Cliffy B: Gamers Hate Sequels, Like Trilogies

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

well best explanation that i can think of in short summary, is that most sequels are the journey, the first is the main conflict, sets everything up, its fun, fascinating, and intense. the second one is the journey along that way, you know nothing too special is going to happen rather than just explaining the path, and the third one, is the final piece of the cake, you crave to know whats going to happen.

thats why i think the 2nd one in most games are just...mehh to a lot of people.

 

[Mordwyl]

I actually finished Half Life, twice. He may have a point. On the other hand, there's Warcraft III.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I don't know, pretty much everyone I used to LAN party with hated Quake 3 and wanted to play Quake 2 more... we still held Q2 tournaments until Q3 became the standard...
Sewer_64 ftw.

 

[DayDark]

If I was a developer, and decided on a trilogy. I will make the best game ever, and than make the sequel suck! and than make another huge hit. Why?

First game is a huge hit, everybody buys.

Second is a failure, but all buy because they expected the quality of the original.

Third one is a hit again, but everybody has low expectations, so everyone is blown away again.

KA-CHING! $_$

 

[DSK-]

UT3 sucked, Cliffy. I will never forgive Epic for that.

 

[samsonguy920]

UT3 sucked, Cliffy. I will never forgive Epic for that.

That says it all. STFU CB.

 

[Mr. Omega]

I can think of plenty sequels that people loved more than the original and/or aren't in a trilogy:
Team Fortress 2
Half Life 2
Assassin's Creed 2
Call of Duty 2
Uncharted 2
Battlefield: Bad Company 2
Spiderman 2 (I know, I'm cheating by putting in a movie-game, but everyone considers this the standard for Spidey games)
Pokemon Gold/Silver/Crystal
Silent Hill 2

There are plenty more I can think of. Yes, there are plenty cases where any thing note being 1 or 3 is the weakest point of the trilogy/series, but that's not because 2 is destined to be bad.

 

[mjc0961]

Eh, I think it really depends on what they change and how far they change it. Sure, you will get some people whining about how it's too similar to the first game, but I say fuck those people. The first game was good for a reason, and a second game with only a few chances while keeping all the core fun parts intact is a good way to do game design. If you don't like it because it's too much like the first game, then just go play something else. I'd rather play a sequel like GTA Vice City (adding improvements and making it better while not changing everything you loved about GTA III) than one like Command and Conquer 4 (change so much that you might as well have just released it as a new IP).

I saw this very same phenomenon in Mass Effect 2. I adored it. Others thought Bioware ruined the trilogy forever.

We gamers can be an interesting bunch.

Or just stupid.

"Waaaaaaah they took out the unintuitive spread-sheet like level up ranks and made everything streamlined so I can spend more time playing! I wanted to spend more time in the menu screens this game sucks!"

That is what every whiner complaining about that aspect of Mass Effect 2 sounds like to me. If you want to spend time in menus rather than playing a fun game, go buy a copy of Microsoft Office and shut the fuck up. The rest of us are going to play the hell out of a very fun game.

 

[rizo536]

Anyone ever go to Epic Games forums, specifically the GOW2 section?

It was like 90% flames and holy shit this is one broken ass game.

So i guess Cliffy has decided that the game didn't do so well, because of it being a sequel, and not because the matchmaking takes 20 minutes and people quit in 99% of the games anyways.

I'll rent GOW3 and give it a chance as I enjoyed the first one, but if they use a similar matchmaking system I can't see the game succeeding.

Pretty sure you're just proving his point there.

 

[TheMann]

Hmm... Well Alien vs. Predator: meh. Alien vs. Predator 2: fucking awesome. (the games not the movies). The newest one: Admittedly I haven't played it yet but I've yet to hear anything good about it. Also a game just came out called Starcraft 2. I'm sure that's gotten a pretty good reception. I'm pretty confident that Portal 2 will be a more fulfilling game than the original. Half Life 2 was better than Half Life (There, I said it. Sue me!). And while we're on that HL2: Ep.1 wasn't as good as HL2: Ep.2, although Episode 3 better blow both of them out of the water considering the wait.

Basically, I think this guy is just sort of talking out of his ass based on anecdotes. It'll always be different.

 

[Jonny49]

Memories of Resistance 2 emerged the moment I started reading.

 

[XT inc]

Metal gear solid 2 blew the F'in lid off the first game, And to be honest damn near every game after it. To think that I own a ps2 game that was so thought out, so well developed, so spectacular to play that it can put half my 360 library to shame still blows me away.

I remember as a kid watching the trailer on an psm demo disk over and over waiting for xmas hoping for a ps2 so I could get it. The first time I played that game gave me a feeling no game has ever done since.

 

[Demodeus]

hm.
does that apply to 4th games too?

UT99: godlike.
UT2003: shit. (well mostly anyways, there were lots of good parts)
UT2004: godlike.
UT3: utter shit (no good parts to be found here)

 

[Assassin Xaero]

From what I've noticed, with the majority of trilogies the middle one is the worst: Spyro, The Matrix, I didn't bother to watch the middle Chronicles of Riddick since it was anime but that's because it was anime, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Pirates of the Caribbean, and... uhh... that's all that comes to mind right now...

 

[Sixties Spidey]

Kinda right. Look at Bioshock 2. I quite liked it, others thought that it destroyed what Bioshock was supposed to be. Same thing with Force Unleashed 2. While it's not out yet, everyone thinks that the game has no right to exist.

But there are other games that are BETTER than their original counterparts. Look at Assassin's Creed II. People ADORED it.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Well that is because a lot of the games mentioned there were worse than the first although Quake 2 is really a completely different game they were just too cheap to get a new ip. Gears 2 was just as good if not better than the first. Although Halo 2 and 3 are not as good as 1(atleast to me) for a multitude of reasons.

 

[Trogdor1138]

I don't agree whatsoever and it's a dumb statement to make. Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil etc.

For one example, I've seen this kind of pattern of thought in films, games etc.:

1st product: Yeah, this is really awesome!

2nd product: *is massively hyped mentally because the first product was great* Oh that was a bit of a letdown... (even if it is actually a little better than the first, the initial surprise and adventure is gone).

3rd product: *lowered expectations and are a skeptical fan* Hey, this is surprisingly good, much better than the second installment and could be as good as the first! (Because it improved some of the minor things from previous games due to high preparation, also thinking it's better than the first because it's been awhile since you've played it and can't really judge it properly now since you've already had that initial feeling).

That's pretty much how I see a lot of series go, so I can see how it looks to developers I spose.

 

[drummond13]

Good point.

Except for, oh, maybe Half Life 2, Assassin's Creed 2, System Shock 2, Mass Effect 2, Uncharted 2, Silent Hill 2, Master of Orion 2, Civilization 2, and those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Seriously, does this guy even PLAY games?