Are sequels ever really worse than the originals?
- Thread starter migo
- Start date
Twisted Metal 4<TM3<TM1<TM2
Oh and FF4<ff5< ..... that part's sorta flamebait, but I'm just saying there's definitely a progression of awesomeness that transcends numbers for certain series. I'm not saying OP is wrong, I'm saying it's not always the way you say it is.
Oh and FF4<ff5< ..... that part's sorta flamebait, but I'm just saying there's definitely a progression of awesomeness that transcends numbers for certain series. I'm not saying OP is wrong, I'm saying it's not always the way you say it is.
You didn't have to phone for a hint, but it was designed for you to do that. Some the logic was completely absurd so that it was funny after you realised it but there was no way to reasonably come to that conclusion without pixel bitching and trial and error.Sapient Pearwood said:
FF8 is obviously a matter of opinion, and no Final Fantasy game really counts as a sequel, but it's actually one of my favourite systems. Obviously there isn't much spell casting going on, but it's actually interesting playing in a way that emulates the scarcity of magic that shows up in a lot of stories and having it be reinforced by the mechanics. I'm actually sad there aren't more FF8 like combat systems. Either way, it's a game where if you liked it the first time around, you'll like it a decade later. Resident Evil and Monkey Island seemed cool when they came out, but no way I could ever go back to playing them.
Rayman Raving Rabbids 2 was worse than the original. The first was a laugh but it should've stayed as either that one game and then a brand new Rayman, or not a Rayman game at all.
I am surprised that no one mentioned Mass Effect. despite its flaws, ME2 is way better than ME1.
Most of the time sequels are better than the originals (at least in gaming). Generally, when a sequel seems to be worse, people say that because the sequel was too similar to the original.Of course, there are cases of games getting legitimately bad sequels.
I thought GTA III: Vice City was superior to GTA III, but I thought GTA III was much better than 1 or 2. Though when you change the game like that that much it's hard to call it a sequal. More like a remake.
Resident Evil 5 wasn't as good as Resident Evil 4... and BioShock 2 was nothing compared to the original. Left 4 Dead 1 had more jaw dropping events if you're looking for that kind of stuff.
I don't understand the point of this thread. Some sequels are better than their predecessor, some are worse. Some people find sequels worse, some find sequels better. This is basic, incredibly generalised stuff and doesn't actually require a conversation.
Legacy of kain was better than its sequels.
MAster of Orion 2 was better than master of orion 3
Doom was better than Doom 2
So in short yes.
Sometimes the games sucess is dependant on some kind of magic going on that they just cant capture in the sequels..
MAster of Orion 2 was better than master of orion 3
Doom was better than Doom 2
So in short yes.
Sometimes the games sucess is dependant on some kind of magic going on that they just cant capture in the sequels..
I'm not sure. All forum-bound cynicism aside, developers these days tend to listen to feedback about orignals and improve on them. Aside from maybe, Resident evil outbreak 1, compared to file 2, and even then only because it was made for online, and at the time of playing, I didn't have online, the only bad sequals I can think of are ones which had bad originals.
I will say one thing about a game which will undoubtably pop up here more than a few times.
Bioshock 2 is, in my opinion, a better game than bioshock 1. It has better gameplay in single player, and it has surprisingly fun and addictive multiplayer.
But as an experience, for want of a less artsy wat to explain it, bioshock 1 will always be greatly superior. I'm sure everyone who's played it will understand what I mean.
I will say one thing about a game which will undoubtably pop up here more than a few times.
Bioshock 2 is, in my opinion, a better game than bioshock 1. It has better gameplay in single player, and it has surprisingly fun and addictive multiplayer.
But as an experience, for want of a less artsy wat to explain it, bioshock 1 will always be greatly superior. I'm sure everyone who's played it will understand what I mean.
It can go either way really. You have your Empire Strikes Back's and your Invisible War's. I can't even say whether or not I generally like the originals better than the sequels 'cause it varies so much.
Painkiller was better than all the expansion packs and sequels, same with F.E.A.R. Tony Hawk's Underground 2 was horrid while the first Underground was up there with Pro Skater 2 in my opinion. Super Smash Bros Brawl is complete trash too.
In films, the first film tends to be best. In games, they tend to improve.
I really don't understand why people prefer the first (or even like it for that matter). The sequel does everything better in my mind.
Bioshock's "amazing" (Did. Not. Like.) story was rendered useless to me because of the pacing. The second totally fixed that, and still maintained a fairly interesting story; one far more emotionally engaging at that and far less shallow (although that's not difficult). And the shooty-shooty-bang-bang sections were better. And so was the game's climax. And hacking was better too.danpascooch said:
I really don't understand why people prefer the first (or even like it for that matter). The sequel does everything better in my mind.
Silent Hill 2 was far more amazing then Silent Hill 1. Same for Castlevania Symphony of the night.
