Poll: Sequels... Goddamn sequels

[Valate_v1legacy]

It depends. You can have the tragedy of Spyro on one hand, and the miracle child Half-Life on the other.

 

[RedPandaMan]

It really does depend, but I usually like them as they are either more of the same fun or new and innovative.

The problem is the extremes. On one hand you get the magnificent of Diablo 2, and on the other you get Spyro.

 

[mrx19869]

socom 1& 2,Fallout 1 & 2, Manhunt 1& 2, and GTA,

 

[Tharwen]

Sequels are the same as original releases except that you have some idea about what they'll be like.

 

[McHampton]

More than half the games I actually own are sequels, so it seems I love them.

 

[NeutralDrow]

A game being a sequel has little to no bearing on its quality. It's always dependent on the amount of effort put into it and the success (or not) of any innovations thrown in.

 

[The_Shinigamer]

The one true point I feel needs to be made is: DON'T MAKE A GAME WITH A SEQUEL IN MIND. HALO 1 DIDN'T SUCK BUT 2 DID 'CAUSE THEY WEREN'T DONE. I don't like Halo at all anymore, but compare to Gears of War 1. Halo was complete. When you make a game made to be a series you release a game like Assassin's Creed which contains the worst most unfulfilling ending in gaming history. 'Nuff said.

 

[DreamingMerc]

This all depends on how we as the gaming community define the term sequel. Speaking in a manor of continuing an established game's story and taking anew spin or advancing the game play to give the layer a new experiencing with already established characters can be great for example Resident Evil 4, Metal Gear Solid 4 or in my opinion Far Cry 2. All of which demonstrations of not only can a sequel succeed but can surpass its origins.

Or are we speaking of a re-print of the same game with a slight graphical upgrade and a new character to kill off, now these titles can vary from decent games such as Halo 2 or Gears of War 2. But they can fall flat and only serve to show the impending collapse of a well loved series i.e Resident Evil 5 or for that matter Fabel 2. As I've stated not all releases of this caliber are shocked but leave at least this addict of electronic media feeling unfulfilled and cheated out of a fix.

 

[EzraPound]

Lots of the greatest games ever are sequels, and mostly those that added significantly to their respective franchises - Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Grand Theft Auto III, Super Mario 64, Half-Life 2, Super Mario Bros. 3, etc.

The fact a game is a 'sequel', in of itself, doesn't necessarily imply it will be redundant. What sucks is sequels that are redundant, or regressive: Deux Ex: The Invisible War, Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels, Metroid Prime 2: Echoes, etc.

Generally speaking, though, sequels can be lumped into four categories:

Major attempt at progression made; successful
- Zelda: A Link to the Past
- Zelda: Ocarina of Time
- Super Mario Bros. 3
- Super Mario 64
- Super Metroid
- Metroid Prime
- Grand Theft Auto III
- System Shock 2
- Half-Life 2

Major attempt at progression made; unsuccessful
- Sonic Adventure
- Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link
- Super Mario Bros. 2 (Doki Doki Panic, I know)
- Final Fight: Streetwise
- Street Fighter EX
- Mega Man Legends
- Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude
- Driv3r

Basic gameplay of earlier iteration reused; successful
- The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (to ALTTP)
- The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (to OoT)
- Super Mario World (to SMB3)
- Pokémon Gold/Silver (to Pokémon R/B)
- Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (to Sonic 1)
- Monkey Island 2: LeChuck's Revenge (to Monkey Island 1)
- Mega Man 3 (to Mega Man 2)

Basic gameplay of earlier iteration reused; unsucessful
- Twisted Metal III (to Twisted Metal II)
- Metroid II: The Return of Sames (to Metroid)
- Mega Man 5 (to Mega Man 4)
- Bomberman: Act Zero (to Bomberman - any, really)
- Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels (to SMB)
- Dynasty Warriors 5 (to Dynasty Warriors 4)
- DragonBall Z: Buu's Fury (to Legacy of Goku II)

 

[Woem]

It really depends on the game. I'm really grateful for Baldur's Gate 2 and I would love to see a sequel to Bioforge, Stonekeep, Planescape and Arcanum... But for instance Icewind Dale 2 was just a bit bigger and prettier. It wasn't bad, but it certainly wasn't a revelation.

 

[Osaka-chaness]

I don't hate sequels since a lot of games that have sequels actually see improvements like Jak 2, Ratchet and Clank 2, and Sly 2, but I DO hate sequels for games such as Halo because they're mostly made for the money. How often do we get sequels that are truly made "for the fans"? Rarely.

 

[Jekken6]

As long as it is better in more than two or three ways compared to it's predecessor that are noticeable.

 

[Commander Jack Rankin]

I voted Sometimes Good. Largely because of games like Silent Hill 2 and Mega Man 2, the kind of titles that are better than the originals.

 

[Kajt]

Sequels are sometimes good and sometimes bad. Depends on what the developer decides to change, add and keep in the game.

 

[C117]

Sequels aren't always about sucking cash. But the ones that are should be shot with a firebomb.

Agreed.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

Sequels to games that are good are fine. Halo 2 and 3, Modern Warfare 2, Mass Effect 2, all completely warranted and at least good, if not great games.

I have a problem with sequels that add nothing to the original or that are blatantly just trying to suck cash out of the consumer. This includes mostly sports games and Activision's plastic guitar ripoffs.

 

[Harlemura]

As long as the same people make the game, it'll carry on being good. That's what I've noticed, at least.
For example, the Crash Bandicoot series died to me as soon as Naughty Dog left it, but the first four games pretty much made my childhood.

 

[Zorg Machine]

I don't mind sequels. It continues a story that may not have been finished, or has a new story that plugs the holes of the old story.

So I like them, most of the time. [sup]*looks at FFX-2 with hatred burning in his eyes*[/sup]

FFX-2 is the only game I own that I truly despise

a lot of sequels are good though, Spiderman 2 was actually better than the first one (even though it wasn't that hard) and the Ratchet and Clank games improved with every game.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

I don't mind sequels. It continues a story that may not have been finished, or has a new story that plugs the holes of the old story.

So I like them, most of the time. [sup]*looks at FFX-2 with hatred burning in his eyes*[/sup]

Ugh, while I actually managed to enjoy FFX-2 for what it was. It irritated me immensely that this was not only the first true Final Fantasy sequel but additionally after such a well thought, emotionally and intriquing storylines that was largely considered outstanding. This is what they thought was a worthy continuation.

When I first heard of a FFX sequel I was thinking along the lines that perhaps something what amiss in Tidus' Zanarkand; I even began a script that the Guado Tormell in FFX was attempting to revive Seymour, who had merged now with Yu Yevon with the intention of heavily focusing on Tidus' world this time around and of course with the entire returning cast, not just two. There were so many available options to make an equally fantastic sequel and Square bombed it

Oh well, got that off my chest.

 

[Daedalus1942]

I have a question forum. How do you feel about sequels for video games? Do you think that trying to suck every last bit of cash out of a franchise is wrong, or that sequels can seriously improve on the original? I for one am starting to hate sequels. It seems like all popular games get a sequel. Left 4 Dead 2, Halo 3: ODST, CODMW:2. I'm not saying that sequels automatically ruin games, I'm saying that most we can do with out. What do you think?

I think that Left4Dead 2 is justified as it's a completely new setting, new characters, new maps, new enemies and so forth, but I agree that most games don't deserve a sequel, but I for one am looking forward to mass effect 2.