Are sequels ever really worse than the originals?

Not G. Ivingname

New member
Nov 18, 2009
6,368
0
0
migo said:
I've noticed in a lot of cases the sequel is unquestionably better than the original, even if it isn't received as well. If the game was good to begin with, the sequel ends up being better, and the only case of a sequel seeming worse is if the game originally rode on hype or just had something that seemed cool for the time and wasn't actually that good to begin with.

So, are there any games where the sequel is actually bad, and the original is still good when you go back and play it years later?
Some times, that is true. Twilight Princess is better then Ocarina since it refined the older game to near perfection and replaced the things that didn't work completely (aka, from Navi to Midna). However, refinement isn't as good as a full evolution into something better, and that is what fans feel fail (of course they will bash the first devation from the norm faster then anybody, wind waker showed that, but that is besides the point). However, their are many cases of sequels being made for the sole purpose of cashing in on the original and cut down on the effort put into it, or just bring it into a whole different direction it shouldn't of gone. On the one hand, we have stuff like Superman to Superman 4 where the budget went so far down you could see the black sheet they tried to sell as Space. Going from the dark world of Tim Burton's Batman to the goofiness and stupidity of Batman and Robin wasn't the way to go.
 

Malcheior Sveth

New member
Jul 19, 2009
72
0
0
Tales of Symphonia 2 was HORRIBLE. Whereas the first one was probably the best RPG released on the gamecube.
 

Xanadu84

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,946
0
0
The first game innovates, the second game iterates. The second game is generally technically better, but people crave new experiences, so it has to be significantly better then the original to break even in peoples minds. A good example of this weighing is L4D. The second one is unquestionably better from any reasonable perspective. But for many people, they would rather play something completely new then an improvement on something they have played already. Or to put it another way, would you rather have Pizza for the 6th meal in a row, where you have finally mastered the right recipe, or would you rather get Thai for a change? Both have merit.

Exceptions certainly exist. But if it's the same developers putting a good faith effort with decent play testing and comparable resources, then odds are heavily in favor of the game being better, but slightly pre-experienced.
 

migo

New member
Jun 27, 2010
2,698
0
0
Xanadu84 said:
The first game innovates, the second game iterates. The second game is generally technically better, but people crave new experiences, so it has to be significantly better then the original to break even in peoples minds. A good example of this weighing is L4D. The second one is unquestionably better from any reasonable perspective. But for many people, they would rather play something completely new then an improvement on something they have played already. Or to put it another way, would you rather have Pizza for the 6th meal in a row, where you have finally mastered the right recipe, or would you rather get Thai for a change? Both have merit.

Exceptions certainly exist. But if it's the same developers putting a good faith effort with decent play testing and comparable resources, then odds are heavily in favor of the game being better, but slightly pre-experienced.
This pretty much nails it. Either the sequel is better than the original but not by enough to impress as the original did, or the original just wasn't that good and people realise it with the sequel.
 

CJMacM

New member
Mar 21, 2010
170
0
0
I liked Fable more than Fable 2. Your character didn't look as weird, using magic in fights was easier, fable 2 didn't seem to take itself seriously and I liked the plot a lot more.
 

Matt Kloepfer

New member
Mar 17, 2010
16
0
0
Area 51 > Area 51 Blacksite
Paper Mario > Paper Mario Thousand Year Door
Mario Bros. Superstar Saga > Mario and Luigi Partners in Time
Halo 2 > Halo 3 > ODST
FF 7+8 > any new one
Metroid the original > newer ones, maybe excluding Wii versions
 

Tattaglia

New member
Aug 12, 2008
1,445
0
0
Pfft. All of your "bad" video game sequels sequels are nothing.

Empire Earth 3.

Simply awful.
 

Chancie

New member
Sep 23, 2009
2,050
0
0
Joe Matsuda said:
no no no

usually 1 and 2 are good, then 3 bombs

4 tries too hard to make up for it and by 5 everyone has given up...usually...ish...
Unless it's Final Fantasy, and by 13, some people are still praying for a gaming miracle to happy to the series.

Anywaaaaays, I think I agree with most on here...or some, I guess. The first and second are usually great and them after that, it starts to fall apart.
 

Sliverwings

New member
May 1, 2010
1,418
0
0
<spoiler=I guessing you didn't play this filth>
http://www.lufiaworld.com/files/ffx-2/official/boxart-us-front.jpg
 

humor_involuntario

New member
Mar 31, 2010
57
0
0
migo said:
Kurokami said:
Almost all of them.

Really? You prefer sequels?
Doom II is better than Doom.

Unreal Tournament 2004 is better than Unreal Tournament.

Feeding Frenzy 2 is better than Feeding Frenzy.

Geometry Wars 2 is better than Geometry Wars.

Gran Turismo 2 is better than Gran Turismo.

Super Mario Bros 3 is better than Super Mario Bros (2 doesn't count, it's Doki Doki Panic).

Quake 2 is better than Quak
Descent 2 is better than Descent.

Civilization IV is better than Civilization III (Civilization 2-3 was an odd switch where it wasn't better or worse as much as different).

Street Fighter II is better than Street Fighter.

Gears of War 2 is better than Gears of War.

Grand Theft Auto 2 is better than Grand Theft Auto.

Soul Calibur is better than Soul Blade.

WarCraft 2 is better than WarCraft.

Windows 7 Minesweeper is better than the previous iteration that existed since 3.1 through Vista.

I could go on.

The closest thing to an exception I could see is Burnout Takedown & Revenge to Paradise City, where I don't like it because it's a different game, rather than a subsequent game actually being worse.
migo said:
Kurokami said:
Almost all of them.

Really? You prefer sequels?
Doom II is better than Doom.

Unreal Tournament 2004 is better than Unreal Tournament.

Feeding Frenzy 2 is better than Feeding Frenzy.

Geometry Wars 2 is better than Geometry Wars.

Gran Turismo 2 is better than Gran Turismo.

Super Mario Bros 3 is better than Super Mario Bros (2 doesn't count, it's Doki Doki Panic).

Quake 2 is better than Quake.

Descent 2 is better than Descent.

Civilization IV is better than Civilization III (Civilization 2-3 was an odd switch where it wasn't better or worse as much as different).

Street Fighter II is better than Street Fighter.

Gears of War 2 is better than Gears of War.

Grand Theft Auto 2 is better than Grand Theft Auto.

Soul Calibur is better than Soul Blade.

WarCraft 2 is better than WarCraft.

Windows 7 Minesweeper is better than the previous iteration that existed since 3.1 through Vista.

I could go on.

The closest thing to an exception I could see is Burnout Takedown & Revenge to Paradise City, where I don't like it because it's a different game, rather than a subsequent game actually being worse.
I see some mistakes in here, starting by:
what is a good game?
or more relevant:
what is a good secuel?
for me, story get's improved, more (good) features and the fixing of the flaws of the original...
and on that point, i, in the most humble way, dissagre with the fallowing:
Civ 4 beter than civ 3: It changed it, but it didn't fixed anything that needs to be fixed, and it did add more featres, so it's a different game, not a secuelish tipe of different.
Doom II better than Doom: They are the same thing!! exept story gets messed up.
And Geometry wars is again the same as it's predecesor.
it's just personal taste.
 

migo

New member
Jun 27, 2010
2,698
0
0
humor_involuntario said:
I see some mistakes in here, starting by:
what is a good game?
or more relevant:
what is a good secuel?
for me, story get's improved, more (good) features and the fixing of the flaws of the original...
and on that point, i, in the most humble way, dissagre with the fallowing:
Civ 4 beter than civ 3: It changed it, but it didn't fixed anything that needs to be fixed, and it did add more featres, so it's a different game, not a secuelish tipe of different.
Doom II better than Doom: They are the same thing!! exept story gets messed up.
And Geometry wars is again the same as it's predecesor.
it's just personal taste.
Sure, Civilization changes on each outing, so debates will always crop up, but in the long run each is an improvement, I can only ever go back one version. When Civ 3 was released I could play Civ 2 still, but after Civ 4 I couldn't go back to 2. Each one is an improvement overall.

Doom II is largely the same thing, but it lasts longer, has more enemies, and such. Who cares about the story? It's an incremental improvement, but an improvemen nonetheless.

Geometry Wars 2 is hardly the same as Geometry Wars. GW has one gameplay mode, GW2 has several, a much better difficulty curve, more ways of playing, and several multiplayer modes.
 

AzurieL13

New member
Apr 19, 2010
3
0
0
the only 2 games i can think of where the sequel was better than the original is assasins creed and Baldurs gate. apart from that ALL other sequels are for lack of a better word s*&t. basically all sequels are for is for the makers to use the success of the first to get more money buy making a second game.... even if the sequel is horrendous

example KOTOR and KOTOR2... nuff said
 

MMETEORAGA1994

New member
Jul 12, 2010
176
0
0
(These are all in regard to the title came directly before them)

Fable 2, Halo 3, Bioshock 2, Super Mario Bros. 2, Final Fantasy V, VIII, XI and XIII, KotOR II, Resident Evil 3 & 5, Super Mario Sunshine, Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, GTA IV, Devil May Cry 2 & 4, any Spyro game after the second one, any Sonic game after Sonic adventure, The Legend of Zelda 2: Links Adventure, Castlevania 2: Simon's Quest, need I continue?

There are countless examples of game sequels that are worse than the originals. These are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head.
 

Relent688

New member
Aug 27, 2009
38
0
0
That all depends on the game and what changes were made. I loved Morrowind alot, even though it looks ugly as sin compared to Oblivion, I actually prefer Morrowind. But there are also cases where the sequel is better. ME2 is lengths better than the first, for making biotics actually useful and accessible in a pinch without the horrendous cooldown. But developers looks at sequels as money signs if the original was incredible. It is just about how much money a game dev can convince the mass to throw away into their game. Perhaps that isn't fair.

I mean there are times where devs do try to add an element to the game that they left out because tech wouldn't allow it to work, but that isn't always a fault to the game itself. What is a fault to the devs is when the sequel is nothing more than an expansion pack they could have easily made into DLC. L4D is far superior to the second in my opinion because the new special infected just seem to break the game to the point where even on easy, it seemed like the game just wanted to be ignorant and make sure you do not succeed. That is fine to amp up difficulty in a game like that, but why make it so absurd when you just want to solo for a while and blow off some steam?