"Failed" sequels.

[Arcane Azmadi]

failed ones imo

OK, you provided a list long enough for me to provide some counter-feedback. Don't worry, I'm not picking on you specifically, you just listed the most games.

ffx2

This is a tricky one. FFX-2 is more a type 2 sequel to FFX- it's gameplay is COMPLETELY different and its styles and themes are far removed. And although it's technically a story sequel, it's not an integral one in the sense that FFX's story finished on its own and didn't need a sequel to be completed like, say, Halo did. But in the context of the FF series it remains one of the few DIRECT sequels to an earlier game and there's no doubt it doesn't even TOUCH FFX quality-wise. Plus some feel the story actually harmed the poignant ending of the original, rather than improving on it.

jak x racing
ff7 dirge of cerberus

Now these 2 honestly aren't failed sequels. Jak X Racing is completely different genre to the Jak & Dexter series (even though racing first appeared in Jak 2) while Dirge of Cerberus, although TECHNICALLY a follow-up to FFVII, is also a completely different style of game- even if it bears the Final Fantasy name it's not even an RPG.

<An extremely long and amusing post, snipped for space>

Now hang on. While your post is amusing and well-written, what you're basically saying is that you hated Xenogears and you hated Xenosaga. Firstly, you're WAY too vitriolic because yes, Xenogears WAS only about half-complete but it was ALSO still a brilliant story and what parts of the game were complete were extremely good. Secondly, you also grossly misrepresent it as a massive failure "except a small cadre of cultists that worship the game as though it were the religious experience it had set out to be" when it was actually both a critical and commercial success (it has a 91% Game Rankings score, an 83% score on MetaCritic, was voted the 16th best game of all time in a Famitsu poll and sold 1.19 milion copies, enough to be rereleased as a Greatest Hits title). And thirdly, while you're TECHNICALLY right to mention that Xenosaga wasn't as good as Xenogears, it's not a "failed sequel" by the definition in this thread, so it simply doesn't count. It's only even a spiritual sucessor in a story sense and the gameplay is almost completely different (in fact, it changed radically for each game in the trilogy) thus the games can and should be evaluated on their own merits. For my money, I loved Xeonsaga Episode I but got stuck on Episode II because the battle system is simply too hard to master.

 

[Spectrum_Prez]

For me, I would have to say Oblivion was the most disappointing sequel I've every played. It just didn't have the same feel as Morrowind had, and suffered from a number of very serious design flaws (the most famous one being the leveling enemies). For me, the most serious mistakes were:
Art style - too uniform, too much bloom effects, sudden shift from Imperial/Roman themed to Medieval themed
Spell changes - removal of Mark/Recall/Intervention, Levitate/Jump/Slowfall
Fast travel was boring and unrealistic (compared to Morrowind of course)
Leveling was broken
Very few improvements as far as animations compared with other games released around the same time

the one I don't get, Majesty 2. HOW THE FUCK DO YOU MESS THAT GAME UP? It was near perfect, the expanded inventory, skills, and patronage from the second one were an improvement but everything else was just wrong! they removed the temples, they removed the silly art style, heroes had to buy their skills (I'll concede that the first one had the library and wizards were useless without it, but that was different somehow, it just gave non wizards an extra umpth if they went for it) removed most of the classes, fucked the AI (they won't do anything without a reward flag) removed the building choices, and generally removed its soul. It's still an OK game but DAMN. and I can't play the first one anymore cause I've done like anything. *sobs in a corner*

Really? I thought it was pretty good for a sequel, it played similarly to the original and had similar art style and humour. As far as I remember, they still had temples but those had to be built on specific spots. The AI was a little wonky, but the first game's AI was pretty broken too. I thought it was overall pretty close in feel to the first one.

 

[Nomanslander]

Bioshock 2 failed in pretty much every aspect. While I get the design document claim that rapture should've been big enough for more than one story, the story of bioshock 1 introduced, fully fleshed out, and then perfectly resolved every situation in rapture.

Stop believing in every Yahtzee video you see, BS2 is as good as any video game sequel can get, hell I had more fun playing that than the first game, and to be honest BS1 ending and resolution was pretty dumb...0o

Did you and I play the same game, or are your standards that bad? =| And just because you don't agree with the opinion, don't try and lash out by claiming someone is just following Yahtzee. By that logic, I am too, except that I hated it before the video even went up.

I'm not claiming it's a masterpiece, but for a shooter still a way better game then 70% of them out there.

I'm just really getting tired of all the BS1 fanboys coming out calling it a bastard game when BS1 was no different compared to the game it's supposedly a spiritual successor of...0o

And I find it funny how claiming to like the game automatically means my standards are shit.



0o

 

[Jennacide]

Bioshock 2 failed in pretty much every aspect. While I get the design document claim that rapture should've been big enough for more than one story, the story of bioshock 1 introduced, fully fleshed out, and then perfectly resolved every situation in rapture.

Stop believing in every Yahtzee video you see, BS2 is as good as any video game sequel can get, hell I had more fun playing that than the first game, and to be honest BS1 ending and resolution was pretty dumb...0o

Did you and I play the same game, or are your standards that bad? =| And just because you don't agree with the opinion, don't try and lash out by claiming someone is just following Yahtzee. By that logic, I am too, except that I hated it before the video even went up.

I'm not claiming it's a masterpiece, but for a shooter still a way better game then 70% of them out there.

I'm just really getting tired of all the BS1 fanboys coming out calling it a bastard game when BS1 was no different compared to the game it's supposedly a spiritual successor of...0o

And I find it funny how claiming to like the game automatically means my standards are shit.



0o

Didn't state, I asked.

And Bio1 was good because of the story, level design, and atmosphere. The three things Bio2 screwed up. If that doesn't make it different I don't know what does.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I would say that a good ammount of the 4th sequels kinda sucked.

Die Hard 4
Indy4
MGS4
GTA4

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Modern warfare 2, Mass Effect 2, Bishock 2.

 

[LordGarbageMan]

Left 4 Dead 2 and Bad Company 2 are the first that I can think of. Left 4 Dead 2 changed nothing, and Bad Company 2 just ripped off the perk system of cod, and made the environment completely destructible.

 

[Yossarian1507]

Resistance 2 definitely. I remember how much fun I had with my friends while playing the first one, and when we bought the second? Meh... Too colorful, guns weren't as good as before, new Chimera were crap, climax went to hell, plot was mediocre at best...

And finally: WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO CAMPAIGN SPLIT SCREEN CO-OP? (yes, the caps was necessary here) That was the sweetest option in R1, why did they have to remove it? Sure, there was split screen co-op in R2 but thrown on some different maps with crap plot on briefings. Bleh...[/rant]

 

[Nomanslander]

Didn't state, I asked.

And Bio1 was good because of the story, level design, and atmosphere. The three things Bio2 screwed up. If that doesn't make it different I don't know what does.

Well you don't ask someone a question like that unless you're trolling....0o

I'll admit the comment I made about the whole Yahtzee thing came off sounding bad when it really wasn't intended, but now you're obviously trying to piss me off on purpose.

I had fun with BS2, yes it's true BS1 is a better game, but that doesn't make the second one a fuck up.

 

[Valkraye]

Failed sequels you say?

Every Medal of Honour game after the PS1 original (though the new one doesn't look half bad I must say)
Crash Nitro Kart
Every Spyro game that was not on PS1.
Every Crash Bandicoot game that was not on PS1
DoW 2 was not my cup of tea. It breached into the CoH realm and failed to live up to those standards and sacrificed everything I loved along the way.
Halo ODST - the amount of hype surrounding it didn't live up to what it actually was. I didn't enjoy it very much at all. More of an expansion though...
All Pokemon games for Gameboys of various designs after Crystal. Honestly, playing those games mutilated what was left of my childhood.

Oh and GTA4. Not a bad game, I just think that the running around and having fun in San Andreas was far superior. I miss my planes.

Empire: Total War. Its not a sequel, per se', but it picked up the Total War baton from Medieval and stumbled after three steps. DarthMod Total War on the other hand is pretty friggin' sweet.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Had Obsidian been given more time, it would have been better than the first, but sadly LucasArt wanted it out earlier >.<

It's not a Chris Avellone game if it's finished before it's pushed out the door.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Empire: Total War. Its not a sequel, per se', but it picked up the Total War baton from Medieval and stumbled after three steps.

Thus accurately demonstrating the difficulty facing leaders of the time had with adapting to new technologies and the changes they required in strategy/logistics and tactics.

 

[TheRocketeer]

Now hang on. While your post is amusing and well-written, what you're basically saying is that you hated Xenogears and you hated Xenosaga. Firstly, you're WAY too vitriolic because yes, Xenogears WAS only about half-complete but it was ALSO still a brilliant story and what parts of the game were complete were extremely good. Secondly, you also grossly misrepresent it as a massive failure "except a small cadre of cultists that worship the game as though it were the religious experience it had set out to be" when it was actually both a critical and commercial success (it has a 91% Game Rankings score, an 83% score on MetaCritic, was voted the 16th best game of all time in a Famitsu poll and sold 1.19 milion copies, enough to be rereleased as a Greatest Hits title). And thirdly, while you're TECHNICALLY right to mention that Xenosaga wasn't as good as Xenogears, it's not a "failed sequel" by the definition in this thread, so it simply doesn't count. It's only even a spiritual sucessor in a story sense and the gameplay is almost completely different (in fact, it changed radically for each game in the trilogy) thus the games can and should be evaluated on their own merits. For my money, I loved Xeonsaga Episode I but got stuck on Episode II because the battle system is simply too hard to master.

I can't and won't defend my thoughts on Xenogears. But Xenosaga?

These games are the bargain-iest games in the bargain bin. There are, for reasons I can't even begin to understand, three GameStops within a mile of each other in my town, and each one of them has stacks, literally stacks of these games, selling for pennies yet consistently ignored. They can't even give these things away.

But I admit, a lot of my vitriol for it is more for Monolith than the series itself. They conducted themselves like a bunch of cocks, and hamstrung their own grand plan with the same developmental irresponsibility and with the same results that got them fired back in the nineties. That's not coincidence, that's just a failure to learn.

But mostly, I like describing Square Enix as an obese two-headed 50-foot tall Elvis with twelve arms and shelled wings like a beetle, and if that's wrong then I don't wanna be right.

 

[Doodlebox]

Well, GOOD sequels are here to improve the original game's system, eliminate flaws, expand the story (if there is one) and to just give fans more of what they want to make more moneys for the publisher.
For instance, Mass Effect 2 is an example of a good sequel.
Bad sequels are here just to make money for the publisher. If the first sold well, the fanbase'll buy the first, no matter the reviews.
Army of Two: TFD is an example of a bad sequel. (stfu, I thought it was bad.)

 

[Ocelano]

The sequel to my game "Michael strikes again" did abominably apparently nobody want to play a game called "Michael strikes again again: they never saw it coming". this may be because it mainly involved me walking around town hitting locals and tourists who I had photographed on the street and just scanned onto my computer, But mostly I believe it was because neither it nor the original ever got beyond the imaginary concept stage due to my total lack of programming skills.

 

[EHKOS]

All of them.

Even Half Life 2, Uncharted 2, and the possible Starcraft 2?

No sequel will be as good as the original game. Half-life 2 especially, that games enviroment came outta nowwhere, took you through nowhere, and then dumped you there. The whole coast part with the buggy was ridiculus, they should have left Half-life in a facility where it belongs.

But I may have mispoken about one series, Timesplitters got better as it went on.

 

[Wounded Melody]

Dragon's Lair 2. The plotholes, the turning of a serious game into comedy, and more!

 

[spacer]

Quake 4 and Wolfenstien.
People couldn't be happy with RTCW and Team Arena. I mean, I've known some people who've worked for Raven and they're great guys, they just can't hold a card to iD.