temple of Doom wasn't the best of the Indy films, but it was still good; Last Crusade was splendid, on the other hand.The_root_of_all_evil said:
God I miss the 80's and 90's.
To answer the OP, though: yes. Sequels are often a lot worse, mainly because a lot of them are driven by marketing rather than any kind of creative need to continue a story. Back to the Future was the ONE exception, where the studio said "we're making a second and a third with you or without you" to Robert Zemeckis and he went "alright," decided to make the best of it, and by a total fluke produced two fantastic movies (and no, they weren't planning them from the start; producer Bob Gale admitted that the ending to Back to the Future 1 was just a colossal joke).
Usually, though, a movie or game studio goes "holy shit, this made a lot of money--let's make another one so we can make even more money," and we get a completely pointless and superfluous sequel, like with the Pirates of the Caribbean movies or Bioshock 2. Games tend to have a much better track record as sequels often present the opportunity to take a sloppy game and tighten it up or to add features the developers couldn't fit in the first game, so there's a much stronger mindset of building on the previous installment.
THANK YOU. I'm so delighted that somebody else sees this piece of shit for what it is.sketch_zeppelin said:
