Games where sequels ruined the reputation of the Original
- Thread starter Lussos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Indeed, better check your (game)history books there, UNKNOWNINCOGNITO...UncleUlty said:
And I totally agree with the fact that the Spyro and Crash franchises got totally abused, raped and molested when Naughty Dog and Insomniac gave up on them...
Also:
-Shadow Hearts: From The New World (worst. trilogy. ending. ever.)
-Sonic (for obvious reasons...)
-Soul Calibur (the first two were great, the third one was 'more of the same' and the fourth one did not only lack innovation, it also cut some really fun elements. Now we're stuck woth a way to short story mode and the annoying 'Tower of Lost Souls')
-Mario (Yeah, I know, many of you are goin' to disagree, but I haven't had fun with Mario since the SNES. In my opinion, they should have given him and Sonic a dignified burial back at the end of the 16-bit era...)
-Final Fantasy X-2 (the first 'real' sequal in the FF-series, hopefully, also the last. Gameplay: good, Graphics: shameless rehash, story: worst ever.)
I haven't followed the Sonic series for a while, but is Tails really considered more cool than Sonic now? Jesus, I had no idea things had gotten that bad.Macgyvercas said:
Fallout 3
Now hang with me here. Fallout 3 isn't by any means a bad game, nor am I calling it such. It is however the death of the spirit of the original games.
Consider this if you will: The original Fallout games compensated for shoddy visuals through clever wit and extremely well written dialogue. The combat, although slow, was taken to a tactical pace in order to force the player to consider their situation and actions. And the morality throughout the first two games could at best be called 'grey' and at worse a Mad Max style apocalyptic anarchy. However throughout the first games the main concern was the dialogue, to write believable written lines that brought the world to life and imbued those few 2D polygons with as much personality as possible. The second game also had an extremely dark sense of humor which was all the more entertaining and yet believable because of the skill of the writers and the situations in which it was employed.
Now look at the new game: It's got generally wretched dialogue, it really does, but compensates with pretty visuals. The combat is fast paced and strictly a matter of shoot and run. Morality has taken a turn from grey towards the stereotypical good/evil chart ala Kotor where through your actions you are either the paragon of virtue or the devil incarnate. And again, the writing is pretty shoddy. What few attempts at dark humor take place are somewhat awkward and stilted and usually feel out of place with the otherwise bland landscape. And one more time I say; the writing? Not so great.
It's a complete 360 from the ideology of the original two games. And what's worse is that since it's been so long since the orignals, the vast majority of people who play Fallout 3 will know it as the 'only' fallout experience. And so if ever a Fallout game comes out which follows the concepts the original games pioneered it will likely be a bomb with the new Fallout 'community' because, well, they're holding Fallout 3 as their example of what the series should be.
In essence. Fallout 3 killed Fallout. Or at least it killed Fallout for the gamers such as myself who played the originals.
Sigh.
Now hang with me here. Fallout 3 isn't by any means a bad game, nor am I calling it such. It is however the death of the spirit of the original games.
Consider this if you will: The original Fallout games compensated for shoddy visuals through clever wit and extremely well written dialogue. The combat, although slow, was taken to a tactical pace in order to force the player to consider their situation and actions. And the morality throughout the first two games could at best be called 'grey' and at worse a Mad Max style apocalyptic anarchy. However throughout the first games the main concern was the dialogue, to write believable written lines that brought the world to life and imbued those few 2D polygons with as much personality as possible. The second game also had an extremely dark sense of humor which was all the more entertaining and yet believable because of the skill of the writers and the situations in which it was employed.
Now look at the new game: It's got generally wretched dialogue, it really does, but compensates with pretty visuals. The combat is fast paced and strictly a matter of shoot and run. Morality has taken a turn from grey towards the stereotypical good/evil chart ala Kotor where through your actions you are either the paragon of virtue or the devil incarnate. And again, the writing is pretty shoddy. What few attempts at dark humor take place are somewhat awkward and stilted and usually feel out of place with the otherwise bland landscape. And one more time I say; the writing? Not so great.
It's a complete 360 from the ideology of the original two games. And what's worse is that since it's been so long since the orignals, the vast majority of people who play Fallout 3 will know it as the 'only' fallout experience. And so if ever a Fallout game comes out which follows the concepts the original games pioneered it will likely be a bomb with the new Fallout 'community' because, well, they're holding Fallout 3 as their example of what the series should be.
In essence. Fallout 3 killed Fallout. Or at least it killed Fallout for the gamers such as myself who played the originals.
Sigh.
I actually prefer NWN2 over the original. Shock and Awe, I know. Mask of the Betrayer is just bloody brilliant however and many of the mods are fantastic, plus I prefer group control over simply controlling a lone character. But then again, I don't play online, and I know most people who loved NWN1 online were the most sorely disappointed with the sequel. Ah well!Abedeus said:
Well, I see where your coming from, but trying something new doesnt "ruin" the series' reputation. If a series never tries anything new, then, in turn, there's no room for the series to grow. If its just the same thing all 3 games (in Fallout's case), theres no growth. No new audiences to enjoy the series. Fallout 3 is a prime example. It did the exact opposite of ruining the Fallout series' reputation, it increased it. It opened up the Fallout games to people who enjoy FPS and next gen gamers, not just another instalation for the strategy-style Fallout players that enjoyed the first 2.Starke said:
I think Bethesda did a great job of mixing FPS and the strategy based system from the previous Fallouts into an RPG. It opened the series up to whole new audiences, while still utilizing the gameplay options that the first 2 Fallout games used (to a certain degree). I think Fallout 3 did wonders for the series by opening it up to so many new people, while at the same time doing justice to fans of the first two.
I'd have to go with Mega Man X7. Some games just don't translate well into 3D, especially if it's very poorly done.
Well I don't actually think this game ruined the reputation of the franchise but Need for Speed: ProStreet was a horrendous game. It completely done away with the concept of being the most notorius street racer, which was a concept that worked well in the previous Need for Speed games. The AI in the drag tournaments was overwhelmingly tough and the burning rubber challenges at the start of the races were stupid and pointless. Plus, even the little things about the game bothered me like how you can only have three nitrous bursts instead of a nitrous bar that rechared over time and how your character can only be named Ryan Cooper. It was easily one of the worst of series however Undercover redeemed the franchise by being a decent game.
Gameplay wasn't what fans of the original enjoyed most about the series though. I'm gonna be bluntly honest here: The combat in Fallout 1 and 2? Sure, it's tactical and pretty clever. It is also crap. It really was. And certainly not fun for the vast majority of people who played the game. Fallout 3 is clearly superior to the originals in this department believe it or not, only the most NMA out there would disagree methinks.Instant K4rma said:
What kept people playing however was the writing. A well done story with believable characters and fantastic dialogue along with a witty sense of humor can work wonders in making people a fan of the game. What also helped was that every statistic was taken into account and how the player could build a character completely unique to themselves, this only enhanced by the tons and tons of written word that would change depending on your stats. That is, unfortunately, something the third Fallout fails at. Fallout 3 sacrificed the diversity of the originals in favor of better balancing and a more user-friendly approach (In the originals it was all too easy to end up making a completely useless and helpless character, but for many, that was part of the charm!)
Meanwhile Bethesda really just needs to hire some better writers, it's always been the developers grand weakness when compared to other RPG developers out there. But they've always compensated by having these wonderful open-ended worlds which themselves form a sort of wordless story of their own. Morrowind was amazing at that, I love that game! Fallout 3 was also good in that aspect, but again, it's such a change from the originals which were of the opposite spectrum.
Bah, whatever. Like anyone reads this anyway. Regardless, for those few that do read this far. Don't think I hate Fallout 3, I don't, but you've got to admit it is a radical new direction for the series. You call it opening the game up to new audiences, and that's true...
But it also killed that little spark which made the original Fallouts so famous in the first place, such hidden gems and so beloved by those who'd played them. And for many fans like me of the originals, that's a very sad thing indeed.
Halos 2 and 3, all post ps1 crash and spyro games, FF X-2, MGS 2 kinda counts but it was definitely liveable I think the problem here stems from the fact people would of rathered to have played with Snake than Raiden and it was kinda unexpected.
Hmmm I never had a problem with worms 3d...not as good as the 2d originals, but not bad. As for DoW 2, never played, although I like the idea of finaly putting in the damn Tyrasnnids, one of my favourite 40k factionsChristemo said:
Star Ocean: Till the End of Time.
SOTET took place in the same game world that 'Star Ocean: The Second Story' took place in, and was set 400 years in the future. The infamous plot-twist that occurred near the end of the game radically changed how the player viewed the game world so much, that it changed your view on TSS. That's right, if you hated the plot twist in SOTET, it retroactively made a game from six years earlier suck.
On a different note, I think it should be noted that even if a sequel sucks, it doesn't necessarily mean the series sucks or that the original game is bad. I think most everyone can agree that Deus Ex 2 was horribly inferior to the original, but Deus Ex 1 is still a brilliant masterpiece. DX2 did not ruin the reputation of DX1.
SOTET took place in the same game world that 'Star Ocean: The Second Story' took place in, and was set 400 years in the future. The infamous plot-twist that occurred near the end of the game radically changed how the player viewed the game world so much, that it changed your view on TSS. That's right, if you hated the plot twist in SOTET, it retroactively made a game from six years earlier suck.
So, the plot twist was that the Star Ocean world was an MMORPG, and your characters were all just NPCs inside that MMO. Yes, it was a game inside of a game. This means that all the characters and events from TSS were just NPCs inside an MMO.
Some people thought this was a brilliant twist, as Star Ocean games were games for the PS2, so we already know they're video game characters, right? For some of us though, this utterly destroyed the suspension of disbelief and completely invalidated everything that happened in TSS.
Some people thought this was a brilliant twist, as Star Ocean games were games for the PS2, so we already know they're video game characters, right? For some of us though, this utterly destroyed the suspension of disbelief and completely invalidated everything that happened in TSS.
On a different note, I think it should be noted that even if a sequel sucks, it doesn't necessarily mean the series sucks or that the original game is bad. I think most everyone can agree that Deus Ex 2 was horribly inferior to the original, but Deus Ex 1 is still a brilliant masterpiece. DX2 did not ruin the reputation of DX1.
Deus Ex: Invisible War was an embarrassing attempt at a sequel. It wasn't a horrible game on it's own but when held up to the original was pathetic.