"Failed" sequels.

Recommended Videos

Snotnarok

New member
Nov 17, 2008
6,308
0
0
Daedalus1942 said:
Snotnarok said:
Daedalus1942 said:
Snotnarok said:
Daedalus1942 said:
Snotnarok said:
I'd say Devil May Cry 2, but we all know it NEVER HAPPENED and thank goodness right? :D
I don't get people... When I was younger, everyone raved about it, and I was addicted to DMC2 ( completed it on the hardest setting just before the invincibility mode, then i gave up). I quite liked Devil May cry 2 and even though there were a few plotholes and essentially the 2nd disc where you play as the girl was the exact same game, but I just don't understand why people hated it. There are far worse games out there and I commend the studio for trying something different and taking it out of a gothic setting to try an urban one. In my opinion 3 was the worst of the lot (though I'm yet to play 4), but i absolutely hated everything about 3. I don't understand everybody's reason for hating 2. Is it just a case of someone hated it and everybody decided they'd jump on the bandwagon? Please explain to me your reasobns for hating it?
My main gripe is how annoyingly difficult they made some of the new enemies to hit in combat.
Because the enemies were crap, Dante was dumbed down to the point of nausea, the combat was simplified. I personally hated it, I beat it on every difficulty mode without using a single healing star or dying. Compared to the other DMCs I find it to be beyond the worst one. It's not about a group mentality, I hated it before I found out people disliked it as much as I did. I'm not asking for it to be insanely difficult but SOME challenge adds to the fun. 3 was great, 1 was great 4 was half a game copy pasted with a really bad character added. But this is all my feelings, if you liked it then cool but I simply don't.
Interesting. I had the complete opposite experience to you. I found 2 to be at times frustratingly hard, whereas the first game I didn't have too much trouble on the hardest setting.
Some of the enemies were obnoxious, I wouldn't call them hard. Like the wolves ...ung I think I just gave myself a headache.

Either way, it's just my opinion, don't let it get to you so much. Who gives a crap what I think, it's about what you want man. I hear Sonic Unleashed sucks all the time, I happen to enjoy the Day levels a lot, while the night levels are garbage, the day levels are a lot of fun to me. But meh whatever people think ya know? :)
I loved 06 apart from the severe framerate slowdown issues it had, but It only took me a day to complete. I've seen people struggle to finish it in a weak due to cheap deaths. I still to this day don't know why I had such a smooth runthrough.
I also liked unleashed alot, during the day and I don't hate the night levels apart from that one that's completely tightrope walking. Sonic team must have hired masochists to work on that level.
I also enjoyed Haze, while not the "Halo Killer" it was touted to be, I quite liked the story and for it's time the graphics were top notch. Also, it did alot of things that no other shooter has ever done, which were quite innovative and original, like playing dead for instance I thought worked decently. Don't get me wrong it was a tad broken, you could play dead , but it took so long to get back up that nine times out of ten the enemy saw you and blasted you before you could get on your feet in time to give them a gut full of shotgun barrels.
I hated Sonic 06! Haha I fell through the world SO many times in that game, or my homing attack would fly me off a cliff instead of at the enemy I was near. I wanted to like it but it was just slow and clunky for me.

I never played Haze, I was tempted as it was made by the timesplitters creators but they even didn't like the game. It got taken over pretty much and the whole game ruined
 

Nomanslander

New member
Feb 21, 2009
2,962
0
0
Hopeless Bastard said:
Nomanslander said:
Hopeless Bastard said:
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
Oh I played it before that zp.

Its okay, I know intelligent thought is scary.
What's scary is you really think it's intelligent...XP

Wait a sec, aren't you the guy that I had a comment on Mass Effect and Empire Strikes back earlier today? Well, you seemed to know what you're talking about then, but honestly are you telling me that you think that M. Night Shyamalan twist was clever?

0o
 

Daedalus1942

New member
Jun 26, 2009
4,164
0
0
UNKNOWNINCOGNITO said:
Daedalus1942 said:
UNKNOWNINCOGNITO said:
QuickDEMOL1SHER said:
Resistance 2, Resistance 2 and Resistance 2.

OH! Also Resistance 2. As well as Resistance 2.

Did I mention Resistance 2?
Let me Back that up for you.

It totally un did the gameplay style and feel of the last one.
It just copied other shooters "COD" to make it more media noticable.
It had a shit ending.
Multiplayer was full of annoying things.

Though you have to admit, we all liked the Co-Op.
How in the hell did Resistance 2 have a shit ending? It was brilliant and realistically the story couldn't have gone any other way considering the rest of the flow of the story.
It barely copied anything from Call of Cuty 4, considering they were both being developed at the same time, and were released roughly around the same time. How could they have copied anything? If anything resistance 2 felt way more similar to Killzone two, so maybe they ripped some things off the first Killzone.
But, if you think that they ripped things from the Call of duty series, maybe you should think back to a well known EA franchise called Battlefield (pick a number). Call of duty ripped off Battlefield and to a lesser extent counter-strike. To say R2 ripped off Call of duty is just ludicrous.
it expanded well on the first game and is far superiour in nearly every single way, had interesting setpieces, great graphics and difficult enemies.
If it's a failed sequel, how do you explain the shining review nearly every major game site gave it?
http://au.gamespot.com/ps3/action/resistance2/index.html?tag=result;title;0
http://au.ps3.ign.com/objects/142/14211237.html
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/game.php?id=10015
http://www.gamerankings.com/ps3/944521-resistance-2/index.html
http://au.ps3.gamespy.com/playstation-3/resistance-2/
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/resistance2?q=resistance%202
http://ps3.gamezone.com/gamesell/p34508.htm
I'm pretty sure I've made my point...
But the whole Vibe and feel of the last game was gone, The great quadrant health system was gone, the frantic run and gun play style turned into a simple "Shoot them, take damage, wait a lil, get back to shooting" , the 8 carriable weapon system was ditched for a 2 weapon system, all the weapons lost thier "Awesome" factor by becoming overly balanced (In R1 the weapons all seemed to have one main use that made them the best weapon for given job while in R2 you just chose which ever you wanted and it wouldn't really matter) , the enimies were made less imtimidating with the AI and stat redone and it used the "Press L1 to look down sight" system that Call of Duty started.

The point of a sequel is to continue the "feeling" of the past game not totally change and evolve it to the point where you have 2 seperate games with the same character models.

This is just my opinion, (Though I'll admit the ending was only bad because of the huge cliff hanger the rest of it had a nice "wow" effect) Resistance 2 was indeed a huge improvement from Resistance 1 as a closing point to re assure that I don't hate it just I wished they stuck to what made resistance 1 so good.
Ok, thank you for clarifying your statement. When you said the ending was shit, and stated it ripped of CoD, I was thinking you were one of those neanderthals who had never heard of an "eff pee ess" before CoD4. It changed alot of the things from the first game, granted, but for good reason. The weapon game mechanics were streamlined and the whole healing thing tied in nicely with Nathan's progression of the Chimeran infection.
Thank you for clarifying your previous post as the first one really made you sound like a blithering idiot who just had no idea.
Glad to see that isn't the case.
 

omega 616

Elite Member
May 1, 2009
5,879
1
43
Dark Angel Warlord said:
metal gear solid 2 sucked!!!!! you couldn't even play snake u got some whiny emo kid ...
tomb raider sequels
doom 3
final fantasy x2 i felt something was missing
Fixed that up for you, metal gear 2 is a totally different game to metal gear solid 2.

[img

On topic. they have already been mentioned but there so bad I will say them again, DoW2 and FFX-2, they should be banished.

Both have god awful gameplay, which is vastly different to the first ... in a bad way.
 

Jennacide

New member
Dec 6, 2007
1,019
0
0
Nomanslander said:
Hopeless Bastard said:
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.

Also: complaining about Bio1's ending is amusing, since 2's endings were just as stupid and bad. The ONLY thing Bio2 had going for it was better combat, everything else wasn't as good. Story, levels, atmosphere. And don't even get me started on the multiplayer, the single most unbalanced and idiotic online play I've ever seen. Swarm + Grenade Launcher = FREE POINTS.
omega 616 said:
On topic. they have already been mentioned but there so bad I will say them again, DoW2 and FFX-2, they should be banished.

Both have god awful gameplay, which is vastly different to the first ... in a bad way.
DoW2's single player was different, the online play was almost the same. And honestly who buys strategy games for single player? =|
 

omega 616

Elite Member
May 1, 2009
5,879
1
43
Jennacide said:
DoW2's single player was different, the online play was almost the same. And honestly who buys strategy games for single player? =|
Ummm, I do.

I have only just got the proper Internet so I could never play online before a few months ago.

Now, I much prefer playing on my ps3 and I don't have a desk or anything to put my PC on so it's practically impossible the way it is set up now, I can barely surf the net.

I have my keyboard balanced on my pc, so it rattles when I type and my mouse is on my leg or I put my keyboard on my lap and use my mouse on the cushion so my wrist is bent back as far as possible.

I have just moved house, from were I had a comp desk and a chair so I had neither then when I moved, I have to buy my own and they aren't cheap! (well, all I need now is a chair)

I am also below average in terms of skill on RTS games, I never memorize hotkeys, I turtle really badly and usually only build one of every production/research building.
 

userwhoquitthesite

New member
Jul 23, 2009
2,177
0
0
Soviet Heavy said:
Generator said:
OT: I feel like Going Commando was the best PS2 Ratchet & Clank game, and Up Your Arsenal, while still good, didn't quite reach the standards that its predecessor set. Not to mention Deadlocked (probably the worst of the series).
I never played the series after going commando. It was and always will be the highlight.
In Up Your Arsenal, your weapons would upgrade TEN TIMES. That meant that upgrades weren't as radical as the single upgrade system in Commando.

In Commando, the Mini Nuke, your second weapon, upgraded from the Gravity Bomb, was still extremely devastating later in the game. Compare that to any weapon from Arsenal, where the difference between a level three and four gun is much less satisfying.
THANK you.
I didn't like the upgrading weapons at all, but at least they werent half as irritating in Going Commando.

The games have just been going downhill ever since. RaC was a near-perfect game. With every new game since, things have gotten steadily worse (but with tighter controls) and after having played all of RaCF, I want to pretend they didnt happen.

also in my list of bad or at least disappointing sequels:
Oblivion (so good, but not in the right ways)
DMC4 (and anyone who says otherwise is a filthy liar or stupid)
and more but i have to leave now
 

Kagim

New member
Aug 26, 2009
1,200
0
0
IF you count Dirge of Cerebres(cant spell i know) as a sequel to FFVII then god damn that should be the number one spot on everyone's lists. That game was horrible. Headshots only meant a higher chance at a critical so it was pretty much playing a fps slowed way the crap down. I was so excited when i heard about it but they couldn't leave the rpg out of it. I enjoyed the fact guns were upgradeable and leveling up itself is fine but the rpg combat element should never be in a game advertised as a shooter. When i shoot someone in the head they are supposed to die, not have a ten percent extra chance to crit.

Everyone seems to complain about BS2 lately. I find it odd. Its a fairly decent shooter. Is it a page from the burning glory of god in all that should be gaming? Christ no. I think ts a massive improvement over the first game. Then again in the first game on my second play through on the thought of having to do that last hour again I turned it off for thee months. I just wish people would stop comparing it to the first like they do. BOTH games have broken stories, just in different ways. The endings? Yeah the evil side got screwed on a crap ending. The good side i thought was well done. The endings for BS2 are actually all really well done. Better then i have seen from any game in a long while.

Maybe BS2 was saved for me because i refused to read word one about it. I walked into it with the only prior knowledge that it took place in rapture. I was spared from the hype tainting my view of the game.

I can deal with people not liking it straight out, it just bugs me when people complain about its "bad story" the talk about how awesome Halo was. Halo was the definition of crappy story.(Real life incidents, not here, yet)

Back on topic. I hope Infamous 2 stays away from being a crappy sequel and i agree with the people saying DOW 2 was crap.
 

LastCelt1989

New member
Jan 7, 2009
59
0
0
I know its all ready been mentioned, and I know someone posted a restoration mod for it but I'm sorry, KOTOR 2 is the first game that came to mind when I saw this thread. I like that game but i still preferred and kept going back to the original. Goin off just the console version, I just did not feel as satisfied with that story, I didn't think the characters as a whole were as well rounded or as worthwhile and the whole experience was just not reaching the high bar that was set by the original.
Any others; I would say Metal gear solid 3, might get a bit of flak for this but after all the constant going in and out of menus to change this and that all the damn time, I just enjoyed going back to 2 but more so MGS1 for the more streamlined but still challenging gameplay.
Probably Tomb Raider Underworld as well, again I enjoyed this game but I found myself going back to Tomb Raider anniversary a lot more than I really should have, thats probably quite bad considering Anniversary is based on a game thats like what? 10 possibly more years old.

Oh I just thought of one more. Medieval total war 2.
My god, if there was ever a game that made me want to go back to the previous game than this is it. Rome Total war is one of my all time favourite games (seriously I have pumped over a hundred hours into that game easily and yet after getting MTW2 I just could not have cared less for that game, I really cant put my finger on why but yeah thats easily a failed sequel in my eyes.
 

XT inc

Senior Member
Jul 29, 2009
990
0
21
Mercenaries 2 destroyed the franchise, they have some serious fixing to do.
 

CheckD3

New member
Dec 9, 2009
1,181
0
0
I would classify MW2 as a failed sequel because the story mode isn't as interesting as the first. I rate the story in CoD4 as one of the best in gaming, but in MW2 I just can't get into it for that long. The special ops course is fun, and helps get a friend into the action, but it's the multiplayer that I play it for. It's a challenge that I deeply enjoy

I like Brawl, and wouldn't call it a failed sequel, but I wouldn't call it a successful sequel, because while it brings new good things to the game, it counters them with stupid or useless things, that makes it a neutral sequel.

I think that Pokemon Ru/Sa/Em were failed sequels, because where G/S/C brought in new things to the original, such as night/day cycle, a new land and 100 new pokemon, it didn't do so without pushing out the old, and in fact suprised (at least me) with having everything from the original game IN the sequel, new and improved (though they got rid of the Safari Zone in G/S/C T.T ) Ru/Sa/Em failed because it gave you a new world, but pushed out all the new things that S/G/C brought in. Sure it gave us double battling, but we lost a lot of the 2nd gen and even some 1st gen pokemon, we lost the time cycle, we lost the older lands you could travel to, and we lost Team Rocket (and instead got 2 fighting teams, not as powerful as Team Rocket trying to take over the pokeland)

I think that Pokemon has a lot of failed sequels, the games are good, but they change so much it's too new. I loved Silver and subsequently SoulSilver because they're the only real SEQUELS to the pokemon games, where as everything else is just a new thing with the same tag added on, like a FF game, only without angsty teenagers killing Satanic dictators or whatever
 

blindthrall

New member
Oct 14, 2009
1,149
0
0
SantoUno said:
Anyone who mentions KOTOR 2 gets their throat slit by me.

Sadly someone will still say it, and I will just sit here and keep enjoying KOTOR 2 regardless.

Seriously it may be people's opinion, but I don't understand how people keep praising only the first one when the second one had far better and improved gameplay as well as a much deeper story and universe.
Not a deeper story and or universe, the SAME story and universe, just explored in a little more depth. Improved gameplay? By making it much easier? Only improvement I saw was no damn pod racing. But it fails because it didn't have an ending. The story COULD have been much more epic if they had somehow tied it together at the end, I could see how it was coming together to be a great finale, but then the game gives up. What happened to the HK-47 clones? Why is Bao-Dur dead? Too many plot threads left hanging, the game simply wasn't finished.

My failed sequel is Deus Ex 2. Bioshock 2 wasn't bad, the end was just weak. Bioshock isn't the same without Ryan. Lamb is a hateful *****, that I enjoy watching drown.
 

Magnalian

New member
Dec 10, 2009
969
0
0
Furburt said:
I'm going to risk flame here and say that I consider Dawn Of War 2 to be a failed sequel. That's not to say it's a bad game, but for someone like me who enjoyed the original for its epic and bombastic battles and its all around over the topness, having the second game get lodged awkwardly between Company Of Heroes squad tactics, the original games setting and a strange RPG like system just makes it inferior. They lost the best thing about Dawn Of War, the sense of scale and the ferocity of a huge battle.

Obviously, opinions vary, but that's mine.
I would have to agree with this one. I was interested in DoW II and downloaded the demo on Steam, but I found it a big disappointment. It's just a lot less fun if you can't bombard the enemy with a bunch of Dreadnoughts.
 

blindthrall

New member
Oct 14, 2009
1,149
0
0
Tazz Azreal said:
well curently playing bioshock 2 i would not call it "failed" its more or so an emotional heart-string puller, that is still a good game, its more or so bioshock but your a big daddy that can jump and new weapons, so far thats the only difference but im only on level 2 so theres more or less new suprises to be had (i hope)
Yeah that's the problem right there. There aren't any surprises. The game is maddeningly straightforward. Enjoy the improved combat and new locales, but the narrative can't hold a candle.
 

notyouraveragejoe

Dehakchakala!
Nov 8, 2008
1,446
0
0
I'd have to say that there is no way that I'd ever consider Bioshock 2 a failed sequel. However a failed sequel in my eyes has to be Brothers In Arms: Earned In Blood. In no way is this a bad game. However the first, Road To Hill 30, is better. Honestly I found the story more compelling in the first. Also Earned In Blood came out very quickly after the first one so there wasn't really much they could improve or changed to be in that short time period. I mean, even the graphics hadn't changed, the gameplay hadn't changed all that much and the story was the same one from the first just told from a different perspective (that of a character that actually joined up with yours for most of the game). All in all...a failed sequel. Though I've heard good things from Hell's Highway (the newest one) and if anyone's played it tell me what its like and whether its worth getting please.
 

Frenger

New member
May 31, 2009
325
0
0
I will mention KOTOR 2,

It wasn't bad, it failed simply because it could very easily been the best of the games.

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