Worst gaming sequels?

[AndreyKva]

KEEP IN MIND THIS IS ALL JUST MY OPINION, THESE GAMES ARE ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE AND I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR YOUR OPINION ON THIS - I WILL TAG THE MOST UNPOPULAR OPINIONS IN CASE YOU'RE A FANBOY

- Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II

The first TFU was a good game. It fit the Star Wars universe, it had good gameplay, and in general, I was interested when I was playing it. TFU2, however, was soulless. I was expecting a fulfillment of the TFU1's potential, because, while it was a good game, it could have been better. TFU2 just stripped down the first game with boring levels, boring bosses, boring story, and in general, it was not a needed sequel. TFU1's ending was final. This game introduces a boring story about a clone and... I don't care.

- Crysis 2

The first game was basically a spiritual sequel to Far Cry, a game I hated. The stealth was almost impossible, the gunplay was floaty and the game was VERY difficult... on Easy difficulty. Crysis 1 introduced balance tweaks, bug fixes, further improved graphics, a nano-suit with cloaking that makes stealth functional and tight gameplay. There was some potential for improvement however. Crysis 2 does nothing about it, really. It just introduces streamlined, more linear gameplay and an alienating setting. Though I did grow to like the setting overtime. Still, I prefered the jungle.

- Fallout 3

(UNPOPULAR OPINION - GRAIN OF SALT)
Don't get me wrong, it's a good game, but it wasn't a good Fallout game. I'm not even sure it is a Fallout game at all. Bethesda spat on everything Fallout for this game and basically made Oblivion with guns. Traditionally, this included a lot of glitches. How is it not Fallout? It swapped the traditional Fallout hardcore RPG gameplay and witty writing with average action, average stealth, average survival, and average RPG experiences all combined. Oh, and the writing, not so witty. In fact, this game has boring writing for the most part. In Fallout 1 and 2, there was no voice acting but everyone still felt human because of the WRITING!!! In Fallout 3, average writing and average voice acting for the most part. Liam Neeson did a good job, but he also felt a little... off. Another thing is, action and consequence. Fallout 1 and 2 had a lot of choices and a lot of consequences. Fallout 3 swaps it out for a few major choices and some consequences. You might be thinking "quality over quantity." No. Fallout 1 and 2 had so many choices. But the thing is, not all of them were small. There were some pretty big choices. Fallout 3 shows just how streamlined a game has to be to sell copies these days. Last thing, Bethesda promised 200 endings for this game. Has anyone here finished Fallout 3?

- Deus Ex: The Fall

The name is enough. This game brings the whole Deus Ex name to shame, and when a game does that to one of the greatest franchises of all time, that really means something. It means that this is The Fall of Deus Ex. DX1 was for the hardcore PC crowd. DX2 was for the simpler console folk. DX3 managed to make a compromise. It didn't oversimplify the DX experience, but it still managed to streamline it for modern gamers and console players, and at the same time, still offered a rich, DX experience while doing something new. It had its own thing. DXF decided to simplify and limit the game for mobile players... WHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHY????!?!?!!?!?!??!? DX SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAD TO GO ON MOBILE WHY THE HELL!!! I was expecting the PC port to fix everything. No, it didn't. It kept the same issues, just at a higher resolution. All of the reasons this game sucks comes from the mobile limitations. Also, DX3 had pretty good voice acting. DXF... doesn't.

EDIT: Two more games

- Splinter Cell: Conviction

The first 4 games (yes, Double Agent, despite being inferior to the first three, counts) were hardcore stealth. With Conviction, they decided, you know what? How about we just abandon all the long-time fans of the franchise that have been waiting for this game for years (this game was delayed from 2007 to 2010) and make a generic, "okay" cover shooter with some stealth elements? The first 4 SCs were NOT about combat. They were about stealth and multiple approaches to different situations. Conviction, however, is about cover shooter combat with stealth elements (not the focus in the game, just something you can try, but it is pretty flawed) and only a single approach to each mission. Basically, try to sneak around, get noticed, shoot everyone's head off because the stealth isn't as functional and isn't as much of a focus as the first 4 SCs. Rinse and repeat.

- Saints Row: The Third

I loved Saints Row 2. It's still a game I play and is one of my favorite sandb- hell no, it's one of my favourite games of all time, in my top 10. Saints Row 1 was a pretty good game, for a GTA rip-off (due to the lack of GTA on the 7th gen at the time). Saints Row 2 was a competitor. It had more things to do than GTA IV and was more interesting in how it approached open-world freedom. Sadly, the sales didn't really back up the competition against the titan that was Saints Row 2. You know what Volition and THQ decided? Release a few trailers so that 12 year olds around the world would be intrigued by the... dildos. Saints Row 2 knew when to be silly and when to be serious. There were some hilarious moments in the game. And some seriously sad or outright epic ones. Unfortunately, none of that in SRTT. It just tries to dumb down its humour for sales, because hey, the only thing GTA lacked was dildos, right? Also, the gameplay was severely hampered. There are less things to do, Steelport is generally a boring and drab city and there just isn't much incentive to go back after a single playthrough of skimming over the main storyline. The difference between SR2 and SRTT is that, to this day, even after GTA V is released, I still play SR2, and I think it is a very strong game when compared to even GTA V (both are good in their own rights). SRTT checks neither of those boxes.

 

[Rayce Archer]

Jurassic Park, Rampage Edition. A sequel to the first Genesis Jurassic Park with worse graphics, worse music, and bewildering level design. Not much else to say.

Megaman 6. One of the last hurrah games of the NES era, but beset with forgettable enemies, boring colors, weapons that were just remixed from previous installments, criminally short levels, and tedious irritating music. No game in the series hit the gameplay nirvana of 2 or the graphic beauty of 4, but 6 was a hell of a way to say goodbye to the NES.

Megaman X4 and onward. Trading the awesome pixel-art and pitch-perfect platforming of the SNES series for crappy rendered backdrops, oddly mashed sprites, and short, frustrating levels, each PS1 Megaman X game is a tumbling step down from the last. 6 was barely even done and may be impossible to earn the good ending in purely based on random chance. Lousy anime cutscenes don't make up for any of it either.

Age of Empires 3. Moving from hundreds of units and miles of terrain to a dozen or so troops fighting over a map the size of a small town was bad enough, the tiny handful of euro-centric factions was the icing on a disappointing cake. Although each expansion bettered the game until it was pretty worthwhile, that still means you had to pay $110 for a game as complex as its bargain-bin predecessor.

Fallout Tactics. Fallout 2 is one of the best Western RPGs of all time, and Tactics looked really promising- same style but more colorful, smoother, and with better combat controls. But it wasn't really an RPG, just a tactical combat game. And as a Jagged Alliance clone in Fallout Land it was okay, but I could never shake the feeling it was just another fallout game that nobody wanted to bother with writing or quests in.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I'm thinking and I'm really only coming up with two. Suikoden IV and...and...DAMMIT! What as the other one?! Right, Xenosaga Episode II.

Suikoden IV just lacked the magic from the previous (and following) games. The characters were dull, with many of them being nothing but re-skins. I know this has been done before, but it seemed like way too many in this case. None of them stood out to me. There were none that I went, "Oh man, he or she is going to be a mainstay in my party from now one!" The storyline was unmemorable because I cannot remember what it was about, while I can still recall all the other main games to this day. The color pallet was faded, so nothing seemed to pop. And then there was all the water, which sucked out a lot of the exploration of the game.

Xenosaga II shifted the focus of the story away from the main cast and focused almost exclusively on Junior. I didn't really care for his character in the first place, but when the game turned into "Junior: the backstory" it became a real slog to get through. Throw in the sudden art change and the drastically different combat system, and the game was a pain for me to get through. Thankfully, they listened to the criticism and addressed all of them in the next game. Unfortunately, the next game was the last, leaving a lot of loose ends.

 

[Elfgore]

Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War II: The first Dawn of War was fantastic. You build a bunch of cool units up and then sent them to die against the enemy. The second game, tried to copy Company of Heroes and become more of a squad-based game. Unit caps were terrible, squads had a shit ton of micro-managing, and everything else was just shit. Not the sequel Dawn of War deserved.

The Sims 4: It took me five minutes to figure out how to start the game. It took me an hour to build my house. They decided the less interface the better and it just shits all over itself.

Supreme Commander 2: First game had dozens of units, second game does not.

 

[TheGamerElite33]

Crysis 2: less suit powers, less freedom, more linear etc
Deus Ex 2: ruined everything that make original masterpiece. HR save the series but nowhere near original thought
Splinter cell conviction: gone from stealth series to action adventure
Thief 4: nowhere near deep and complex as thief 1/2. and is terrible game
Hitman absolution: no longer stealth game. just another action game
COD4-onwards: COD1/uo were decent. but 4-onwards describe how not to make FPS

i could go on and on

Majority of time sequel ruined because of consolization. every franchise went to console turn into bad.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

Shadow Man 2.

The first game was fucking fantastic. Had an oustanding atmosphere with an excellent setting. African mythology and voodoo is really unrepresented in video games, so putting it into a grim, moody game like that just worked so well. Then came the much less-serious and somewhat arcadey Shadow Man 2 and.. yep. Too bad that it ended that series before it truly began. Oh well, the first game is still an underground classic.

Vietcong 2.

The first Vietcong was a rough game, I'll admit. It had its flaws and could get buggy, but man was it a great attempt at a military FPS. Instead of sending hordes of enemies at you, with you gunning them all down, it tried to be a lot more tense. The chopper would put you and your team on the ground, you'd consult your map, get your North Vietnamese pointman up in front leading the way through the jungle keeping an eye out for traps and VC ambushes. The firefights were short but absolutely fucking intense. When shit hit the fan, you really felt the pressure. There was no regenerating health nor was there arcadey med kits hidden around. Instead you screamed for your medic when you got shot and hoped to hell he made it over to your position in time. After each major action, you'd report back to HQ via the radio, alerting them on the ongoing status of your mission as you made your way through the jungle to the objectives. The enemy was nobodies fool either, using the foliage to conceal themselves and firing upon you from ambush, and retreating if your squad was getting the upper hand. Man what a fucking great game.

Then Vietcong 2 came along, set it in an urban environment and threw the hordes of enemies at you, throwing all the cool shit the first game had out the window. Too bad, man.

 

[Yuiiut]

Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War II: The first Dawn of War was fantastic. You build a bunch of cool units up and then sent them to die against the enemy. The second game, tried to copy Company of Heroes and become more of a squad-based game. Unit caps were terrible, squads had a shit ton of micro-managing, and everything else was just shit. Not the sequel Dawn of War deserved.

If that comment was meant to imply the last expansion to Dawn of War did anything but break the game into a thousand tiny pieces, you are sorely mistaken.
Yup, my choice is Dawn of War: Soulstorm. Not a standalone game as such, but considering the other expansions, which added new factions, races, units and maps it was terrible. The only units it added was air units, which could ignore all the terrain and hard work in map design, along with a campaign with an open memory leak so that even 5 years later, a modern computer could take up to 10 minutes to load the campaign, which is the same campaign as the previous sequel, but with more terrible map design and voice acting.

 

[Ando85]

Dino Crisis 2 - The first Dino Crisis was an excellent survival horror game. Resident Evil with Dinosaurs instead of zombies. Sadly they quickly took the direction that Resident Evil did eventually making it a run of the mill action game.

Far Cry 2 - I absolutely loved the original Far Cry on PC. Probably one of my favorite single player FPS campaigns I've ever played. Naturally I was excited for Far Cry 2 and was met with a lot of disappointment. The concept of free roam was very exciting, yet was likely the game's downfall. Save locations were spaced too far apart. The enemys took way too many shots to kill and traveling just became a chore after awhile. Luckily FC3 was far improved and I expect FC4 to be just as good or better. But out of all of them I still prefer the first.

Now the next game isn't necessarily bad, but I felt it lacked what I loved so much from the first game.

Maximo vs Army of Zin - Although this game looked better, had more polish, and was altogether smoother in terms of gameplay it was just way too damn easy compared to Ghosts to Glory. Ghosts to Glory was pretty challenging which is reminiscent of its tough as nails NES roots Ghosts N' Goblins. Ghosts to Glory was really rewarding to finish and I felt like I had accomplished something. Soon afterward I played vs Army of Zin and just breezed through the game. I still vividly remember playing Ghosts to Glory over 10 years ago, but barely remember Army of Zin whatsoever.

 

[Racecarlock]

Burnout Paradise. Showtime mode can't ever hope to come close to what crash mode was. In crash mode, you not only had a damage tally, but a replay so you could watch it again. Revenge and Takedown also had the awesome crashbreakers. Burnout Paradise? No such thing. There is no reason it needed to be open world, and it seems to have suffered a lot of cuts for it. I still like it because you can crash your car all day without losing any gold medals or stars, but it lacks the spirit of the two games that came before it. And that's a shame.

 

[Jimmy T. Malice]

I agree with your opinion on Fallout 3. I played New Vegas first and couldn't even bear to play to the end of Fallout 3 because of the bad writing and lack of interesting quests (or sidequests in general, actually).

 

[AndreyKva]

I agree with your opinion on Fallout 3. I played New Vegas first and couldn't even bear to play to the end of Fallout 3 because of the bad writing and lack of interesting quests (or sidequests in general, actually).

FINALLY someone agrees. I saw a lot of people put New Vegas into their "worst sequels" list. So many false Fallout fans out there... I don't even get those complaints. NV had better writing, better side quests, more content, gameplay improvements, lighting improvements (mostly noticeable in the Strip) and a much more realistic environment and more interesting environments, as well as removing the black-and-white morals from the wasteland, because in reality, in an environment like Fallout, everything would just be a shade of grey.

 

[b.w.irenicus]

I agree. New Vegas is actually one of my favourite games of last gen. But I guess if your just in for the open world and sandbox, FO3 might be better.

My pick ist Hitman: Absolution. Its not bad per se, but such a letdown after the amazing Blood Money.

 

[Kyrian007]

Resident Evil 5... 6. Don't get me wrong, RE 3 was pretty disapointing. But 4 improved on the formula so much I was realling looking forward to 5. Then there was the dagger of death for 5 that was the "adding multiplayer" announcement. Which is a feature in a supposed survival/horror title that no one asked for, EVER. The game had several other glaring flaws, but multiplayer was the big one. When you remove content (RE 5 seemed to be 3/4 the content of RE 4) to add a feature no one wants... that's a recipe for worst sequel ever. And 6... just a train wreck all round.

I agree. New Vegas is actually one of my favourite games of last gen. But I guess if your just in for the open world and sandbox, FO3 might be better.

Exactly right b.w. I DID prefer FO 3 to NV for that exact reason. Easier to ignore the main story and forge my own canon in 3 than NV.

Spoiler

Example, where was the choice to go full on Follower without resorting to A: kill House or B: kill the Brotherhood. I had gone through all of Ronnie's quests and reconciled her with the Brotherhood. I had convinced them to marshall the wastelands and help keep the Mojave safe. And I was going to side with the Followers as opposed to the Legions or the NCR, meaning I had to side with House, Benny, or take over myself. Benny's right out and House asks you to kill the Brotherhood. All that's left is to take over for yourself... I felt pretty shoehorned into what I felt was the only (really) good ending.

 

[Hawki]

Others I could name, but I'll stick to ones I've actually played. Most of these I wouldn't call bad games, but I do consider them as failing to live up to their predecessors in some form, or setting a new precedent for their series in a negative manner:

Command and Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight: Fuck. This. Game. I'm a bit more generous to it than most I think - I liked elements of the story at least. But the gameplay was slow, shallow, and even if this wasn't a C&C game, a series that based itself on base building and economy management, I wouldn't dislike said gameplay any less.

Gears of War 3: Not a bad game, and I hold it as being superior to 'Judgment', but as a followup to 'Gears of War 2'...nah. Not exactly a stellar entry. Story was haphazard, the Lambent just weren't that interesting to fight, and too often control was out of the player's hands and/or challenge removed.

Golden Sun: Dark Dawn: By no means the "worst" sequel. In fact, I consider it a bona fide good game. But it's a game I never felt was necessary for the series, the plot was weak, and the sense of exploration felt lacking. Certainly improvements existed (the worldbuilding), but overall, I consider it the weakest in the series.

Half-Life 2: Episode 1. Half-Life 2 I consider to be "okay." Episode 2 I consider to be excellent. Episode 1? Bad. It's a corridor shooter and little else.

Halo 4: Not the worst in the series - that honour goes to 'ODST'. But, well, I'll say this - H4 was 343's chance to show that it could make a 'Halo' game. They didn't. They made an okay game. But lets see...corridors instead of open spaces? Check. Unbalanced weapons? Check. Uninteresting enemies? Check. A vapid antagonist? Check. H4 signaled the start of something new, and that was the beginning of the end of the series. Maybe H5 will help the series get its mojo back, but I'm not counting on it.

Perfect Dark Zero: Alright, a prequel rather than a sequel, but, well, anyone who played 'Perfect Dark' would call this a letdown. Clunky controls? Check. Lacklusture story? Check. That sinking feeling of Rare now working for Microsoft, signaling the beginning of the end? Check.

Ugh.

Resident Evil 5: I don't consider RE5 to be bad. By all rights the "series breaking" installment probably goes to RE6, but as I'm keeping this list to games I've actually played, I can't include that. But RE5 did feel...well, off. RE4 incorporated action elements, but still felt like a survival horror game, and I hold it as my favourite in the series. RE5 however, started letting those action elements take over. If the series had ended there, I would have been satisfied - with Wesker's death, I didn't feel the series needed to be continued. RE5 was fun, but it did signal a change in direction for the series that is part of the reason why I never picked up its sequel.

Sonic the Hedgehog (2006): Not the last Sonic title I picked up. But while 'Shadow the Hedgehog' was average at best, I was at least able to complete. Its next installment? No. Just no. It's not the worst STH game I've ever played (that honor goes to 'Secret Rings'), but 2006 has left a legacy for me that I've yet to recover from ('Unleashed' was the last game for the series I ever picked up, and I never completed that one either).

Soul Calibur IV: It's hard to say why this failed to captivate me like the earlier installments. The story felt barebones, but so had SC1 and 2, and that didn't grate me the same way. Dunno. For whatever reason, SCIV didn't do what the previous games had managed to for me.

Star Fox Command: Y'know what? I liked Adventures, even if it was "Zelda lite." I liked Assault, even if the ground sections were tedious. But no. I don't like 'Command.' Its controls are needlessly difficult (no, I don't like using a touchscreen to fly my Arwing), the story was wretched, and the characters were vapid. 'Command' somehow takes every aspect of 'Lylat Wars' that was a positive (paths, all-range mode), and turns it into a negative.

Dawn of War: Dark Crusade. DoW 1 I liked. I hold the lies of 'StarCraft', 'Warcraft', and 'Command and Conquer' above it, but hey, it was fun. 'Winter Assault' I never completed, but the basis was solid. 'Dark Crusade' took a sledgehammer to any sense of narrative campaign, simply doing its own version of 'Risk.' I'd be more pissed if I'd had to pay more than $5 for it. But while I was never that invested in the series, 'Dark Crusade' pretty much neutered any remaining interest I had in it.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Dino Crisis 2 - The first Dino Crisis was an excellent survival horror game. Resident Evil with Dinosaurs instead of zombies. Sadly they quickly took the direction that Resident Evil did eventually making it a run of the mill action game.

I'm gonna have to thoroughly disagree with you on that one.

With the first Dino Crisis (along with RE: Code Veronica) Capcom made the baffling decision to get rid of the prerendered backgrounds, BUT retain the set camera angles. Those camera angles and the tank controls in previous Resi games was the price we paid for the highly detailed and atmospheric backdrops. And then Capcom thought it was a good idea to take away the one benefit this play style had, and instead opt for you having to walk through poorly rendered cement-grey environments... with tank controls and a static camera.

And that freaking code disc nonsense... Oy...

DC2 thankfully went back to prerendered and just focused on giving you a good time blasting dinosaurs.

 

[carnex]

Not gona repeat old ones so

Master of Orion 3 - Although not a bad game it was so time consuming and demanded player to get used to it's unique logic that made no sense- MOO2 was one of the best 4X games ever. MOO3 was a disappointment for all but most diehard fans.

Double Dragon III - The Rosetta stone - After first two games all fans could say was "WTF is this shit"

Metal Slug 4,5 - Not really bad games, just bland shooters that followed series that went from great to enforgetable with each sequel until 3 and than... bland and forgetful run'n'gun...

Final Fantasy X-2 - I'm in minority that toght X was just meh but X-2 was something especially bad. Second time i heard "dissasteriffic" i just said "I give up"

Final Fantasy XIII - Urgh, its so booooooooring, story is so suuuuuuupid, characters are... i don't even have a word for them. And I liked FF XII.

Fallout: Brotehrhood of Steel for PS2/XBOX - Bad gameply, ugly design, Fallout and Slipknot and Killswitch Engage - this is basically the only game that made me want to barf out any memories of it i had! They literarily killed anything that had to do with Fallout when they made this game.

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

Devil May Cry 2

Surprised to see this one hasn't been mentioned yet. It was much worse than both its predecessor and any of the games that came after it in every conceivable way. An atrocious game not only as a sequel but on its own merits as well.

 

[Rubblemaker]

The new Castlevania game, Lords of Shadow 2. I loved LOS1 and thought 2 sounded awesome with its open world setting and playing as Dracula. To start off it was ok, nowhere near as epic as LOS1 but, ok. I could even overlook having to turn into a rat to get past dudes I should have been able to just flick over with my little finger.

Then I got to the Goat Maze. The f***ing goat maze. That is where my time with LOS2 came to an unspectacularly bored end. The dev's of that game should be water boarded for that level alone.

 

[Rastrelly]

PLAIN BADS (read "just disappointing"):
Crysis as idealogical successor to FarCry
Bioshock 2 was just boring
Master of Orion 3 was overcomplicated where it shouldn't and undercomplicated where it shouldn't
Fallout 3 is Oblivion with guns, not Fallout. I'm talking game philosophy here, not mechanics.
Deus Ex: IW. Console releases... Why make them without proper technical base?
Mass Effect 2 has too

OMGWHATFOR? (read "seriously disappointing")
Dragon Age 2. Needed an additional year of polising.
Majesty 2. It was a mediocre game, not deserving the name it got.
Might&Magic X. Another case of mediocrity and bed design under glorious banner.
DOW: Soulstorm. Only deepened problems with Dark Crusade and spawned lots of its own problems.

GAMING M********R DO YOU KNOW IT?! (read "this was reeeeeally a bad idea")
C&C4. WHYYYY?!
Mass Effect 3. Killed Mass Effect universe for me.
HoMMVI (oh, sorry, MMHVI). This is what happens when you take all the meat from TBS flesh.
New Thief. Not only it's a reboot, it's a rather bad one.
New Tomb Raider. For me - pure disappointment, ferociously lame experience of adequate gameplay which is entirely inappropriate in Tomb Raider game.

 

[maxben]

I'm going to go somewhat obscure Baten Kaitos Origins. Reasons why it was worse than the first game Baten Kaitos: Eternal Wings and the Lost Ocean

-The art style was boring. Dark browns and greys. The first game was very very colourful.
-Uninteresting main characters and no choice with them. In the first game, yes the voice acting was endearingly atrocious, but the playable characters were interesting. In the second they were all just bland.
-The new card system was ridiculously unintuitive and uninteresting. By putting everything into one deck and removing elemental damage, they fundamentally broke a system that was actually a lot of fun. The old system had great combo potential and secrets, and all that depth was removed. However, a lack of depth did not make it easier or simpler, it actually obfuscated the goals of deck building completely.
-Did the playable cards change over time? I can't even remember, but that can be because of the limits of the one deck system as well.

I got half way through the game and just couldn't take it anymore. It is so sad because it had a lot of potential and I blame this game for why we haven't seen a third in the series.