Good games that don't/didn't necessarily need sequels

Recommended Videos

bartholen_v1legacy

A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
Jan 24, 2009
3,056
0
0
While we all know that the entire gaming industry is built on the franchise model these days, there are still some games out there that don't end with a cliffhanger or expand their storylines via DLC or something else. They simply move their story right till the end and tie up all the loose ends (or at least 95% of them) and satisfy us completely. In my opinion these kind of games are the best of the best, because they tell us that there are still some developers out there who are willing to create and try new things, not just milk their same old cows until their udders start to grow inwards.

AS of myself I can think of only two examples: Chrono Trigger and Bioshock.

The first, as you all should know, is a SNES JRPG from 1995 which was ported to the Nintendo DS about a year ago (Or at least in Europe, dunno how long others had it before us). It tells a story of a group of kids, a human-frog, a robot from the future, a cavewoman and an ancient magician saving the world. By today's standards the game is fairly long, about 20 hours on the first playthrough, with plenty of sidequests and 12 (yes, 12) additional endings. But what really stood out for me was that how it made me care about the piles of pixels I was moving around and how it distinguished itself from all the other JRPGs I've played (mostly Final Fantasy, though also Fire Emblem and Dragonquest). The characters' personalities and backstories were really interesting compared to all the angsty androgynes we can see in, say, Final Fantasy. And though the plot in basic was far from original, the ways the game introduced the player to the world and its history were far from 20-minute cutscenes in the beginning of the game. Oh yeah, and the game had time travel, but I couldn't think of a more subtle way to say it. I have been genuinely moved several times by the ending, with the best credit roll music of all time. It was like finishing a really good book with a happy ending and reminded me of those more innocent times when everything didn't need to be twisted, dark, gritty and mysterious. Which is not to say that some things in Chrono Trigger aren't.

You all know how Bioshock goes. In my opinion the sequel is completely needless (that doesn't mean it's bad). The entire plot of the first was tied to the central mastermind and architect of Rapture, Andrew Ryan, and with what happens to him in the game practically renders the whole follow-up obsolete in my opinion. The role of the Vita-Chambers was constructed in a way they couldn't be used in the sequel without severely damaging their whole idea. Even the main character was so tightly tied to the original's storyline that there was no way we were going to see him return to Rapture. All in all, I think Bioshock would have been completely fine on its own.

Of course there are some exceptions to this, like the GTA series: every installment is its completely own story with its own characters and with mere meetings with familiar characters at best.

Can you name games like the title says?
 

Freshman

New member
Jan 8, 2010
422
0
0
I think that star wars battlefront 1 shoulda been the only one. Two was not as fun, but i could never really put my finger on why
 

fix-the-spade

New member
Feb 25, 2008
8,639
0
0
I'm going to go out on a limb and say Modern Warfare, in plot at least.

There was never any doubt of a sequel, but they didn't need to 'continue' the plot of the old one, which rounded off quite nicely thank you very much. It's the first direct sequel in CoD and probably the one with the daftest story, wihch is a shame considering how good it is in the previous.

Also Far Cry 2.

'lets make a sequel to Far Cry, but without ANYTHING from the previous game mentioned, in fact, lets make this open world game in Africa full of glitches and call it Far Cry 2 because no one on earth will look at it twice anyway,'
 

Vrex360

Badass Alien
Mar 2, 2009
8,379
0
0
I'm in agreement with Bioshock, to me a sequal isn't nessecary, it was a great momunmental game that worked plot wise on almost every level and wrapped up all loose ends. So I fail to see how a sequel could work, but hey Furburt does have a point, we can only wait and see.
 

Space Spoons

New member
Aug 21, 2008
3,335
0
0
I've always thought Final Fantasy VII would have remained stronger as a story if it hadn't been milked to death. There was no "true" videogame sequel, but there was the movie sequel and the spinoff sequel for the PS2 starring Vincent Valentine. Final Fantasy VII's ending was perfect just the way it was; trying to expand upon it just seemed to dilute the impact of it. I don't have as much of a problem with the prequel spinoffs, as they generally dealt with elements that weren't well explained in the original game, and could thus be seen as "filler episodes" rather than stand-alone games. Still, the point remains. The Compilation of Final Fantasy VII was largely unnecessary. They really should have saved all the extra storyline bits and worked them into the inevitable PS3 remake.

Also, I'm having some trouble swallowing the idea of a sequel to The Force Unleashed, particularly one that features Starkiller. In the canon ending to the original game, he redeemed himself with a hero's death and became a martyr to the budding Rebellion. Bringing him back for a quick cash grab really cheapens the gesture and kind of reflects poorly on the franchise as a whole.
 

Xvito

New member
Aug 16, 2008
2,114
0
0
Well, there's always the best game ever, a.k.a Kingdom Hearts.

... Seriously, if anyone tries to tell me that the sequels were good, then I'm going to find out where they live and shove a flail down their throat...
 

josetaco

New member
Oct 14, 2009
101
0
0
I'm of the theory when it comes to sequels in video games usually the second one in a series is better than the first. But bartholen's got a point when it comes to bioshock where can they take that story, and it was kind of reimagineing of system shock 2. We shall see.. but Bioshock 2 still has me at hello.
 

Axolotl

New member
Feb 17, 2008
2,401
0
0
Furburt said:
The Longest Journey didn't really need a sequel. It got one. It was pretty good, but unnecessary.

As for Bioshock, I'm still in two minds about the whole thing, I mean, it could very possibly completely fuck up the whole canon and make replaying Bioshock one difficult, then again, it could be a veritable Godfather II of sequels. It's just impossible to tell because they can't show or tell us much of the plot.
I'm cautiously optimistic about Bioshock 2. I was a bit concerned by the Big Sister at first but the more I thought about it the more I liked the imagery of two post-human monsters fighting for the souls of the innocent, it has a certain ring to it. I don't think Bioshock needed a sequel but if the do it well then I'll love it, my only concern is that they won't understand what made Bioshock a great game.

For other games that don't need sequels. Planescape Torment, I'm glad that we will never see a sequel to that.
 

reg42

New member
Mar 18, 2009
5,390
0
0
Freshman said:
I think that star wars battlefront 1 shoulda been the only one. Two was not as fun, but i could never really put my finger on why
I still want them to make a sequel, Battlefront + New graphics = epic
 

Macgyvercas

Spice & Wolf Restored!
Feb 19, 2009
6,103
0
0
I'm all for a BioShock sequel. But you know what game doesn't need a sequel? The Force Unleashed. Especially since
you play as the same character as the first game, but he was killed in the canon ending
 

tomtom94

aka "Who?"
May 11, 2009
3,373
0
0
Xvito said:
Well, there's always the best game ever, a.k.a Kingdom Hearts.

... Seriously, if anyone tries to tell me that the sequels were good, then I'm going to find out where they live and shove a flail down their throat...
You didn't like KHII? Certainly I think the console tie-ins only convoluted the plot and were generally rubbish, but the proper sequel made the game more exciting and (I think) challenging, and featured a lot more variety in terms of worlds. Although plot-wise, the original was a lot better.

OT:It's a shame Lego Racers got a sequel, because the sequel was a major disappointment compared to the first.
 

Dr. Paine

New member
Oct 26, 2009
1,134
0
0
I'm fairly pessimistic about Portal 2... while I would have been happy for some closure on just what the hell happened, so far it sounds like it'll just be new maps and a new voice.

I might be completely wrong, but I am not going to get my hopes up for that game.
 

SantoUno

New member
Aug 13, 2009
2,583
0
0
I know some jackass is gonna say KOTOR so fuck you buddy KOTOR II is fucking awesome and I'm perfectly happy with the way it turned out.
 

Hutchy_Bear

New member
May 12, 2009
756
0
0
Final Fantasy X. I really enjoyed FFX and thought the ending was great, it was emotional and just worked. But then they had to wuss out and make X-2 to give people the 'happy' ending.
 

Chancie

New member
Sep 23, 2009
2,050
0
0
Bioshock. I don't think it needs a sequel. The idea seems...weird to me. But meh, reserving most judgments about it for now.

The first Drakengard didn't need a sequel. It easily could've just ended the way it did. But Drakengard 2 was really good in my opinion, so I don't mind it either. But just saying it could've stopped at the first one.

Final Fantasy X. I loved Tidus but X should've ended exactly how it did. I love when games can leave that bitter taste in your mouth effectively. Then X-2 dumped a mound of sugar on you and canceled all of that feeling. xD

Ok, actually...most games that have sequels don't NEED them. I mean, unless the first was ended with an obvious "Sequel" flag (like Kingdom Hearts, for example?), then almost all of them could've ended with the first.