having played none of those games (and only one of those series [trauma center]), I still don't know.Karutomaru said:
Bad sequels?
- Thread starter Sean Hollyman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Dragon Age 2, again. Characters were good, story had potential. Combat was fast and fun, I thought. But the all the sweet witty charm of DA:O was not there.
And those recycled levels were just a slap in the face.
Fable 3 was just... not fun.
Oh, and I'm not sure if it's really a sequel, but The Sims Medieval was a repetitive piece of crap.
And those recycled levels were just a slap in the face.
Fable 3 was just... not fun.
Oh, and I'm not sure if it's really a sequel, but The Sims Medieval was a repetitive piece of crap.
True. The game treats you like an adult who can do critical thinking and forward planning, and the game is better off for it. The only thing that really held Far Cry 2 back was the repetitive encounters which made the simplest of tasks a pain in the ass. Also, some more context for the moral choices (which were actually done well) would have been nice.Woodsey said:
Just take a look through this thread. You haven't but others have. Besides sequels have always been infamous for bringing down the quality of series. It is a stereotype from all mediums. Not without basis of reality. Saying "Yes, sequels always rock" disregards reality.Karutomaru said:
My addition: Blood Omen 2. I want you to explain to me how come it's a sequel but it's still regarded as one of the worst things that happened to the Legacy of Kain series.
Or Dragon Age 2, which I haven't played by the way, but I've seen a lot of hate directed at it because it's a sequel.
Same thing with Deus Ex 2.
Ditto for Devil May Cry 2.
From what I know, several, if not lots, of Sonic games.
Heroes 4 was a sequel that got 3DO bankrupt.
Might and Magic 9 doesn't exist at all.
I ask of you, if sequels are universally good and always positive, why is it that we have these examples that are sort of legendary in the video game world? And they are legendary for being bad - who is spreading these foul rumours?
The only bad sequel I can think of is Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Look, maybe I'm in the minority, but a historical shooter game does have a place whereas games set in today's wars can be construed as jingoistic recruitment tools. Now yes, Modern Warfare does have its great moments, like after the nuke goes off. If the game had ended right then and there, that would have been such a powerful way to end a game. No Russian had a similar feel (even if it was in the early part of the game). However I just don't think Modern Warfare was nessecary and its sequels even more so.
And for those who said ME3 is "teh worst sequel EVAR," please don't let the ending taint your opinion of the game as a whole. Mass Effect 3 is actually pretty superb, it's just that it has a pretty lousy ending. Action beats were exciting, great characters and character moments (like ManShep's bromance with Garrus) and so on. It's like I said though, the ending is bad, but it's not enough to make the whole ride up to it awful.
And for those who said ME3 is "teh worst sequel EVAR," please don't let the ending taint your opinion of the game as a whole. Mass Effect 3 is actually pretty superb, it's just that it has a pretty lousy ending. Action beats were exciting, great characters and character moments (like ManShep's bromance with Garrus) and so on. It's like I said though, the ending is bad, but it's not enough to make the whole ride up to it awful.
I really enjoyed it, in fact for years it was my favorite Mario title until I played 3.OlasDAlmighty said:
While it's not a bad game, I wasn't a fan of Grand Theft Auto San Andreas.
devil may cry 2
farcry 2
halo 2
red faction 2
im noticing a pattern here.....
(i will give farcry 2 SOME leniency because they tried to go in a completely different direction and tried something new....it just happened to crash and burn spectacularly)
farcry 2
halo 2
red faction 2
im noticing a pattern here.....
(i will give farcry 2 SOME leniency because they tried to go in a completely different direction and tried something new....it just happened to crash and burn spectacularly)
You sure?Wayneguard said:
I thought the entire sequence where the rabid bear tears through a ski lodge to hunt you down was damn brilliant.
I thought that Final Fantasy XII was terrible. It committed the cardinal sin of a Final Fantasy game- it was boring and forgettable.
The characters were meh at best, and interchangeable most of the time. The combat system had none of the shine of Final Fantasy XIII (which took it far enough to at least be interesting) or the management of the older games. The "program their behaviour" was bloody useless. The levelling was atrocious. The storyline was ready-made bland; just add water.
Gears of War III. Don't get me wrong, the combat was a bit smoother, but they had clearly made this game for the multiplayer and not for the single/co-op player(s). And the storyline... I get that Gears of War was certainly no Game of Thrones, but even so... ugh.
Halo 2. The game which had absolutely no point besides leaving Cortana behind with the Flood. I mean, Halo is hardly the most interesting franchise (you get it for the multiplayer modes, let's be honest) but it was so repetitive, bland and boring. How do you make a game where aliens shoot plasma as you, a super-human with two guns, blows them up in various over-the-top ways? This game will show you how.
Halo 3. See above.
Halo: Reach. See above. But I will give them this, they added a lot (stolen from other games, granted, but hey! Halo isn't about originality anymore, amirite?)
Kingdom Hearts 2. Reads like a bad fanfiction. Added nothing to the gameplay which improved. The introduction was especially bad. And has given us WAY too much bad fan-fiction.
Killzone 3. Just didn't have the same pizazz as Killzone 2. The multiplayer also felt like it'd taken a lesson or two from CoD.
The characters were meh at best, and interchangeable most of the time. The combat system had none of the shine of Final Fantasy XIII (which took it far enough to at least be interesting) or the management of the older games. The "program their behaviour" was bloody useless. The levelling was atrocious. The storyline was ready-made bland; just add water.
Gears of War III. Don't get me wrong, the combat was a bit smoother, but they had clearly made this game for the multiplayer and not for the single/co-op player(s). And the storyline... I get that Gears of War was certainly no Game of Thrones, but even so... ugh.
Halo 2. The game which had absolutely no point besides leaving Cortana behind with the Flood. I mean, Halo is hardly the most interesting franchise (you get it for the multiplayer modes, let's be honest) but it was so repetitive, bland and boring. How do you make a game where aliens shoot plasma as you, a super-human with two guns, blows them up in various over-the-top ways? This game will show you how.
Halo 3. See above.
Halo: Reach. See above. But I will give them this, they added a lot (stolen from other games, granted, but hey! Halo isn't about originality anymore, amirite?)
Kingdom Hearts 2. Reads like a bad fanfiction. Added nothing to the gameplay which improved. The introduction was especially bad. And has given us WAY too much bad fan-fiction.
Killzone 3. Just didn't have the same pizazz as Killzone 2. The multiplayer also felt like it'd taken a lesson or two from CoD.
The general formula tends to be with the first game to express your vision, and mold it into something marketable enough not to shock the market.
The sequel tends to be more along the lines of expanding on the original game with newfound resources.
The third tends to be where people experiment and muck things up.
Now this isn't a universal truth, but it works for a lot of games. A few sequels I deem 'bad' but none I deem a horrible game. Saints Row 3 was a bad sequel but a good game, same with Dragon Age 2. Fun games that I enjoyed, but took out to make it bad sequel material.
So ask yourself this, did you mean a game that is a bad sequel, or a sequel that is a bad game?
The sequel tends to be more along the lines of expanding on the original game with newfound resources.
The third tends to be where people experiment and muck things up.
Now this isn't a universal truth, but it works for a lot of games. A few sequels I deem 'bad' but none I deem a horrible game. Saints Row 3 was a bad sequel but a good game, same with Dragon Age 2. Fun games that I enjoyed, but took out to make it bad sequel material.
So ask yourself this, did you mean a game that is a bad sequel, or a sequel that is a bad game?
Saints row the third was hands down a terrible sequel.
It ruined the series it messed up everything
Saints row 2 was the perfect sequel to the original saints row, it polished the mechanics it expanded the city a bit it gave some new dynamics but it already started to get a tad crazy
There was a lot of build up to the crazy and it still made sense for the universe really.
Saints row the third just went fuck you to everything that made saints row saints row, it gave you everything you needed to work for instantaneously and then came with bullshit like superpowers and stuff like that.
It just messed up the complete experience and feel.
It ruined the series it messed up everything
Saints row 2 was the perfect sequel to the original saints row, it polished the mechanics it expanded the city a bit it gave some new dynamics but it already started to get a tad crazy
There was a lot of build up to the crazy and it still made sense for the universe really.
Saints row the third just went fuck you to everything that made saints row saints row, it gave you everything you needed to work for instantaneously and then came with bullshit like superpowers and stuff like that.
It just messed up the complete experience and feel.
Metal Gear Solid 4 - The ending ruined the series for me because it changed whole chunks of the entire story, essentially ruining the canon.
Final Fantasy X-2 - While I will admit the gameplay was serviceable, the story was not needed, and it completely ruins the poignant ending of X.
Final Fantasy XIII - Why? Just WHY???!!!
Disgaea 2 - The weakest of the series, in my opinion, mostly because it takes itself too seriously, and the characters are nowhere near as likeable as the previous cast and the cast to come. Gameplay was top notch though.
God of War 3 - Beyond the first 45 minutes, the game is just boring and contrived, with too few awesome moments expected of the series.
AC: Brotherhood - The cornucopia of redundancy.
Final Fantasy X-2 - While I will admit the gameplay was serviceable, the story was not needed, and it completely ruins the poignant ending of X.
Final Fantasy XIII - Why? Just WHY???!!!
Disgaea 2 - The weakest of the series, in my opinion, mostly because it takes itself too seriously, and the characters are nowhere near as likeable as the previous cast and the cast to come. Gameplay was top notch though.
God of War 3 - Beyond the first 45 minutes, the game is just boring and contrived, with too few awesome moments expected of the series.
AC: Brotherhood - The cornucopia of redundancy.
Yeah, I have to say, MGS4 never should have been made. Neither should FFX-2. Devil May Cry 2 doesn't exist in the eyes of the Devil May Cry fanbase. Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II is the last one that stands out to me as being sufficiently bad. There are countless disappointing and underwhelming sequels.
Nobody mentioned Rainbow Six: Lockdown? That has to be the worst sequel in living memory. R6:LD and the Vegas games are so bad they actually make the GRAW series look like decent games in comparison.
And on Saints Row: The Third, I have to disagree, i think it was bloody brilliant, and I loved Saints Row 2 so much that after I had played through the entirety of it at a friend, i bought it twice (PC and PS3) for me.
Sure, it's quite mental (even if they left out the sewage spraying missions), but with GTA getting more serious in tone, I think it was smart from THQ to stear the franchise in the oposite direction.
And on Saints Row: The Third, I have to disagree, i think it was bloody brilliant, and I loved Saints Row 2 so much that after I had played through the entirety of it at a friend, i bought it twice (PC and PS3) for me.
Sure, it's quite mental (even if they left out the sewage spraying missions), but with GTA getting more serious in tone, I think it was smart from THQ to stear the franchise in the oposite direction.