Poll: Good Sequels that play entirely different then the predecessor

[kilenem]

I was thinking of games like Super Mario Bros 2 which literally started life out as another game or GTA 3.

One of my favorite series from last generation is the High Moon studios transformers games. Unfortunately they aren't making the one that is releasing today. War for Cybertron was a Three Player Co-op game with two different story lines. A Autobot and Deception Campaign that was about 4 to 5 hours each. It had a ton of replay because there was a competitive campaign mode for who could score the most. It also had Multiplayer modes similar to COD but a Horde mode similar to Gears of War. The Horde mode was excellent I played over a hudread hours of it.

The Sequel, Fall Of Cybertron was completely different. It no longer had 3player CO-OP or two campaigns but it fixed a lot of problems. Lack of ammo being number one and some of the game play in War for Cybertron became repetitive because you could start the two campaigns at anytime so they had to have tutorial levels on both campaigns. The campagin still had replay value because you upgrade and unlock new guns for the campaign to beat it on harder difficulties. Multiplayer customization was more fleshed out. The horde mode wasn't as good because it wasn't endless, it stopped at Wave 15. The story didn't feel as strong but there was a good reason. They wanted to give everyone fanservice. The Dinobots don't really fit into the cannon of the video game but the Devs said are really going to complain about playing as a Robot Fire Breathing T-rex. That was a gameplay over story moment.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

The Witcher 2 springs to mind. Gameplay is still a little wonky, but it's miles ahead of the rhythm combat method of the first game.

 

[AmberSword]

Tiberian Twilight gets the entirely different part down, too bad it missed the "good" part.

 

[The Wykydtron]

Does MGS Rising: Revengeance count? The only self aware Metal Gear game and it's very different from the rest, half baked "it used to be a stealth game so we might as well chuck one in" stealth mechanic that can be entirely ignored aside.

It's a Platinum game, I shouldn't need to say much more as for the gameplay. Really good hack and slash game but held slightly back on the combat front by its Metal Gear heritage. There's not that many moves to unlock compared to all their other games, all the sub-weapons suck aside from the Polearm which reminds me of Osiris from the DMC reboot in that it stunlocks entire rooms so I have no reason to not use it the entire game. There's the weapon switching menu being a crappy, flow breaking holdover from the other games because you can't switch weapons on the fly and by having a sub weapon selected you lock yourself out of the sword's basic heavy attacks which are really damn good.

It goes full Metal Gear on the ending though, the rest of the dramatic character building beforehand made sense though Sam needed just a couple more missions or more screen time to properly pull off the rivalry between Raiden and Sam, it falls a bit flat but it works. The ending just veers off in really bizarre 1v1 final boss fight that nobody could have seen coming. I loved it because i'm a huge fan of manly biceps melodrama and Armstrong hams it up perfectly but people are still within their rights to be confused about it.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

The Silent Hill games are an interesting menagerie. The first few play more or less the same. However in the fourth you're constantly switching between 1st and 3rd person perspective, the inventory is limited, most enemies cannot be killed, you play through the same levels TWICE during the game and you can backtrack pretty much everywhere thanks to the portal system. There's also a life bar and a gauge for charging attacks that are unique to this game. Most of the dissonance from the remainder of the series comes from the fact that it was never meant to be a Silent Hill game in the first place, it just got retconned into the series halfway through development.

Then we have Silent Hill Shattered Memories with its non combat, no health, no items, no dying and pretty much no nothing save for the exploring and the puzzling.

 

[Asclepion]

Dino Crisis. The first game is largely survival horror, involving a redhead intelligence operative making her way through a science facility that through a temporal accident has become overrun with predatory dinosaurs. While it's possible to kill them, ammunition is limited and the player is better avoiding combat by using the facility's security systems to their advantage and rappelling up to maintenance shafts to travel between areas.

The second game is much more action-oriented, with points given for kill combos and such.

The less said about Dino Crisis 3, the better.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

The gameplay of Fallout 1 & 2 compared to 3 & New Vegas is fairly different. Neither are bad though and both gameplay styles are enjoyable.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

Witcher 1 to Witcher 2 is a pretty significant gap when it comes to combat.

Fallout 1&2 being turned into a FPS with RPG elements was a big change and heresy in my eyes. That kinda ruined the Fallout games for me that came after Fallout 3 (New Vegas included). I kinda despise them.

 

[Squilookle]

Does Just Cause 2 count? Conceptually- it's basically identical to the first- run amok destabilising a paradise country with guns, vehicles and a grapple hook + parachute, except while just about everything in JC1 felt clunky and unrefined (except for the graphics and music), JC2 really did play entirely differently- with tight controls (except the cars still have no grip)and much better design all round.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Divinity 2 was one of those, publishers demanded the previously isometric game goes with the new big thing which was TES at the time, they even got the same engine and everything. But the devs made it work, wasn't the smoothest ride but on top of the usual third person RPG you got to morph into a dragon and assault flying fortresses.

 

[laggyteabag]

Call of Duty, lel

OT: Dawn of War 2 springs to mind somewhat. The first game was a pure RTS with base building and large scale fights, whereas the second game was more of an Action-RTS, with all of the base building stripped away, and more focus on the smaller groups of infantry with one or two vehicles thrown into the mix. I didn't like the second one all that much, although the campaigns were fun, so was the Last Stand gamemode.

EDIT: Oooooooooooohh "Good Sequels"? Nah man, I got nothin'.

 

[CrazyBlaze]

Jax 2 springs to mind. The first one is a platformer in the style of Crash Bandicoot with more fleshed out levels that are more integrated into the hub (no hubs). The second one is more GTA game than platformer. Jax X is also very different than the other three. Yes the previous games had racing in some form or another but Jax X was were it shined. Also the Crash games had a fun party game and one of the best cart racers ever.

 

[Smolderin]

Kingdom Hearts Chain of Memories comes to mind. Yes it is not a true sequel I know but the events take place after the main game so to me, it counts. What of course really makes the game different from the first is the card system, which to this day places Chain Of Memories among my top 10 favorite games of all time. It combined everything I loved about KH with an indepth card system. Strange how many people still can't seem to get this game when I easily grasped the concept when I first played it. I guess it played to much on their expectations.

 

[josemlopes]

I want to say Saints Row IV, I really didnt like SR3 much and SR4, even though it was basicly the same setting, did play very differently while having a very well put together story for the fans (its basicly fan-service for players that have been with the series since the first game).

 

[Fat Hippo]

Civilization V completely changed the mechanics that had developed in the course of the previous iterations, which were more of a steady evolution thus far. I personally think this was a great move, and with its expansions, Civ V has become a great game. And if anyone wants to play Civ IV again, nothing is stopping them from doing so.

 

[SweetShark]

After I read your title, I immediately thought of Resident Evil 4.
But I digress...now the Resident Evil series follow the steps of Resident Evil 4 and this somehow destroyed the franchise...

 

[Hero of Lime]

Majora's Mask comes to mind. Even though it uses the same engine as Ocarina of Time, it is overall a very different game. You have the repeating 3 day limit, the side quests are just as big, if not bigger than the main storyline, and the story is not at all like Ocarina's.

Granted it does not play much differently than Ocarina of Time, but it feels so much unlike Ocarina.

 

[sageoftruth]

Act Raiser 2. It was fun how Act Raiser integrated a city management game with a platformer, but both aspects of the game were far too easy. The city management puzzles were hardly puzzles (mostly just waiting and answering peoples' prayers), and the platforming was very basic with hardly any challenge. You just ran, jumped, swung your sword and occasionally cast spells.
When Act Raiser 2 came out, the new platforming play style and intense challenge made it hard to miss the elements that had been discarded. In addition to the basic elements from the previous game (jumping, attacking and spells), you now had wings that enabled you to glide, dive, and do a whole assortment of new attacks and evasive maneuvers, as well as a shield you could use when standing still. The transition from a hybrid to a solid pure platformer was a good call in my opinion.

 

[MysticSlayer]

The Fallout games come to mind. Fallout 3 was almost nothing like the previous games, but I still felt that making it more "Oblivion with guns"[footnote]Yes, I am ripping off Far Cry 3 marketing[/footnote] was a good direction for the game as far as gameplay is concerned.

There's also Civilization V, which made some massive changes to the core gameplay of Civilization IV. It got rid of the stack of doom, gave hexagonal tiles, removed civics in place of social policies, added city states, and even changes a couple victory conditions. To me, the changes ultimately benefitted the game.

To some extent The Witcher 2 does make major changes to the core combat of The Witcher, but I can't really say that it improved the game. I actually thought the way all the systems worked together and got executed did more to harm the gameplay rather than improve it, but it at least showed some potential of being better and may turn out to be that way in the third game. It did give us the fight against Letho (the mandatory one), which was an incredible boss fight beyond anything the first game gave us. Too bad all the other bosses made me want to replay the annoying Hellhound fight from the first game.

 

[momijirabbit]

Jax 2 Kax X Jax X

YOU'RE TEARING ME APART!

OT: the first Ratchet and clank game from the second are pretty different, the first was primarily a platformer with some guns for defense, the second was a lot more action oriented with tighter controls and better gunplay, but has less platforming, not as little platforming as ACiT but that is another story...