Has any game series improved with every sequel?

[LookingGlass]

After its recent digital re-release, I finally got the chance to play Hitman: Contracts, the third game in the Hitman series. I really liked it: better than Hitman and Hitman 2 but not as good as Hitman: Blood Money (the fourth game in the series). For once, a series that actually got better with every new iteration... quite a thing. At least, until Hitman: Absolution came along and screwed that all up.

Whilst movies, books, etc have a tough time actually getting better with every new entry in a series, it seems like games should be able to do it much easier, especially games where the gameplay is the main selling point (rather than story) and they've had the chance to iterate on it over several games. That said, it doesn't seem to happen that often. Any examples of it actually working out (at least for a while)?

 

[Zhukov]

Ehhhh... this topic is just going to devolve into arguments over whether Game #2 was better than Game #1, or Game #4 better than Game #3. For example, I thought Absolution was better than the older Hitman games. I also thought Blood Money was worse than whatever the second one was called.

I also thought each Mass Effect game was an improvement on the one that came before. Which I'm sure is a position that absolutely nobody could ever disagree with. Although each game also leaned on the foundation of its predecessor, so it's an odd case.

The Half Life games also saw steady improvement.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head since I'm not counting "series" of just two games and most games that keep churning out sequels beyond three or four end up screwing the pooch eventually.

 

[LookingGlass]

^ Well yeah, obviously it's very subjective. There's not a right or wrong answer. I'm curious as to what series individual people thought kept improving with each instalment (perhaps I could have worded the question more like that, but I figure it's always implied that it's opinion not fact on a gaming discussion forum). Particularly since I can't think of too many situations like that myself... it's hard to even get to three consecutive games where the latest was better than the last (Rainbow Six, Rogue Spear, and Raven Shield is about all I can think of).

 

[Ubiquitous Duck]

Ehhhh... this topic is just going to devolve into arguments over whether Game #2 was better than Game #1, or Game #4 better than Game #3. For example, I thought Absolution was better than the older Hitman games. I also thought Blood Money was worse than whatever the second one was called.

I also thought each Mass Effect game was an improvement on the one that came before. Which I'm sure is a position that absolutely nobody could ever disagree with. Although each game also leaned on the foundation of its predecessor, so it's an odd case.

The Half Life games also saw steady improvement.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head since I'm not counting "series" of just two games and most games that keep churning out sequels beyond three or four end up screwing the pooch eventually.

I agree with the games here and the message!

It does seem like this topic is very open to interpretation, as to what constitutes a 'better' game. Like can the first always be considered the best as it set the stage for the sequels and they wouldn't have existed without it and steal a lot of content from it. The first one was the novel one, the followings play off of that.

Also, for more elongated series, it's a bit of a high expectation for 'every' sequel to be an improvement on the last. Maybe in a trilogy it can be showcased, but something several instalments long, there are bound to be some hiccups, even if only minor - Like, I liked Bioshock 2, but just preferred the other two in that batch of three games. It's not like they failed, at least to me.

And can 'better' just be more advanced, more to it? Because Mass Effect, as the example above, can be considered as better games by each instalment, but obviously some people will prefer different ones, through their own experience, but if you looked objectively you can see the games as a running improvement.

Also, some games are crap and we love them for it anyway. Often unexplainably. But would you uphold this game as 'better' because you had a good experience with it or would you stand back and realise that it's just a joyous turd.

tl;dr Too many arguments around what constitutes a 'better' game.

 

[ihavetwo]

You could say the Ratchet and Clank series did that, the first game was decent, the second game was better in almost every way and the third game improved even more.

 

[RJ 17]

The original Sonic trilogy (with Sonic & Knuckles) got better with each game. The first Sonic game was a lot of fun, Sonic 2 was better, Sonic 3 was even better, and then they gave us Sonic & Knuckles which was just amazing.

Since those were the only Sonic games on the Genesis (not counting that weird pinball game which itself wasn't too bad), I count them as their own series set apart from all the crap that came after it.

I'd like to say Mass Effect, but there's a bit of an * to go with it. As Zhukov pointed out, this is all subjective anyways, but while I'd say the gameplay definitely improved with each game in the series, the story kinda stumbled backwards a bit for ME2. I still enjoyed it, but I thought chasing down Saren was a much better story than hunting the Collectors.

 

[josemlopes]

Absolution better then Blood Money!?

Burn the HERETIC!

OT: Timesplitters, even though some prefer 2 over 3 there is no denying that 3 has a lot more going on and is just as good as 2 (just slightly different), Timesplitters 1 even being a fun game does offer a lot less and could have used a bit more polishement.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

Damn. It's actually really difficult to think of any game series that have.

Let's see.

Ummm....... Well The Witcher series might. Remains to be seen with the third game though. I have high hopes.

 

[Marik2]

Metal Gear Solid to me is the one series where each game improves on its formula. They feel like proper sequels since each iteration improves over the last game and brings in interesting gameplay elements that fit the theme of the game for the most part.

 

[Phlogiston]

My answers: Pilotwings and Railroad Tycoon

 

[cypher-raige]

I'd like to say Mass Effect, but there's a bit of an * to go with it. As Zhukov pointed out, this is all subjective anyways, but while I'd say the gameplay definitely improved with each game in the series, the story kinda stumbled backwards a bit for ME2. I still enjoyed it, but I thought chasing down Saren was a much better story than hunting the Collectors.

The first game was by far the best in the series. I feel EA got their snot all over the other two.

 

[Evonisia]

Well I can't really think of a series which did get "better" (in my eyes since subjectivity, yo).

Oh I got one! The (Western) Silent Hill series. Origins was a copy paste of Silent Hill 1, Homecoming was a copy paste of Silent Hill 2, Shattered Memories was a really good and cohesive game which is more than just a "re-imaging" of Silent Hill 1 and Silent Hill Downpour is the series learning from the good stuff of the Western titles.

Downpour > Shattered Memories >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Homecoming > Origins

Had Silent Hill 4: The Room not been terrible for gameplay I would have said the Japanese series as well. SH3 > SH2 > SH1 > SH4: The Room.

Subjectivity it awesome, yes?

 

[Rellik San]

Baldurs Gate, Icewind Dale, Dungeon Kee.... eeeeeyeah... lets pretend mobile version doesn't exist...

Diabl... no no....

I don't think this could really be done justice, franchises have either too few games to really say for sure or sooner or later a bad game happens, I suppose the original Warcraft Trilogy.

 

[Gxas]

The Pokémon franchise gets consistently better with every new iteration in terms of gameplay and mechanics.

I don't care what your thoughts on the Pokémon designs are, you cannot tell me that Red and Blue play better than X and Y.

 

[william12123]

Pokemon is really the only thing I can say. The makers know their formula, apply it perfectly each game, and give little more than refinements & small experiments between each one.

 

[Headsprouter]

Time to put that old hat on again and say: Timesplitters did!

First game: Gameplay, scarcely anything else!

Second game: Better gameplay, more stuff, better graphics, better story, cutscenes!

Third game: Starts to become more comparable with other FPS games of the era, clear story progression, clear humour, hands visible in first person, graphics are better...it's just so great, man.

I'd just love to have known if the fourth instalment kept it going. Screw you, HAZE, you kept it from us!

 

[Not Lord Atkin]

Hard to say. most of my favourite franchises are published by Ubisoft and Ubisoft, the bunch of cunts that they are, have a history of shooting themselves in the foot, failing to realise what makes their games good and appealing to audieces that don't exist.

Prince of persia series is a prime example of this. The first game is to this date the best in the series. The second one improved upon combat but replaced most platforming with death traps and went unnecessarily and stupidly dark. I was replaying it the other day and I could not stop wishing for a different colour palette and more appropriate music. And less brooding and angst. The third game is a mixed bag. Better than the second in some respects, worse in others, never quite as good as the first. Then they came up with that alright-ish cell-shaded thing in 2008 which was maybe a little bit too slow and repetitive for its own good. And then the movie tie in, which I honestly liked a lot but the charm was gone.

Splinter Cell is like this too. First game was great, second was like a shorter, more lazily designed copy of the first, third was the dog's bollocks (man do I love that game. sometimes with my penis), fourth was good but didn't quite live up to the third and the fifth just kind of tripped over, knocked all its teeth out and soiled itself in the process. blacklist was then an exercise in damage control but for every step forward, it takes another step back. definite improvement but not quite there.

As for Assassin's Creed, The first one had great ideas, the second one expanded on those and added some faffing about and the third one was so packed with all the faffing about that it pushed all the remaining good ideas out. then revelations was more of the same. and 3 was just taking the piss. I haven't played black flag yet.

Thats what happens when some of the worlds best developers are employed by one of the worlds most backward and incompetent publishers.

so if I were to find a series that improves with every sequel... well arguably the souls games. Dark Souls was immesurably better than demon's souls and darks souls 2 is looking to be even better than that, even though I've only played a couple of minutes so far.

oh and this one is fun: EA's sports licences. Now I don't play any of those but apparently they are slightly expanded and marginally improved every year? Just a thought anyway.