Has any game series improved with every sequel?

[crazygameguy4ever]

Took me a bit to try and figure out which game series has improved continuously over the course of the series cause I couldn't think of many.. but.. after careful consideration I'll go first with the Saints Row series.. the first game was GTA clone, Saints Row 2 was GTA clone with some major improvements over both the first game and the GTA series like the create a character mode and the wacky side activities like riding around in a sewage truck and spraying raw sewage at people, houses and cars. Then there was Saint's Row the Third.. a game I still consider a high point of the series..the graphics are good, the controls are perfect, the missions are insane yet fun and everything is over the top in a good way..

Then there's Saints Row 4.. which took what worked so well in Saints Row the Third and cranked up the wacky meter to 1000+.. adding super powers, even more bizarre missions, an interesting story line and more patented Saints Row brand humor.. I hope the 5th game can outdo it somehow..


Another series that comes to mind is the Rocksteady developed Batman Arkham games.. The first game Batman: Arkham Asylum blew people expectations out of the earth by making a game that was not only a great superhero game, but a great action game, a great licensed property game and great Batman game.. Not to say it didn't have a few flaws like the boss battles and there not being enough thugs to fight. Batman: Arkham City took al that worked in the first game and improved greatly on the first game with better boss battles, more enemies, side missions and a larger area to explore. I don't count the horrible Warner Brothers Montreal developed Batman Arkham Origins game as part of the series since it didn't add anything or do anything different other then be filed with bugs and glitches.
Assuming the upcoming Batman Arkham Knight game is as good as the first 2 Rocksteady games then I'd say the Arkham games have definitely improved over the series.

 

[Phlogiston]

Completely agree with Civ not so sure on Xcom because of the dodgy Interceptor/Enforcer/Apocalypse parts - Not sure on the order but I missed out on those iterations and haven't heard much good said about them. They're all sitting in my steam library as part of a bundle I bought many moons ago but I was never interested in actually playing them when I can play the original two or the latest one (or Jagged Alliance 2 or Frozen Synapse) to scratch that itch.

 

[Kingjackl]

Ratchet & Clank is a big one for me. I haven't played the most recent games, but everything from the original to Crack in Time has just been a slow, steady increase in quality. I admit they do get a bit samey, but the gimmicks and improvements they add with each game like the upgrade system and arena fights from 2 onwards, the war sequences in 3, and the time puzzles in Crack in Time are enough to make each game fun and interesting in it's own right.

This was the first game series that came to mind for me but Deadlocked kind of ruins the trend.

I see where you're coming from. I didn't really mind Deadlocked, since it felt more like an arena spin-off and not a full game. At least the commentators were entertaining.

In hindsight, I think Tools of Destruction may have been a bit of a come-down, since it's main draw was being the first one to have PS3 graphics, but those aren't really that exciting any more. I'd still say the series has been mostly consistently good though.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

Half-Life 2 was better than Half-Life 2 is basically every single way

 

[debtcollector]

Super Smash Bros. The first one set up the franchise, and was functional, but certainly wasn't any more than good fun. Melee added a lot of stuff to the original formula, and a lot of that stuff was unnecessary fluff. Brawl trimmed the fat, rebalanced a few things, and added tripping and shitty event matches. ....Well, it's not perfect, but I still consider it an improvement. Project M fanboys can suck my dick.

 

[Cybylt]

I'm gonna get so much hate for this...

Morrowind was great, especially in terms of atmosphere, but the combat was shit, as was the lack of fast travel (a mechanic that was in earlier installments) something that should be in any open world game.

Oblivion was a huge graphical improvement and the combat was far superior. Story was slightly worse but pretty engaging all the same.

And Skyrim improved on Oblivion in every possible way

Why would you get hate for this? I agree 100%. Guess I'll have to think of my own answer now...

You're kidding right? Have you even seen the fanaticism with which Morrowind fanboys defend what they see as "the best game evar"? and how they will start spouting nonsense like how the series is "being dumbed down for the filthy casuals". Seriously, even Dark Souls fans aren't close to being as elitist, which is saying something.

I do think that TES improves but at the same time... Quests were pretty weak in Skyrim compared to Oblivion, barring a few of the daedra and faction ones. Combat is getting better but it still hasn't really even hit "good" in melee while other games do spellcasting better on their first shot at it. Plus as the series goes on each successive title is less a game (or even a completely finished game. Seriously though Bethesda, invest in QA) unto itself and more platform for mods with the vanilla game largely being held up by the lore that proceeds it.

My core conceit with them is how little impact you actually have in the world is even though everyone is constantly billing you as the chosen one of every deity currently existing. But that's something in the background of every TES game for a while now, not something growing more and more with... wait actually no Skyrim definitely drove it harder than the previous games. My other one is random loot and level scaling. Exploration is a big point of the games at this point and it feels pointless when you largely get random drops for it. Scenic vistas only carry you so far.

Anyway...
I guess my choices, and trying to pick something not said yet, so I'm gonna go with Persona and Monster Hunter.

The former, and I'll definitely get hate for that from the 2 fans, went from a game so grindy that korean mmo developers get all wet in the nethers thinking about it, to a solid dungeon crawl/jrpg with a good story and while I guess it's not so much improvement as it is equally good in different ways but from there it added a pretty good time management and oddly addicting social bit that ended up eclipsing the also solid dungeon crawl in entertainment value, better and better explained monster fusion but it had an AI controlled party aside from the player character. With the final installment they dropped the AI party control (though you can opt it back in if you're a masochist) kept what was good about the previous game and gave you a group that actually felt like they'd work together because they wanted to rather than they were obligated too as well as using the social systems introduced in the last game to build up these seemingly archetypal characters only to deconstruct and rebuild them as you progressed.

The latter on the other hand more or less stays the coursw but in a similar fashion to the way pokemon does. They experiment with new features, tweak mechanics that don't quite work, and fix the broken ones all the while giving more or better made content with each entry.

 

[veloper]

A very strong argument can be made for the Civilization series.

Civilization scratched a 4x itch many didn't even know they had.

CivII improved on Civ's mechanics and graphics, and its expansions added some very user friendly scenario building tools that produced countless quality fan made scenarios. 'Brown Man's Burden' was my favorite, in part for inverting Civ's imperialist outlook. I think I must have gotten at least 1000 hours of enjoyment out of Civ2. It also indirectly spawned Alpha Centauri, which would ruin my argument if it weren't technically a different franchise.

CivIII in added more depth and polish without bungling the spirit of the series. I probably got the least enjoyment out of this one, but only because I loved CivII so much. It is a much tighter game that not withstanding.

CivIV is often considered the deepest of the series, and also was the platform for the Fall from Heaven mods. If you like Civ or the fantasy genre but haven't played it, stop reading this and download Fall from Heaven 2 right now. IMO the best fan mod ever made for any game.

CivV wasn't initially as deep as IV in empire building mechanics, and created some fan consternation in its changes, but it seems internet consensus has come around to it as the most enjoyable and accessible installment, and that hexes and 1 unit per tile have improved (practically created) the tactical element. With the expansions, it arguably eclipses Civ4 in depth or at least comes close. Also, for the first time, it is a pleasure to see and hear rival leaders on the diplomacy screen (if not actually negotiate with them, CivV's only major blemish.)

It's more like civilization games seem to improve with each full expansion and then take a step backwards with each fresh sequel.

I take Civ 3 over Civ 4(vanilla) and Civ4BTS over Civ 5, but not with all the new expansions installed.
Next time, I'll have the patience to just wait for a Civ 6 Complete edition.

 

[Khanht Cope]

I personally can't think of anything beyond a two game series where the sequel improves on the original. It seems there's an inevitable element of 'X steps forward, Y steps back' so it's not only rare that there are universal improvements, but when there are, it's almost inevitable that they only ever go on long enough to stumble in some way at least somewhere; and in cases where the creative direction is actually capable of continual improvement, there'll always be some douchebag publisher that messes it up because they want to shoe-horn in crap/unnecessary/generic features, cut budgets/deadlines, or order a side team to crap out a lazy cash grab game to exploit the goodwill earned by honest quality-assured work.

Though some enduring Japanese franchises like Persona and Tales of certainly have noteworthy consistency.

(I'd say the price with Tales of is the lack of ambition from its more iterative nature which also means there will always be some story elements, characters, worlds, dungeons, or feature and system changes that were individually preferred in a previous game. But if you know you like Tales of games, the baseline experience you can be confident of will be at least a very steady {in relation to previous entries} and enjoyable game)

 

[Ieyke]

Pokemon is probably the only one I can really think of, unless we go with really short series.
Fall of Cybertron is better than War for Cybertron.
Left 4 Dead 2 is better than Left 4 Dead
MegaMan Legends 2 is better than MegaMan Legends.

I could probably name a lot of 2 game series.

Diablo, Starcraft and Pokemon. Yeah, bitches, I went there.

Invalid. Diablo 2 is fantastic, Diablo 3 is monumentally mediocre.