Bad sequels?
- Thread starter Sean Hollyman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Hitman: Contracts isn't a bad game, but they didn't improve on anything from Silent Assassin that needed fixing, such as broken A.I, finicky controls, awkward animations, and lots of bugs. Thankfully Blood Money perfected the series by fixing nearly everything that was wrong with previous games and adding even more depth.
Far Cry 2 is the prime example of a terrible sequel. The reputation system doesn't work, the plot is weak and barely motivates you to play through it, the gun jamming system is ridiculously fucking annoying, and the A.I took a nosedive from Far Cry 1. The A.I still have their bright spots, but A.I in Far Cry 1 was lightyears ahead.
Far Cry 2 is the prime example of a terrible sequel. The reputation system doesn't work, the plot is weak and barely motivates you to play through it, the gun jamming system is ridiculously fucking annoying, and the A.I took a nosedive from Far Cry 1. The A.I still have their bright spots, but A.I in Far Cry 1 was lightyears ahead.
To be honest, I think Far Cry 2 needs to be described as a "sequel" (not a sequel) too. It's as much a spiritual-successor to Far Cry as Crysis is.Ordinaryundone said:
I do think it's a fairly ingenious game, actually; one that's too smart for it's own good.
OT: Continuing in the above trend (kind of), Crysis 2 was a shitty sequel.
The only true criticism that I could level against the first game was that the pacing was wrong. All the larger, open levels are in the first half and all the more closed-up ones are in the second half. All it needed was to be mixed up together a little bit (with alien encounters spread out and reduced).
Instead, the second went small all the way through, and it became very prescribed. Turn on the visor and it was like being handed the design document: here's the stealth route, here's the action route, etc. It was entirely uninteresting.
Condemned 2: Bloodshit is the definition of bad sequel. The first was goddamn brilliant and the 2nd was just... bad.
Hands down Shadow Man 2econd Coming on PS2 - The first one was an under rated gem. You searched the bowels of hell for 120 Souls (not unlike 120 stars...) while wielding shotguns, sub-machine guns and voodoo weaponry. Too top that, in Shadow Man 1, you had to battle Serial Killers modeled after real life counter parts (a Jack the Ripper clone is a bit of scene stealer)
The 2econd sucked almost as much as that pun I just used.
Both made by Acclaim Entertainment... where are they these days... apparently getting sued by the Olsen twins, trying to advertise on actual tombstones and producing BMX XXX are not stable business practices. They even offered money to expecting families to name their children 'Turok'.
The 2econd sucked almost as much as that pun I just used.
Both made by Acclaim Entertainment... where are they these days... apparently getting sued by the Olsen twins, trying to advertise on actual tombstones and producing BMX XXX are not stable business practices. They even offered money to expecting families to name their children 'Turok'.
Either you have low standards for sequels or you've been really lucky. Having no idea what games you've played, I can't say which.Karutomaru said:
Megaman Battle Network 4. This game was so repetitive. It is based around a fight tournament and that would be fine if it didn't move so slowly. First you have to learn about your opponent and their life story, then you have to do some stupid quest, and after a while you finally get to fight your opponent. Repeat this about 6 times and you finally get to to the real meat of the story. Stopping an alien from destroying the world with an asteroid. The game is also plagued with spelling and grammar errors.
having played none of those games (and only one of those series [trauma center]), I still don't know.Karutomaru said:
Dragon Age 2, again. Characters were good, story had potential. Combat was fast and fun, I thought. But the all the sweet witty charm of DA:O was not there.
And those recycled levels were just a slap in the face.
Fable 3 was just... not fun.
Oh, and I'm not sure if it's really a sequel, but The Sims Medieval was a repetitive piece of crap.
And those recycled levels were just a slap in the face.
Fable 3 was just... not fun.
Oh, and I'm not sure if it's really a sequel, but The Sims Medieval was a repetitive piece of crap.
True. The game treats you like an adult who can do critical thinking and forward planning, and the game is better off for it. The only thing that really held Far Cry 2 back was the repetitive encounters which made the simplest of tasks a pain in the ass. Also, some more context for the moral choices (which were actually done well) would have been nice.Woodsey said:
Just take a look through this thread. You haven't but others have. Besides sequels have always been infamous for bringing down the quality of series. It is a stereotype from all mediums. Not without basis of reality. Saying "Yes, sequels always rock" disregards reality.Karutomaru said:
My addition: Blood Omen 2. I want you to explain to me how come it's a sequel but it's still regarded as one of the worst things that happened to the Legacy of Kain series.
Or Dragon Age 2, which I haven't played by the way, but I've seen a lot of hate directed at it because it's a sequel.
Same thing with Deus Ex 2.
Ditto for Devil May Cry 2.
From what I know, several, if not lots, of Sonic games.
Heroes 4 was a sequel that got 3DO bankrupt.
Might and Magic 9 doesn't exist at all.
I ask of you, if sequels are universally good and always positive, why is it that we have these examples that are sort of legendary in the video game world? And they are legendary for being bad - who is spreading these foul rumours?
The only bad sequel I can think of is Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Look, maybe I'm in the minority, but a historical shooter game does have a place whereas games set in today's wars can be construed as jingoistic recruitment tools. Now yes, Modern Warfare does have its great moments, like after the nuke goes off. If the game had ended right then and there, that would have been such a powerful way to end a game. No Russian had a similar feel (even if it was in the early part of the game). However I just don't think Modern Warfare was nessecary and its sequels even more so.
And for those who said ME3 is "teh worst sequel EVAR," please don't let the ending taint your opinion of the game as a whole. Mass Effect 3 is actually pretty superb, it's just that it has a pretty lousy ending. Action beats were exciting, great characters and character moments (like ManShep's bromance with Garrus) and so on. It's like I said though, the ending is bad, but it's not enough to make the whole ride up to it awful.
And for those who said ME3 is "teh worst sequel EVAR," please don't let the ending taint your opinion of the game as a whole. Mass Effect 3 is actually pretty superb, it's just that it has a pretty lousy ending. Action beats were exciting, great characters and character moments (like ManShep's bromance with Garrus) and so on. It's like I said though, the ending is bad, but it's not enough to make the whole ride up to it awful.
I really enjoyed it, in fact for years it was my favorite Mario title until I played 3.OlasDAlmighty said:
While it's not a bad game, I wasn't a fan of Grand Theft Auto San Andreas.