Poll: "Sequels" that butcher the previous games

[SpartanBlackman]

Some games have a great backstory, have amazing characters and plot, but then the series dies. Later, it gets revived with a sequel, but EVERYTHING is wrong. One character might be different, it might be a different genre of game (XCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM)or they might completely kill the characters from the originals and make the whole thing different. These don't have to be bad though. What are your thoughts on reviving dead series and changing parts of it?
(Talking about FO3, DMC, TOR, Xcom ect...)
Personally, I really don't like them. I think that if games are going to be different than the years old prequel, just use a new name.
But what do you think?

 

[lord.jeff]

I like Fallout3, haven't played the new Devil May Cry, and don't know the other two. I've played a lot of good sequels and a lot of bad original titles, just because it's a remake/sequel is no reason to say it sucks, try the game then judge it.

 

[AlternatePFG]

Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. (Not Tactics, the other one.) For those who complain that Fallout 3 was bad, I just point them towards this, and say it could have been much, much worse.

 

[Bambi On Toast]

So you're complaining that these sequels are too DIFFERENT from the previous entry, and should be called a different name.

Most of us complain that sequels are too SIMILAR to the previous game, and are made purely to generate as much profit as possible.

We just can't win can we.

I find sequels fine as long as enough things are added/changed/improved. My problem with the last few Call of Duty sequels is that they have not innovated enough and they should not have been made.

Sequels in series with a strong emphasis on story should be fine, as long as they continue the story in new and interesting ways.

 

[SpartanBlackman]

So you're complaining that these sequels are too DIFFERENT from the previous entry, and should be called a different name.

Most of us complain that sequels are too SIMILAR to the previous game, and are made purely to generate as much profit as possible.

We just can't win can we.

I find sequels fine as long as enough things are added/changed/improved. My problem with the last few Call of Duty sequels is that they have not innovated enough and they should not have been made.

Sequels in series with a strong emphasis on story should be fine, as long as they continue the story in new and interesting ways.

When a long standing RPG is turned into an MMO or an FPS, you think thats a good thing? Imagine if Sonic was turned into a gritty 3rd person shooter... err... that DIDN't suck and it caught on. Would you like every Sonic game to be a 3rd person shooter? Do you want Rayman to remain a party game? Changing the game is good, but removing one of the most Iconic video game characters, doing what bioware did to the KOTOR cast or making sequels FPS's is crossing the line in my opinion.

 

[SidingWithTheEnemy]

I think World of Warcraft utterly ruined the entire previous Warcraft series. I can't even mention Khadgar, Medivh, Uther Lightbringer or almighty Gul'dan in public without being associated with THAT THING. Those were my childhood idols, my heroes and now Blizzard ruined everything... I'm going to sit in the Corner and cry rivers of sadness...

My very first internet adress had the name khadgar in it. Can't you understand? I was a f*cking fanboy and growing up to realizing what WoW is and did just killed off some not so small part of my soul.

I'm sorry if you WoW gamedudes feel offended, but I just need a hanky now... *sniff*

 

[Bambi On Toast]

So you're complaining that these sequels are too DIFFERENT from the previous entry, and should be called a different name.

Most of us complain that sequels are too SIMILAR to the previous game, and are made purely to generate as much profit as possible.

We just can't win can we.

I find sequels fine as long as enough things are added/changed/improved. My problem with the last few Call of Duty sequels is that they have not innovated enough and they should not have been made.

Sequels in series with a strong emphasis on story should be fine, as long as they continue the story in new and interesting ways.

When a long standing RPG is turned into an MMO or an FPS, you think thats a good thing? Imagine if Sonic was turned into a gritty 3rd person shooter... err... that DIDN't suck and it caught on. Would you like every Sonic game to be a 3rd person shooter? Do you want Rayman to remain a party game? Changing the game is good, but removing one of the most Iconic video game characters, doing what bioware did to the KOTOR cast or making sequels FPS's is crossing the line in my opinion.

Oh yeah, I agree with that. Changing the genre of the game is a bit extreme. I wouldn't buy Halo if they turned it into some kind of RTS. Imagine how stupid a Halo RTS would be....

Reboots of old franchises are always going to be difficult to get right. You want to please the older fans, and also attract new players. I saw the trailer for the new "The Thing" movie and I am a bit worried to say the least. The sequel (or prequel?) to one of my favourite old horror movies might turn out to be a terrible american jump-flick.

 

[SpartanBlackman]

I think World of Warcraft utterly ruined the entire previous Warcraft series. I can't even mention Khadgar, Medivh, Uther Lightbringer or almighty Gul'dan in public without being associated with THAT THING. Those were my childhood idols, my heroes and now Blizzard ruined everything... I'm going to sit in the Corner and cry rivers of sadness...

My very first internet adress had the name khadgar in it. Can't you understand? I was a f*cking fanboy and growing up to realizing what WoW is and did just killed off some not so small part of my soul.

I'm sorry if you WoW gamedudes feel offended, but I just need a hanky now... *sniff*

It feels so bad that a some great RTS game will never get a good sequel, just the old names rehashed and destroyed in order to make money.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

I can't say much, only think about how terrible Duke Nukem Forever was.

 

[Substitute Troll]

For fucks sake Bioware, if you're claiming that TOR is KotOR 3, 4 and 5 etc; atleast make it worthy of that. Don't use a monthly subscription for something that we have been waiting for for ages. Don't make us play with 8 year olds who play Jedi Knights named xxObeiWaanKaenoibixx, and for fucks sake, let Obsidian do it! (probs EA's fault but still...)

 

[DELETETHISACCOUNT]

I remember how disappointed I was with Prince of Persia Warrior Within. Sands of Time was so damn good that I bought WW on release day. Sure, it had some improvements but the shift in tone just ruined it for me. However, I've left that behind me now. I just pretend like it never happened.

 

[Andy Beaumont]

i know some disagree, but red steel 1 was a good game.... i genuinely enjoyed it... red steel 2 however... completely unrelated. wtf.

 

[Phlakes]

Metroid Prime.

So basically, there's nothing wrong with the idea. Just because a universe is presented in one genre doesn't mean it should be limited to it.

 

[dickywebster]

Games where they make sequels a decade after the last one, it does depend, or just sequels generally.
If its like say fallout 3 where its a reimagining of the series with new game play and ideas but with the core of the old games still there, then fair enough, they work well.
If its ones made cause the last one did well and they want to make money off the brand, then they tend to be terrible.
As are sequels made purely because the brand or previous one sold well, see silent hill, cod, halo etc for examples of this.

So in all, sequels arent bad, its the intentions behind them that are and are what tends to royally mess up any game made with the intent to make money off a brand or series rather than make a good game.
Change isnt always needed, but sequels made with too little gameplay changes and setting just feel kinda stale, i personally love fallout 3, but arent too sure about NV as it just feels like too much of the same.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Damn it! I voted in the Poll without actually reading the Poll question; I just went by the thread title. Oh well I do hate reboots, in all their forms. 10 year later sequels though, I don't mind though, after I liked Fallout 3, but then I always said Fallout would have been awesome if done in first person like Morrowind (and later Oblivion).
I usually don't mind changes to genre or gameplay, as long as it works or isn't too terribly drastic. What does tend to get on my nerves though is when they start buttfucking the established cannon, which is why I hate reboots.

 

[Monkeybald]

It's been said 100 times, but Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts comes to mind. Still fun for its own reasons, but still didn't change my initial WTF reaction when it was announced.

 

[Avaholic03]

Starcraft 2 was pretty damn good, and quite similar to the original despite being more than 10 years later. This is one of the few good examples I can think of, but it's why I voted that I judge each individually.