Have later instalment to a series ruined previous instalments for you?

[Evonisia]

Hopefully simple question there, the question comes to mind when I thought about what is now my example.

Playing BioShock Infinite kinda ruined BioShock 1 for me, and when I went into BioShock 2 I couldn't shake the horrible feeling I got off it. I'm not sure whether this is really a spoiler or not, but during that five minute snorefest ending:

Spoiler

Elizabeth basically says something along the lines of "There's always a lighthouse. There's always a man. There's always a city".

It basically made me feel like anything I did in BioShock 1 (and later, BioShock 2) was pointless. By pointless I mean in story, nothing I did mattered because of all the other universes. Why does it matter if Jack made it through Rapture or not if there was a universe where he did? A universe where he listened to Andrew Ryan throughout, or one where he is just killed by the Splicers when he first injects himself with the plasmid. I got the exact same feeling from BioShock 2 which kinda ruined the experience from the get go. At least I had already played through BioShock 1 before Infinite.

Now that doesn't matter Infinite any better or worse, but I certainly enjoy BioShock 1 significantly less than I did before because of that.

Edit: Well how 'bout that? My grammar sucks, I must've been tired writing that title. Apologies.

 

[Barbas]

Uh-oh...

Well, not really. Lightning never strikes the same place twice and it's all-but-impossible to replicate some towering successes. No matter what your opinion on a sequel, you'll always have the memories of the first instalment. Those memories are concrete and untouchable. Dragon Age II left me feeling pretty disappointed for a little while, but it encouraged me to revisit the first game which had so enchanted me and it was pretty good the second time around. So hey, ups and downs, man!

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Why should one piece of fiction or media "ruin" another previously enjoyable one? I'm quite capable of enjoying any game, book, film or episode in itself.

- Dragon Age II as mentioned above was a shitty game, but it didn't alter the fact that the first one was brilliant.
- ME3 had a terrible ending, but it didn't ruin previous installments, nor even ME3. It was just a disappointing end. Playing it again as far as the beam/Marauder Shields is still fine.
- GTA: Vice City was a masterpiece. GTA4 was so boring and tedious I couldn't play it for long. GTA5 is brilliant. The only one of those games that's "ruined" is GTA4 for sucking in the first place.
- I can quite happily play any BioShock game without issue, or feeling anything is pointless.
- Does Disney announcing all the Star Wars Extended Universe being "invalid" now change anything? Not in the least. The Extended Universe stories are still vastly superior to anything Disney will ever do with the IP themselves and I'm happy to keep that as SW Canon and treat anything Disney moving forward as non-canon.
- Did the awful Prince of Persia "reboot" take anything away from the Sands of Time trilogy or its successor? Nope. It sucked single-handedly and the rest are still great.
- Did Oblivion ruin Morrowind? No, it made it more enjoyable to replay to enjoy all the things oblivion lacked.

If something "ruins" something else for you, perhaps the issue is how you approach media.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I get where you're coming from. For me, the only time that has happened would be Mass Effect 3's ending. It really beat down any desire I had to replay the other games. Going through all the work, all those missions, all the planning, and all the emotional investment in the cast, only to have it end like that was very soul crushing for me.
So to counter that, I just play The Citadel DLC and consider that the ending of the series.

Otherwise, I can't think of any game in terms of story that ruined previous games for me. I suppose playing the original Half-Life after playing Half-Life 2 on my Xbox was a bit difficult. The game is good, but Half-Life 2 is so much better that I was kind of disappointed in Half-Life.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Infinite made me more aware of some of Levine's weaknesses in storytelling, and that did somewhat ruin the experience of the original, but the first BioShock still has enough strong points that Infinite didn't really ruin it. Besides, I may have just gotten tired of the BioShock story considering I had experienced it multiple times prior to returning to it after Infinite.

I also got so used to the superior controls of Super Mario Sunshine and the Galaxy games that much of my enjoyment of Super Mario 64 was lost. I still enjoy it to an extent, but I hardly love it like I used to.

Normally for me, though, a sequel makes its predecessor more enjoyable. The Two Thrones managed to take the disaster that was Warrior Within and turn it into a great part of The Prince's development, so now I can actually handle it. I also came to appreciate each Mass Effect more after playing the sequel, regardless of the problems with story as it progressed through the trilogy. Also, while I disliked BioShock's story more after playing Infinite, I came to enjoy the gameplay and world more.

 

[dyre]

Hmm, I've had game endings ruin the replay value of the game (I'm looking at you, KOTOR II....), but I don't think I've run into anything bad enough to ruin previous games. A few people mentioned Dragon Age II; I think one reason that didn't ruin DA:O is because the two games are almost completely unrelated storywise.

I'm not saying such a thing (games ruining previous games) can't happen though; it's certainly happened to me enough times with books.

It basically made me feel like anything I did in BioShock 1 (and later, BioShock 2) was pointless. By pointless I mean in story, nothing I did mattered because of all the other universes. Why does it matter if Jack made it through Rapture or not if there was a universe where he did? A universe where he listened to Andrew Ryan throughout, or one where he is just killed by the Splicers when he first injects himself with the plasmid.

Hmm, but as far as I know, people who subscribe to multiverse theory IRL don't seem to suffer from that issue. After all, the only thing that matters in your universe is what happens in your universe.

 

[Savagezion]

If a game is what I consider a "true" sequel, it will explain some things left unexplained from the first game. As well, it will build upon that which was in the first game. As an example, Mass Effect gave us "true" sequels so when Mass Effect 3 was terrible, it was like the 3rd act was terrible thus ruining the whole play for me. However, then we have Dragon Age, but wasn't really tied in well or that strong so it is easily dissected away from 1 not ruining anything for me personally.

The problem with the former is it makes the first two games have no 3rd act since they are all reliant on each other. If we look at TES games, those stories are also easily separated because you barely get a breif mention of what happened in the last game. You aren't really "continuing the journey". Your making a new journey in the franchise. It's similar to how I view Interplay Fallout vs. Bethesda Fallout. I don't plug them in together because doing so ruins the first two. However, if I view them as two tellings of the same tale that set parallel and not linear, they do fine on their own.

SO far, ME3 is the only one to ruin previous games for me that I can think of. ME1&2 used to be in my top 5-10 games but after seeing the final act, I just don't care anymore. As I have the choice of having a ridiculous 3rd act or a good story that has no 3rd act. Either way sucks for me so I just dropped 'em.

 

[josemlopes]

Never, I still like Call of Duty 4, Saints Row 2, Battlefield 2, Unreal 2K4, Splinter Cell Chaos Theory (although Blacklist did manage to show good improvements), Hitman Blood Money, Duke Nukem 3D, Serious Sam (2 was fucking terrible) and Postal 2 for example.

The sequel being bad certainly sucks as I probably wont have more of what I liked about it in the first place but all those reasons remain intact in the previous games that I can just go back to.

 

[krazykidd]

Only if it's a direct sequel and the stories are linked. Kind of like final fantasy 13. 13-2 killed it for me, and i won't touch 13-3 with a 10 foot pole.

 

[Hatebeard]

Assassin's Creed. They all lack replay value imo, but the latest entry (without the bad spinoffs) always kills the freshness of the previous game(s). Black Flag just blows them all out of the water and ruins the other games by being better rather than being awful, which ruined the entire series for me since I started realizing how annoying AC was after a second play through of the first game. And to name a few others..

- DMC reboot
- Kessen III
- Uncharted 2 & 3
- Fallout NV kinda made 3 look lifeless and boring (still lacked the story and atmosphere of the original, though)
- Every GTA game
- Crash 2 & 3
- Jak 2
- Street Fighter IV

Some are just timeless (Arkham Asylum/City, Sands of Time, MGS games)

 

[Something Amyss]

I sometimes have trouble going back to older installments if the newer ones are sufficiently improved. Does that count?

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I can only think of one time, and that's Metro Last Light.

Now don't get me wrong, I generally love both games, but the reveal that there's more Dark Ones hiding in a cupboard and the decision to endlessly chastise the player for making, at least to me, the smartest choice retroactively made 2033 worse.

It's canon and when I play 2033, I know the majority of the game is effectively an exercise in futility.

 

[shrekfan246]

I sometimes have trouble going back to older installments if the newer ones are sufficiently improved. Does that count?

This is generally the only way it applies to me as well. And even then, it has to be a pretty significant improvement and/or I wasn't terribly interested in the previous one to begin with. I can't think of any games I've disliked to such a degree that they retroactively ruined my enjoyment of their franchise.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Honestly not really, I have definitely played plenty of games where it felt like the series took a big step backwards in the sequel (some examples for me are Bioshock, FEAR, Command and Conquer 4, and Dragon Age 2) but it never ruins how much I enjoy the previous games.

A large reason for this is that original IP games are generally made so that the story is "wrapped up" at the end of the game, and the game could theoretically have or not have a sequel. This way in case the game flops the developers can just leave the story as is and it is basically complete. This means you can play the original or better games in the series and basically enjoy them and still feel as if they are complete (for the most part).

 

[Therumancer]

Hopefully simple question there, the question comes to mind when I thought about what is now my example.

Playing BioShock Infinite kinda ruined BioShock 1 for me, and when I went into BioShock 2 I couldn't shake the horrible feeling I got off it. I'm not sure whether this is really a spoiler or not, but during that five minute snorefest ending:

Spoiler

Elizabeth basically says something along the lines of "There's always a lighthouse. There's always a man. There's always a city".

It basically made me feel like anything I did in BioShock 1 (and later, BioShock 2) was pointless. By pointless I mean in story, nothing I did mattered because of all the other universes. Why does it matter if Jack made it through Rapture or not if there was a universe where he did? A universe where he listened to Andrew Ryan throughout, or one where he is just killed by the Splicers when he first injects himself with the plasmid. I got the exact same feeling from BioShock 2 which kinda ruined the experience from the get go. At least I had already played through BioShock 1 before Infinite.

Now that doesn't matter Infinite any better or worse, but I certainly enjoy BioShock 1 significantly less than I did before because of that.

I'm sure it's a popular answer but "Mass Effect 3" and "Dragon Age 2" both retroactively ruined the series for me.

When it comes to Bioshock I wouldn't worry too much about it. Basically for all it's praise "Bioshock Infinite" was a game where they decided to go with the laziest possible way of having a profound ending and not having to really work on resolving anything or tying up their own loose ends. If it helps, understand that a lot of things use the same basic "infinite possible realities" concept and have situations where they bleed into each other. DC comics and Marvel comics both use this gimmick and even have certain universes named and numbered, D&D had infinite "Alternate Prime Material Planes", Star Trek has numerous parallel realities some quite alien, some are like "The Mirror Universe" where things are different based on a few crucial choices having gone one way or another, with potentially an infinite number of those existing out there.... the thing to understand in this concept is that even if technically there is always another world where the opposite thing happened, you want everything to turn out for the best in this universe where
you happen to be now. Just because there is another universe where I live, doesn't mean I want to be in one of the universes where I die... get what I'm saying? The thing about the infinite universe concept is that they are infinite and split from every minor choice not just major ones, so basically there are universes following you up to every decision, but equally vast numbers of ones that split off radically based on what you might have had for breakfast last Thursday... get it?

The thing with Infinite is that they basically used this as a cop out to avoid having to really resolve anything in the story they had been telling up until that point, pretty much pulling a whole "full stop" to the plot, explaining theoretical dimensional physics, and then trying to erase all relevancy as far as you are concerned. Of course none of this has much to do with Bioshock and it's inherent plot lines. Really the biggest tie in to the concept is the implication that there is always going to be a Rapture or some equivalent in all dimensions making it an unusual lynchpin to reality, which is a concept I imagine they wanted to explore in later games, but probably won't due to the guys doing the games moving away from the series allegedly.

 

[crazygameguy4ever]

for some series yeah.. like the GTA series for example.. a lot of reboots and later sequels to game are mishandled like the Bioshock series.. the first one was good ,the second was was better and Infinite was bad...THe Resiident Evil series also springs to mind.. RE 1, RE2, RE3, RE4 were all good, but RE Operation Raccoon City, RE5 and RE6 have all been worse then the last

then again..there are some series that have done the opposite.. like how Dragon Age 2 was far better then Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age Awakening.. the Naruto Ultimate Ninja Storm games have gotten better with each sequel as well. Same for the Batman Arkham games (the ones by Rocksteady only, I don't acknowledge Arkham Origins as a real game in the offical series sine it was crap) Batman Arkham Asylum was good, Arkham City was way better and if they do as great a job with the first 2 then Arkham Knight will be even better

 

[Nazulu]

Otherwise, I can't think of any game in terms of story that ruined previous games for me. I suppose playing the original Half-Life after playing Half-Life 2 on my Xbox was a bit difficult. The game is good, but Half-Life 2 is so much better that I was kind of disappointed in Half-Life.

That's hilarious. We're the complete opposite. I played Half Life after Half Life 2 and the episodes, and it actually made me a little bit disappointed in HL2. A FPS I considered possibly the best game I've ever played, and the FPS style is not even my preferred genre. I even said in a vs thread not too long ago that I still pick HL2 even though I hadn't played the original yet because I couldn't imagine it topping HL2. Something I could only expect from the 90s I guess. Any way, here's my view:

Spoiler: Don't open till you play HL and HL2

Going back to HL2 after finishing the first, your movement and crowbar feels really slow, your oxygen and light runs out too quick, the conversations felt longer than before, the weapons don't feel as strong (and I felt I was lacking explosives), running from the combine isn't as exciting as escaping a palace sized lab falling apart with gruesome deaths happening all over, including I felt really safe in HL2 after the chaos that is Half Life. Also, the ant queens & striders weren't as threatening as the green tentacle thing & heavy blue alien beasts (and how you kill those creeps were more creative I reckon), I also felt Half Life delivered faster with every different challenge, and the most important of all, I found the creepy final boss a lot more satisfying to kill than just blowing up the core.

Don't get me wrong, Half Life 2 is still amazing to me, still one of the best, but now it feels like it's lacking some things.

OT: Oh yeah. They haven't ruined previous installments for me, just kill my hopes that the series will become great again. It usually doesn't turn around.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Generally not, except if it's..*drumroll..* Mass Effect 3. One of the greater appeals of the series is making choices and seeing how they impact the final ending, which they don't... at all.

There have actually been a lot of sequels that sucked so bad that they made me love the previous installments even more than I already did. Case in point, inFAMOUS: Second Son.

 

[Rastrelly]

The only case for me was Mass Effect 3. It destroyed pretty much everything I like in the whole Mass Effect universe and made me to re-iterate the series completely.

 

[Dandark]

Mass effect 3 just ruined the series appeal for me. I didn't even play it and it's not even the ending, I just didn't like the direction they took the series after the first one.

Other than that when a sequel comes out that hugely improves on the first in some elements but fails horribly in others it leaves me wit no idea what to play. I liked the orginal but the second really improves on some of its flaws but I don't want to play the second because I miss something from the first.
The best example I can think of off the top of my head is Prototype, I liked the city in the first one a lot more. All of the different areas being controlled by infected or military was pretty cool especially being able to destroy one sides control so that the other moves in, the second game didn't feel as alive to me during the free roam.

At the same times the second has some great gameplay changes as well as some that I dislike so I can never decide which one to play >.<