Bad game, good sequel?

[M0rp43vs]

Just a thought that's been floating 'round my head.
Has there ever been a bad or at least a below average game that got a sequel that could be considered good or at least above average?

In order to make this thread interesting feel free to add any movie or book or whatever have you that fits the criteria.

I'm just curious and bored, a bad combination

 

[Issurru]

This is entirely subjective but I figure i'll throw this out there anyways. But first I must raise my flame shield *raises +4 flame shield*

Going from Two Worlds one, to Two Worlds 2. The sequel is sooo much better than the original, but I guess when you're at rock bottom there is nowhere to go but up really.
To me the sequel isn't the greatest, since there are still some problems like lagging controls and too many abilities tied to each button. But it's an alright game.

 

[krazykidd]

Mass effect?

I kid , i kid ( before i get hanged)
Ummm,well bad games are subjective , but usually when a game is bad and doesn't sell well , no one makes a sequel for it , i mean why would you make a sequel to a terrible game ? The only one i can think of is street fighter . I bet you no one here ever played the original street fighter , but SF 2 was amazing at the time .

I'm trying to think of something more recent . The only thing that comes to mind is no more heros and mass effect . No more heros was not a bad game but no more heros 2 fix alot of what the first did wrong .

 

[Proverbial Jon]

Assassin's Creed. I don't care what anyone says, once you got past the novelty of the setting, the joy of freerunning and after completeing the same mini objectives 500 times... the game was a total bore.

Assassin's Creed 2 and Brotherhood were absolute masterpieces.

Also Resident Evil, how anyone could possibly consider that game a classic I'll never know! RE2 and RE3 were far better.

/controversy

 

[Ultress]

In terms of Persona remakes, Persona 2 is miles better in the combat and dungeon crawling.Though the encounter rates are pretty much insane in both games.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Hmmm...was Dune any good? Because Dune2 is hailed, rightly or wrongly, as being the first RTS game, and so much of it can be seen in later games.

 

[Zhukov]

The Witcher.

Although I'm not sure I'd say the second game was good enough to qualify, but it was a huge (huuuuuuge) improvement on the original.

 

[GiantRaven]

Fallout 2 > Fallout
Fallout: New Vegas > Fallout 3

 

[WanderingFool]

Well, I deffintly say without hesitation that AC2 and AC:B were worlds apart from AC1, and were significantly better for it.

 

[KnightOfHearts]

This is the only time I will ever acknowledge devil may cry 2s existence

Devil may cry 3 > devil may cry 2

 

[JamesStone]

Bioshock 2. Wait, the first game must be the crappy one? Forget it.

 

[go-10]

only one I can think of is Assassins Creed to Assassins Creed 2, Ezio could swim be stealthier and over all a better assassin than Altair. Still both games are good if played in sequential order

 

[Stall]

Just Cause 2. JC1 was a pretty forgettable, average title, but then JC2 was pretty gosh darn fun.

The Witcher.

Although I'm not sure I'd say the second game was good enough to qualify, but it was a huge (huuuuuuge) improvement on the original.

Is running around and stating unpopular opinions about PC exclusives a hobby of yours or something? It seems like you just have to let the world know you hate X PC exclusive or think Y PC exclusive is average every chance you get...

Or do you just think it is cool to bash critically acclaimed games?

 

[Knife]

Hmmm...was Dune any good? Because Dune2 is hailed, rightly or wrongly, as being the first RTS game, and so much of it can be seen in later games.

Actually the first Dune was pretty awesome for its time, but it was very different from Dune 2, it was basically a point and click adventure/resource management (except no point and clicking since it was played with controllers). And as far as I know Dune 2 was the first RTS (though some people claim otherwise).
And if we're on the topic of RTS, warcraft 2 was a huge improvement on warcraft 1 (though warcraft 1 still had some charm to it). I could probably name a few more obscure titles nobody has ever heard of but what would be the point...

 

[Andrew Vandersteen]

Baldur's Gate 2, Gothic 2, Saint's Row 2, and Freespace 2. All better then the originals

 

[Thaluikhain]

Hmmm...was Dune any good? Because Dune2 is hailed, rightly or wrongly, as being the first RTS game, and so much of it can be seen in later games.

Actually the first Dune was pretty awesome for its time, but it was very different from Dune 2, it was basically a point and click adventure/resource management (except no point and clicking since it was played with controllers). And as far as I know Dune 2 was the first RTS (though some people claim otherwise).
And if we're on the topic of RTS, warcraft 2 was a huge improvement on warcraft 1 (though warcraft 1 still had some charm to it). I could probably name a few more obscure titles nobody has ever heard of but what would be the point...

I don't see how Warcraft2 was better than Warcraft, really, excepting the obvious stuff due to better technology being available and so on, it was a rehash and refinement of something that had worked before.

Warcraft3, however, went in a very different direction, with it being based around heroes, small maximum unit numbers, and proper AI allies, as well as units that weren't exactly the same as their counterparts on the other side. The story was alot stronger as well.

 

[LostAlone]

Hmmm... Guess it depends on your perspective...

Lots of fairly old games would fall into this catergory but definitely weren't at the time. Perfect example ... Mario World = Awesome, Mario 1 = terrible by comparison. But of course, original mario when looked at in context was pretty good too. A lot of early franchises that spanned technology levels in the first few sequels have this going on.

Anyways, outside of that, I'd say that the following had so-so first games and superb sequals:

1. Virtua Fighter 2 > Virtua Fighter .In fact this could be practically any beat-em up... street fighter, mortal kombat, tekken etc... first games were pretty good, but improved graphics, rosters and generally better mechanics made them shine, anbd the continuing polish makes the series continually better at least in certain respects... virtua fighter however was particularly disinteresting.

2. Diablo 2 > Diablo. Diablo is pretty meh. Generic dungeon crawler. Diablo 2 is molten gold that I still kill time with on my laptop.

3. Baldurs Gate 2 > Baldurs Gate. Same as the above. First one was ok, second was a stone cold classic.

4. System Shock 2 > System Shock. Again, I have nothing against system shock 1, but SS2 is superb.

 

[astrav1]

I wouldn't necessarily call these first two horrible But Assassins Creed was full of flaws while the second was fantastic and Uncharted was frustrating enough to make me never want to play again while in Among Thieves I started a new game as soon as I was finished with it. Also I don't know if Infamous 2 fixed the broken shitpile that was the first one, but if they made the combat better then I hope I won't be breaking anymore controllers from it.

 

[Frybird]

Timesplitters and Timesplitters 2. For me at least.

Timesplitters 1 had the cool Map Editor and Fun Multiplayer, but a horrible Single Player Experience as well as feeling kinda clunky.

Timesplitters 2 on the other hand hat excellent Single AND Multiplayer, the cool Mapeditor, great controls (even if the Autoaim was a bit on the extreme side) and tons of other Stuff like unique Challenges, special Game Modes and even real Minigames like the possibly greatest Version of "Snake" there ever was.

 

[RheynbowDash]

Mercenaries 2 was fucking fantastic.