Sequelitis cured
- Thread starter Cranyx
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I've never met somebody who likes the X-men movies and prefers the first X-men movie to X-men 2.
They do need to streamline the HMs, but I think the games have been improving each generation.canadamus_prime said:
There are always good sequels and there always will be.
I like to call them necessary sequels.
Something where the story didn't finish is a prime example. You can't tackle an epic in one book/movie (You can tackle an epic in one game but what ever developers need jobs too)
The difficult part in that scenario is walking the line between "bullshity cliff hanger" and "nicely rapped up"
It's hard to have a satisfying end that offers closure while leaving an opening for a sequel.
Lord of the Rings did a good job even though I didn't like those movies.
The trick to a trilogy is that one of them has to be enjoyable as a stand alone. otherwise you get bored around the end of the second one and then a scene with a giant spider makes you turn the TV off and shit your self.
anyway where were we, oh yeah sequelitis. For the most part books are the best examples of good sequelage. My favorite series has 9 400 page books in it. I don't think I'd bee so kind to it if it was one 3600 page door stop.
Movies and games have the problem of costing a lot of money and therefore needing to make a lot of money. That's why you see series's like Fast and the Furious and Call of Duty that never change from iteration to iteration and consistently make more money than god.
I Don't know how to fix that really. Maybe but a cap on how many titles can be tied to any IP?
Nothing can go higher than a a trilogy, maybe. I mean, can you name a part 4 that was any good.(asides from Resident Evil)
back to the initial question a sequel that surpassed the original? well Jak 2 is (IMO) is the best sequel in existence.
Silent Hill 2, the good ol' standby answer from your friendly neighborhood gaming elitist.
For movies it's hard for me to think of a movie that blew it's immediate predecessor out of the water (That hasn't been mentioned already). Was The Dark Knight a sequel to Batman Begins? If so then that would get my vote.
I didn't actually think Godfather 2 was better than The Godfather.
There are a myriad of part 3's that were better than part 2's. The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest was infinity better than The Girl Who Played With Fire
Pirates of the Caribbean 3 was better than 2
Most books surpass their originals but the first one that comes to mind is Speaker For the Dead is better than Ender's Game
EDIT) Aliens. Of course I'd think of that 10 seconds after I click post. Aliens is another stellar sequel.
I like to call them necessary sequels.
Something where the story didn't finish is a prime example. You can't tackle an epic in one book/movie (You can tackle an epic in one game but what ever developers need jobs too)
The difficult part in that scenario is walking the line between "bullshity cliff hanger" and "nicely rapped up"
It's hard to have a satisfying end that offers closure while leaving an opening for a sequel.
Lord of the Rings did a good job even though I didn't like those movies.
The trick to a trilogy is that one of them has to be enjoyable as a stand alone. otherwise you get bored around the end of the second one and then a scene with a giant spider makes you turn the TV off and shit your self.
anyway where were we, oh yeah sequelitis. For the most part books are the best examples of good sequelage. My favorite series has 9 400 page books in it. I don't think I'd bee so kind to it if it was one 3600 page door stop.
Movies and games have the problem of costing a lot of money and therefore needing to make a lot of money. That's why you see series's like Fast and the Furious and Call of Duty that never change from iteration to iteration and consistently make more money than god.
I Don't know how to fix that really. Maybe but a cap on how many titles can be tied to any IP?
Nothing can go higher than a a trilogy, maybe. I mean, can you name a part 4 that was any good.(asides from Resident Evil)
back to the initial question a sequel that surpassed the original? well Jak 2 is (IMO) is the best sequel in existence.
quoted for truth.The-Bad-Blooded said:
Silent Hill 2, the good ol' standby answer from your friendly neighborhood gaming elitist.
For movies it's hard for me to think of a movie that blew it's immediate predecessor out of the water (That hasn't been mentioned already). Was The Dark Knight a sequel to Batman Begins? If so then that would get my vote.
I didn't actually think Godfather 2 was better than The Godfather.
There are a myriad of part 3's that were better than part 2's. The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest was infinity better than The Girl Who Played With Fire
Pirates of the Caribbean 3 was better than 2
Most books surpass their originals but the first one that comes to mind is Speaker For the Dead is better than Ender's Game
EDIT) Aliens. Of course I'd think of that 10 seconds after I click post. Aliens is another stellar sequel.
I don't know, I "retired" after Diamond/Pearl. Actually I couldn't even finish Diamond.starwarsgeek said:
I just think it's gotten ridiculous. You have very few Pokemon that are purely one type anymore and more than a few of them can learn moves that are not of their type, so the whole type alignment thing is pretty much rendered mute. For example you might run across a rock type mon, or a trainer with such, so you whip out your grass type mon to counter only to get smacked with Flamethrower- whaa?
Starcraft 2 not because its better then starcraft 1 but because its actually the same thing but like HammerOJ said its only difference is ui and ai. Howerver it actually didnt ride the shockwave of followers from starcraft 1 that everyone thinks it did. Ive had SC2 since it came out and ive met more people that havent playd then have
Whilst Ultimatum spent several hundred pages going "I'm old... so old. Only 80% superhuman now. Being old sucks."TheKruzdawg said:
Star Wars: Episode 5 was better than episode 4. 4 was better than 3 (if that counts). 3 was better than 2. 2 was better than 1. So from this we can see that the prequel trilogy were deliberately worse, to make it seem that each chronological sequel was better
Definitely, also on that note, First Class is supposed to be the best in the series so far. Not that I've seen it though, since my local theatre is run by IDIOTS.Queen Michael said:
Besides that, all the obvious examples have been taken, the Dark Knight, Assassin's Creed 2, Half-life 2, Saint's Row 2. I would debate the Godfather 2's superiority though, while the flashback sequences with Robert De Niro were enjoyable I found the main story to be slow, boring, and a tiny bit confusing.
And my own contribution, Blade 2. Better than the first, didn't take itself quite as seriously, had Guillermo Del Toro at the helm, and despite the lack of AMAZING one-liners, it's still the better movie.
It was kind of let down. Although I do wish the movies had followed the books more closely though.J03bot said:
The Mega Man Zero series surpassed Mega Man X, which surpassed the original.
Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door surpassed Paper Mario 64.
Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo surpassed Street Fighter 2
Shadow Over Mystara is way better than Tower of Doom.
Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door surpassed Paper Mario 64.
Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo surpassed Street Fighter 2
Shadow Over Mystara is way better than Tower of Doom.
After coming down with a very serious case of sequelitis with number two, Devil May Cry shook the disease off with number three. It then got a mild flare up with number four, and is set to die horrifically from it with number 5.
Ah how very mature of you to call me a brat when you seem to suffer from inability to understand that people might have different standards, views and opinion.Hammeroj said:
I think you do not even use Bnet 2 to its full degree.
If you want to create custom map and ask people to join it, you can, just create game and send out a invitation. If the maps is brand new, it can be found with the "Fun or Not" function.
Also social aspect? Whats wrong with it? I can contact people who are on my friends list and they can contact me, no matter what bnet game they play. You saying that is a bad thing, that people should be unable to contact each other from different games as whole? I think you do not understand the usability of the friend list since you apparently do not have friends on it. If you would, you would understand how good it is.
So you are saying that the fact that cellphones are good is universal and objective. I think you do not fully understand what objective means, long as something has a variable called "human" in it, it is subjective. By your logic the fact that Internet is bad because you see it is bad and flawed, is universal no matter if other people see past those issues and can find its potential to be used. You are saying that another opinion doesn't exist.
And yes you are hater, you hate Bnet system as whole and you hate those who see its potential and use it, you are hater, since far as I know your opinion is not universal and perfect. If it would be, you would be able to see the good sides of the system, you opinion is from one viewpoint with a single perspective and you deny the fact that you might see something different if you would be willing to change your perspective.
So you are saying that the fact that blizzard found a way to connect all their new games in to a one united platform is a bad thing and deserves no merit for it technology or for the fact that it works.
Does a game system have to have a cross region system? You got to admit that having working ladder that counts every region on the world would mean that all languages and versions of the game has to be compatible with each other, that every player should have equal connectivity in the games, that would mean that everyone who plays the game has to have same latency and responding rate. So that would mean when I and my friends play together on 1v1v1v1, your latency on the game should be the same if I would be playing against someone who is playing in Korea or In America. Also the old Bnet was region exclusive, you could play in one region at the time. Granted the fact that you need to buy full-price game if you want to play in America or Korea is kinda dull.
Also if it would be world wide server system, then maintenance updates and all other changes would have to happen everywhere at the same time, not on the low population time. EU updates at Wednesday from 4-11 gmt+1, this would mean that if every region would be updated the same time that would mean that atleast 2 regions would be shutdown during their peak hour. Updates in to worldwide system must be made at the same time or there will issues between clients. Also I personally like playing amongst Europeans, I do not want to play with Americans or Korean people. Also the fact that we have region specific ladders make things like regional tournaments and leadership easy to track.
Does it have to have LAN? I do not see LAN to be anything useful if we are able to connect to and play from anywhere with anyone. Why does it have to have Lan? Can you give me a reason that isn't from single perspective, aka yours, are you able to understand other views than your and then be able to form an argument that is universal and not bias towards your own agenda.
Also, no one is forcing you to use Bnet, it is up to you, if you do not like Bnet, do not use it. But you must realize that there are people who like the system. Example: I hate 3G networks, they are horrid shitty have bad quality and are constantly crowded, also they are full of security holes that can possibly ruin your life, does this mean that every 3G network IN THE WORLD is shit and that everyone on the world things they are shit. No... That is called subjectivity, this is my opinion from my perspective. Objectivity is when there can be only one perspective, from which a object that is being inspected can only be inspected.
Also, stop being immature, the fact that you hate Bnet doesn't mean it is shit. I hate alcohol and tobacco, that doesn't mean that everyone hates them or should hate them.
Agreed, in all manner of agreeable ways.CRRPGMykael said:
Also Terminator 2 is better than Terminator. Aliens has already been said so I'll just agree to that. Harry Potter peaked somewhere around the middle. I'm just trying to think through my film collection now. I guess I preferred X-men 2 to the rest of the trilogy, but we could all argue about that until the cows come home, they were all really good films.
Well, TF1 was a Quake mod - Team Fortress Classic was that mod remade for Half-Life. Point still holds thoughfranconbean said:
- Baldur's Gate 2 improved greatly over the original by expanding the world and the NPCs to feel rich and detailed.
- Gears of War 2 removed a lot of the really annoying things from the first - awkward bosses, frustrating runs through darkness, and tidied up the co-op.