Can that really be considered a sequel though? More like a spiritual successor, though I do agree with you that Xenosaga was better (except for Shion.)Da_Schwartz said:Xenogears eh. Xenosaga, yes please. After of course your third re-start when you FINALLY ACTUALLY FOR REAL THIS TIME understood combat and how to level your character correctly. hehe.
damn, ninja'd for the RDR one. You take a great risk by praising MW2 on the Escapist forums, I salute your ballsiness.xMelior said:CoD: Modern Warfare 2 compared to World at War
EDIT: Also Red Dead Redemption (if you consider it a sequel)
Agreed. Mass Effect 1 was a mess of a game. Everyone (Except For The Writers) involved with that game should be ashamed of how abysmal it was. However Mass Effect 2, now that's one of the best freak'in games ever.icame said:Mass effect 2 (Oh shit!)
that's understandable, it really is actuallyAlternatePFG said:It didn't need to be streamlined, it needed to be fixed, and instead of doing that, BioWare just decided to take the lazy route and add a linear upgrade system for armor/weapons instead.duchaked said:can't agree moreAlternatePFG said:Mass Effect 1 feels like a chore to play. Although I feel like ME2 took out most of what made it an RPG, at least it was fun to play.icame said:Mass effect 2 (Oh shit!)
except I don't think it was like no longer an rpg, just streamlined to make it fun
if that's wrong i.e. not rpg then I don't want rpg (but that's not true, rpgs don't have to be un-fun haha)
He said original and there was nothing wrong with Devil May Cry.Worgen said:devil may cry 3, the 2nd game sucked hard but 3 was good
Sorry buddy but I HAVE to disagree with that- Just Cause 1 was way better than Assassin's Creed 1. Sure it was a bit aimless at times (I'm talking about JC, with AC it goes without saying) but everything it did it still did very well.EvilPicnic said:Assassins Creed=great game
but
Just Cause=shit game
Just Cause 2 being so awesome when it had such a bad start is a testament to the listening-power of the developers.
Yeah, I agree.ChupathingyX said:Although not technically a sequel, Fallout: New Vegas was vastly superior to 3 in almost every single aspect.
Mass Effect's story and characterisation shit all over ME2. ME2 just had the advantage of infinitely better mechanics.Bek359 said:I don't consider Mass Effect 1 TERRIBLE, but it pales ridiculously compared to its successor. Clunky combat + terrible inventory system + recycled environments + customization that mostly amounted to number-crunching, which I am wholeheartedly against (seriously, if a game requires me to use a spreadsheet to be effective at any point, I'm not doing it), = not very fun, especially upon replay. Yeah, they took out perhaps more of the RPG elements than they should have for the sequel, but it was FUN.icame said:I know. It wasn't my opinion that ME2 is better that made me do the "Oh shit!", Its the fact that I consider the first a terrible game, which is a... unpopular opinion?Woodsey said:"Most of the time sequels only serve to ruin the original. A couple of times they are as good and very few they are even better."
I find most sequels in gaming are better than the originals. Films are where you need to be wary.
OT: Assassin's Creed 2 was miles better than 1. 1 certainly wasn't terrible, but it did have some gaping flaws, and the second game was such a transformation it was unreal.
Believe it or not, most people do actually consider it the better game.icame said:Mass effect 2 (Oh shit!)