Orginal better than the sequel

[RamirezDoEverything]

I've recently replayed the original AC, and noticed that the game had a better 'historical' feel of everything, without the HUD and constant reminders of something I need to go do, the game just felt right, and it felt like a stealthy/medevil game.
Does anyone else agree?
To open discussion, what other games overall were better in the original form?

 

[Sacman]

Deus Ex by a long shot... Invisible stood pretty well as a single game but as a sequel of one of the greatest games evar it was undeserving of the title...<.<

 

[SantoUno]

Since Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow is somewhat of a sequel to Aria of Sorrow, I feel that Aria of Sorrow was just perfect while Dawn of Sorrow didn't quite have as much of an impact.

Also inBb4 BWAHHH KOTOR 1 IZ SOO MUCH BETTAR THAN II KOTOR 2 WAS A FAILURE

That abundant response annoys me to no end seeing as how I don't see in any way (besides having a proper ending) how the first KOTOR could possibly be better than the second. The second had numerous improvements but apparently that doesn't even cross people's minds simply because it was "rushed for release" according to everyone.

I'm sorry, since when is the game's development detrimental to the actual game itself in terms of quality?

 

[theComposer]

I'll say Mass Effect. While some of the changes in Mass Effect 2 were for the better, I thought the story was better in 1, I liked exploring planets (although the Mako was hell), I liked getting more than 2 weapons, and I hated the idea of thermal clips (what was wrong with overheating anyways?). I think Mass Effect 2 tried to fix and streamline things too much, and ended up missing the mark.

 

[Vern]

Quake was far better than Quake 2. I'm sorry Id, but you just don't do futuristic cyborgs that well.

 

[Enigma6667]

inb4 Bioshock

 

[chromewarriorXIII]

I much preferred Golden Sun over GS: The Lost Age. GS2 just seemed to throw you out in world and expect that you knew what to do. That and I liked the characters in GS1 better.

 

[viking97]

BioShock
only acceptable answer, besides deus ex

and referring to AC, i got that feeling too but i just accepted it as a different style with each game and thus i like each game for different reasons, although i would probably like the first AC better if it was more gameplay-wise like AC2, extra weaponry excluded.

come to mention it though, there ARE some gameplay elements from AC that i liked better than their counterparts in AC2, for example the short blade being bonded to the right d-button (because quite often it was better suited to the situation that the sword). also i like AC's difficulties in combat, because it really is lot more fun to flee desperately for life than boringly easily dispatch about twenty guards. in the first, if you caught the attention of a lot of guards at once, you'd better start running mate. in the second, just arm you dual 7-inch blades and counter attack for all your worth.

it also seemed to me that there was more nuances in AC's combat then in the sequel, although its possible that they existed in the second and i just never noticed because combat was so piss easy.

EDIT damn enigma ninja'd me, with my long ass critique of assassin's creed

 

[Space Spoons]

Kingdom Hearts. The first game was light, fluffy and fun. Basically, the result of taking Final Fantasy and building a Disneyworld park based on it. It was kinda goofy, and the story was simplistic, but those flaws didn't detract from the fun in any way.

KHII, on the other hand, is light on Disney while being heavy on the worst aspects of Final Fantasy. It's overblown, melodramatic, and complicated to a ludicrous degree. Even the combat system was given a makeover to match to absurdly overpowered and dramatic kind of fighting seen in recent Square-Enix projects.

 

[SantoUno]

Also inBb4 BWAHHH KOTOR 1 IZ SOO MUCH BETTAR THAN II KOTOR 2 WAS A FAILURE

That abundant response annoys me to no end seeing as how I don't see in any way (besides having a proper ending) how the first KOTOR could possibly be better than the second. The second had numerous improvements but apparently that doesn't even cross people's minds simply because it was "rushed for release" according to everyone.

I'm sorry, since when is the game's development detrimental to the actual game itself in terms of quality?

I agree. Kreia alone far outshines all the characters in the first in terms of fascinating awesomeness, and all the other characters also had very well written back-stories.

I agree, whoever voice acted Kreia should have won VA of the Year or some other prestigious award. I can't recall any other video game character being as compelling as Kreia.

 

[MrAkuma201]

DMC better then DMC 2. ya I know DMC 2 was REAL BAD but DMC 3 and 4 came back and they are great. I hope the new DMC is a good or better then DMC 1,3 and 4

 

[Aurgelmir]

I've recently replayed the original AC, and noticed that the game had a better 'historical' feel of everything, without the HUD and constant reminders of something I need to go do, the game just felt right, and it felt like a stealthy/medevil game.
Does anyone else agree?
To open discussion, what other games overall were better in the original form?

Resistance Fall of Man > Resistance 2

The games seems to have been made by two totally different teams, I mean Fall of Man had some cool features that hasn't been in games for a while (Weapon wheel, health bar), the split screen co-op was awesome...

So when Resistance 2 came along I was excited... till me and a friend sat down with it to play the campaign in co-op... but it couldn't... and with the generic regeneration and "only two weapons at a time, mate" the game ended up being so fucking generic we stopped playing.

Metal Gear Solid > Metal Gear Solid 2

I mean seriously... MGS2 fucked the story up so bad with the introduction of the Patriots... MGS3 was a fun game though.

Other than that I feel most sequals are better, since they ate much more polished. I prefer AC2 over AC1, I prefer ME2 over ME1 etc.

 

[Shinkada]

Shenmue. MGS since Snake Eater was the ONLY MGS game that wasn't, in some way, critically flawed. Bioshock. Deus Ex is too obvious. Ninja Gaiden. Assassin's Creed for the aforementioned reasons, 2 was lazy as hell story-wise. AC1 actually came out with some original ideas, ie the Pieces of Eden being responsible for everything from the Manhattan Project to most of the Bible's events, whereas 2 just kind of regurgitated the same-old 2012 spiels we've heard a hundred times before.

Burnout 1 was the second-best Burnout game behind only Dominator, Shadow Hearts 3 was a miserable pile of rubbish,

Also, originals that were NOT better than the sequel, but everyone seems to think they are:
DMC3 > DMC1
KOTOR 2 = KOTOR 1
Nightshade = Shinobi (PS2)
And here's the real kicker;
Lost Planet 2 > Lost Planet 1.

So many, but those're the top of my head.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I've recently replayed the original AC, and noticed that the game had a better 'historical' feel of everything, without the HUD and constant reminders of something I need to go do, the game just felt right, and it felt like a stealthy/medevil game.
Does anyone else agree?

The first AC is by far the best game in the series because it actually tried to have some kind of core gameplay. The AC games should be about the assassinations, and the first AC made the assassinations feel like big events (they definitely could've been better though) whereas in AC2 the main assassinations just felt like "another mission." The AC games should be like a cross between Hitman and Batman:AA and they aren't really anything like that; the first game came the closest. The sequels completely abandoned spotlighting the assassinations and thus the series lost any core gameplay that it had and just became another boring sandbox game.

---

Right now the only originals that were better than the sequels I can think of (that haven't been said) are:

- God of War >>>>>>>> GoW2 & GoW3
- Prince of Persia: Sands of Time >>>> all PoP games although Warrior Within had the best gameplay but everything else sucked about it
- Sly Cooper >>> Sly Cooper 2 and 3. The first Sly just has that magic of perfect game design, the levels just felt like great 2D platforming levels done in 3D, only way I can explain it. The sequels became open world games and most of the magic was lost, the sequels are still good though.

 

[Istanbul]

I'm going to have to go with Halo on this one. (And dodge the incoming flames.)

 

[crocop69]

I would have to say Fallout 3 > New Vegas.

New Vegas just feels empty because in Fallout 3 every place you visited had some sort of little story or something to collect.

 

[The Lunatic]

I'd probably go with Mass Effect for this one.

 

[gl1koz3]

Yes, Mass Effect 2 laughed hard at literally EVERY DAMN THING the first one established. I mean, what the f...?

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Since Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow is somewhat of a sequel to Aria of Sorrow, I feel that Aria of Sorrow was just perfect while Dawn of Sorrow didn't quite have as much of an impact.

Also inBb4 BWAHHH KOTOR 1 IZ SOO MUCH BETTAR THAN II KOTOR 2 WAS A FAILURE

That abundant response annoys me to no end seeing as how I don't see in any way (besides having a proper ending) how the first KOTOR could possibly be better than the second. The second had numerous improvements but apparently that doesn't even cross people's minds simply because it was "rushed for release" according to everyone.

I'm sorry, since when is the game's development detrimental to the actual game itself in terms of quality?

lawl i was totally thinking the same thing. obsidian obvious is obsidian, people love to troll on them. between kreia and all the customization and character depth, i thought it was much better.

OT: personally i'll add mw1 in there...probably KH1 imo, the story and overall feel of the whole game just felt better.