Bad sequels?

[370999]

It's fairly hard to find bad sequels, because in gaming, sequels are almost always BETTER, because they iron out whatever problem previous games had.

Are you being honest here? Because if you are then wow.

I woudl throw up good ole Dragon Age 2 as an example of a bad sequel which gutted what made the original great. I like it but it is nowhere near as good as the original and if I'm being honest is a bargain bin buy.

 

[Bvenged]

Hmmm lets see:

GRAW1 & 2
SC: Double Agent
Madden (I can't remember, but one year I really hated, '07 maybe since I liked '06)
C&C4
Farcry 2
Bioshock 2 (though not bad it just isn't as gooD)

Joint first place goes to Modern Warfare 2 & Modern Warfare 3 as I really can't decide between the two.

One managed to tare down everything that CoD was to me, ruining what the first 5 games had built up; and the other one managed to destroy that little hope I had recuperated after playing Black Ops, putting the series into an dissuading and utterly irreversible state of reputation to me.

I will NEVER spend another penny on anything CoD, ever again. It has exactly 0 appeal to me. If I've managed to keep my wallet closed to CoD for the past year then I can manage it for another hundred more.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

It's fairly hard to find bad sequels, because in gaming, sequels are almost always BETTER, because they iron out whatever problem previous games had.

Are you being honest here? Because if you are then wow.

I woudl throw up good ole Dragon Age 2 as an example of a bad sequel which gutted what made the original great. I like it but it is nowhere near as good as the original and if I'm being honest is a bargain bin buy.

I would ignore Karutomaru, according to them, the NES didn't have real games on it.

 

[370999]

It's fairly hard to find bad sequels, because in gaming, sequels are almost always BETTER, because they iron out whatever problem previous games had.

Are you being honest here? Because if you are then wow.

I woudl throw up good ole Dragon Age 2 as an example of a bad sequel which gutted what made the original great. I like it but it is nowhere near as good as the original and if I'm being honest is a bargain bin buy.

I am. In fact, I rarely start a series with the first game, because the sequels are always better.

Always? I'm sorry but I struggle to believe that lightning can strike twicce, it is often intensely difficult to recreate what made the original game so good.

DA 2 was mentioned but I would say that here is a whole host of games that have been detrimentally dumbed down, or not given the necessary amount of time to become great or even the development time just lost the love of it and treated it solely as an exercise of money.

 

[risue]

I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with me, but I thought ME2 wasn't a very good second game...

also, Oblivion as a "sequel" to Morrowind

 

[mr leigh]

Mine is a sort of sequal its metroid: other m. Im a huge metroid fan and this game just crushed my soul.

 

[Black Arrow Officer]

Hitman: Contracts isn't a bad game, but they didn't improve on anything from Silent Assassin that needed fixing, such as broken A.I, finicky controls, awkward animations, and lots of bugs. Thankfully Blood Money perfected the series by fixing nearly everything that was wrong with previous games and adding even more depth.

Far Cry 2 is the prime example of a terrible sequel. The reputation system doesn't work, the plot is weak and barely motivates you to play through it, the gun jamming system is ridiculously fucking annoying, and the A.I took a nosedive from Far Cry 1. The A.I still have their bright spots, but A.I in Far Cry 1 was lightyears ahead.

 

[ThePS1Fan]

MW3. Not really that bad. It's very polished when it decides to be. Just comparing it to MW2 and MW it doesn't hold up.

 

[Woodsey]

FarCry 2. FarCry 1 is a pretty decent game, FarCry 2 isn't. I don't really know how to explain it, it just isn't.

Crysis is a much better "sequel".

To be honest, I think Far Cry 2 needs to be described as a "sequel" (not a sequel) too. It's as much a spiritual-successor to Far Cry as Crysis is.

I do think it's a fairly ingenious game, actually; one that's too smart for it's own good.

OT: Continuing in the above trend (kind of), Crysis 2 was a shitty sequel.

The only true criticism that I could level against the first game was that the pacing was wrong. All the larger, open levels are in the first half and all the more closed-up ones are in the second half. All it needed was to be mixed up together a little bit (with alien encounters spread out and reduced).

Instead, the second went small all the way through, and it became very prescribed. Turn on the visor and it was like being handed the design document: here's the stealth route, here's the action route, etc. It was entirely uninteresting.

 

[370999]

It's fairly hard to find bad sequels, because in gaming, sequels are almost always BETTER, because they iron out whatever problem previous games had.

Are you being honest here? Because if you are then wow.

I woudl throw up good ole Dragon Age 2 as an example of a bad sequel which gutted what made the original great. I like it but it is nowhere near as good as the original and if I'm being honest is a bargain bin buy.

I am. In fact, I rarely start a series with the first game, because the sequels are always better.

Always? I'm sorry but I struggle to believe that lightning can strike twicce, it is often intensely difficult to recreate what made the original game so good.

The best way is to make it more or less the same, gameplay-wise, improve on some aspects, and continue the story. Yeah, it doesn't HAVE to be that way, and some of the best sequels drastically changed the gameplay of previous installments like Resident Evil 4, but sticking to what made the original fun is a safe bet. That's how we got the greatest game ever made.

Which is debatable but utterly irrelevant to what we were originally discussing, that being your point that sequels usually result in an increase in quality, which is a point I'm very much not sold on.

 

[Wayneguard]

Condemned 2: Bloodshit is the definition of bad sequel. The first was goddamn brilliant and the 2nd was just... bad.

 

[Jynthor]

Deus Ex Invisible War.
Dragon Age 2.
Saints Row the Third.

The latter two were still fun but HUGE disappointments compared to previous instalments.

 

[JeebTheGamerBoy]

Hands down Shadow Man 2econd Coming on PS2 - The first one was an under rated gem. You searched the bowels of hell for 120 Souls (not unlike 120 stars...) while wielding shotguns, sub-machine guns and voodoo weaponry. Too top that, in Shadow Man 1, you had to battle Serial Killers modeled after real life counter parts (a Jack the Ripper clone is a bit of scene stealer)

The 2econd sucked almost as much as that pun I just used.

Both made by Acclaim Entertainment... where are they these days... apparently getting sued by the Olsen twins, trying to advertise on actual tombstones and producing BMX XXX are not stable business practices. They even offered money to expecting families to name their children 'Turok'.

 

[Crazy Zaul]

+1 for Far Cry 2 and DA2
Just Cause 2
Splinter Cell Conviction.
Probably many more.

 

[sextus the crazy]

Then why is it that I've never played a bad sequel?

Either you have low standards for sequels or you've been really lucky. Having no idea what games you've played, I can't say which.

 

[Zouriz]

Megaman Battle Network 4. This game was so repetitive. It is based around a fight tournament and that would be fine if it didn't move so slowly. First you have to learn about your opponent and their life story, then you have to do some stupid quest, and after a while you finally get to fight your opponent. Repeat this about 6 times and you finally get to to the real meat of the story. Stopping an alien from destroying the world with an asteroid. The game is also plagued with spelling and grammar errors.