One step forward, two steps back (Videogame sequels).

[Mister K]

Most of the times, when a sequel to a game comes out, there are certain new features added, or old ones are tweaked a bit. However, a lot of times, with postive changes come the negative ones. Which sequels are guilty of this? Share your thoughts.

My example is Blue Magic in Final Fantasy games. For those who don't know, Blue Magic is a school of magic in FF that allows the user to copy and use skills of monsters encountered in the world. However acquiring those skills wasn't easy. In Final Fantasies 6 and 7, for instant, enemy had to use the skill on your blue mage with your blue mage surviving it (if it's a damage dealing skill). In order to get those skills for sure, you had to use another character that can take control of monsters (which always has a low chance of happening) and make it use the skill on a blue mage.

In FF 9, you had Quina who learned Blue Magic spells by eating monsters. The catch? In order for her to eat them they had to be softened up first, which is a bit hard to do, because your mages do basically zero damage with ordinary attacks and your warriors deal TOO much damage and kill them too fast.

And here comes Final Fantasy X. In this one, your blue mage has to simply use a skill on an enemy and BOOM! Blue Magic learned. Aaaaand Blue Magic spells are Limit Breaks (Overdrives) now. Not only that, there are ONLY 11 of them, with ONLY about 4 of them being useful. Fantastic.

The Blue Magic school is most of the times is used for the sake of variety only, with all other, ordinary spells and skills quickly becoming a lot more powerful then BM ones. Why lock those spells behind other barriers, I fail to understand. I mean, I like FF games (with FF X and VI always being on my best games list), but the way Blue Magic is treated always bugged me.

 

[Oroboros]

Dragon transformations going from Breath of Fire III to Breath of Fire IV come to mind. In the first one, when you use a dragon transformation, you choose up to three dragon 'genes' for the transformation, with each gene contributing different abilities and stats to the resulting dragon form. Considering there were 18 genes total you could collect over the course of the game, there were thousands of combinations you could come up with, including a bunch of unique dragon transformations.

In Breath of Fire 4, there are only a handful of transformations, with half of them being upgrades of previous forms only unlocked by earning enough points in the silly (and often frustrating) minigames scattered throughout the game. And when you transform, you turn into a human-dragon hybrid (which was its own dragon transformation in BoF III), only turning into the 'real' dragon when you use a dragon breath attack. And to top it off you can't even be healed in dragon form anymore, except through a single extremely rare healing item.

To say it was disappointing would be a huge understatement. Particularly considering the drastic improvements the combat system had over the previous game otherwise.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

This one is a bit of a trade off: In Dark Cloud, your item pouch held up to 100 individual items, with no stacking. That means you can hold any of a certain item until the bag is full. Great for stocking up on healing items and the much necessary repair powders for your weapons. Dark Cloud 2/ Dark Chronicle has items stack in the 100 slots. It great... except for the fact that the caps for many items is very limiting. Even the auto repair powders (which are now super rare rewards for sidequests) and revival powders (also rare) are capped at like 3 or so. That makes the informed player avoid a challenge that rewards them with an item they currently have no room for, and the uninformed lose out on a rare and useful item (especially the character revival powders in the uber hard bonus dungeon). At least DC2 got rid of weapons magically disappearing if they broke.

--

This example is more from a remake, but Majora's Mask 3D mostly improved the original but made a few steps back. The Zora swimming in the original is one of the best underwater controls in any video game every, but to go at the full speed in MM 3D, you now must use magic power. That was kinda lame. They added some extra challenge to the bosses, too. All the others are ok, but Gyorge (George) has a second phase that is all underwater. The new swimming mechanics and George being a pain to defeat make me prefer the N64 version, at least for that boss.

--

Ok, one more and I'll shut up for a bit. Metroid: Other M. Sorry, but I at least gotta vent on the technical issues here. First 3D third person entry in the series? Let's not use the nunchuck or anything else, but the dinky little d-pad and 2-3 buttons on the wiimote. We got too many things Samus can do to just use that control scheme? Let's make the player frantically have to adjust their grip on the wiimote and aim it at the screen to shoot missles. Our limited controls also mean this has to happen while Samus is stuck standing still, usually during heated combat. We want to call back to Super Metroid, the best title in the series (and one of the best games on the SNES) to many fans? Let's make it even more linear than Fusion, by railroading the player even more and even locking them in pixel hunts and boringly slow walking sections. Another simple 2D Metroid would be more steps forward than this game.

--

I also agree with OP on FFX's blue mage. He doesn't see much use as a blue mage since they are his limit breaks (which I think is the same for FFVIII's blue mage, so Square jumped back and forth there), and the few good techniques are only learned near the end of the game. (I didn't really have a problem with FFIX's system, though. Even being somewhat overleveled didn't stop me from turning Quina into a powerhouse.)

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Assassin's Creed is the king of of Giveth and Taketh. Par example:

Assassin's Creed II
Away with beggars! Replaced with minstrels, and bigger crowds.

Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood
Bigger main city! But less cities, and less variety.
You have a crossbow! And now your pistol is useless.
Making money is even easier now! In fact, it's too easy. And it's even more useless this time around.
Those pesky collectibles finally show up in maps! But now they have no use. And there're twice as many.

Assassin's Creed V: Unity
Whatever it does, it takes your ship away.

 

[Dalisclock]

Assassin's Creed is the king of of Giveth and Taketh. Par example:

Assassin's Creed II
Away with beggars! Replaced with minstrels, and bigger crowds.

Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood
Bigger main city! But less cities, and less variety.
You have a crossbow! And now your pistol is useless.
Making money is even easier now! In fact, it's too easy. And it's even more useless this time around.
Those pesky collectibles finally show up in maps! But now they have no use. And there're twice as many.

Assassin's Creed V: Unity
Whatever it does, it takes your ship away.

Another one for AC:Brotherhood.
-Remember that cool mini-game where you renovate a city from a Slum into something really nice? And it makes you money? Now you get to do that in a much larger city, and it's required to buy pretty much anything.
-Remember how you love climb towers in these games? Now you have to do that while avoiding being killed so you can unlock territory so you can renovate stores to make money.

AC: Revelations.
-We got to see the end of Ezio's and Altair's story. Meanwhile, the present story is in a complete holding pattern(Justified in the plot, but still annoying).
-We finally get to learn more about Clays(Subject 16) and Desmonds backstories. Except these characters were introduced 3 games ago and that's way too long before you get around to telling us anything interesting about them. Also, the means you learn about their backstories are through a wierd 3d, 1st person tetris mini-game(which you have to unlock by collecting those animus fragments).
-Just in case capturing towers wasn't bad enough, now there's a tower defense mini-game where you can lose territory if you get noticed too much.

AC: Rogue.
-The Pirate ship is back, and you get some really cool toys to play with(such as the puckle gun). However, now there are two large sailing maps and New York, and there's either forts or towers to capture in ALL of them!
-Also, the "renovate buildings to make money" system is back, and it requires materials that you could be using to upgrade your ship. Yay.
-It turns out, Templars take over cities the same way assassins do, one stronghold at a time, except they can't call for help like the assassins can(which is bizarre considering the Templars are supposed the be the stronger ones). So now you pretty much have to everything yourself.

Seriously, Ubisoft, we get that you like Towers/outposts but it seems like that's your answer to everything gameplay related. It was cute in Brotherhood but it's getting tiresome.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

Kingdom Hearts 2. Don't get me wrong, I love most of the changes made and definitely feel it's the superior game overall, but they introduced a map feature sorely lacking in the first game... and then made it useless by making all the areas super-linear, nothing even as complicated as Wonderland. I feel The World That Never Was was awesome and could have been even better than Hollow Bastion if it hadn't been just a long series of corridors, more boss gauntlet than final dungeon. Worse, a new map must be found for each new area in a world. So at least twice per world, you will open a chest thinking there might be a good item... and find a useless map. It's always a letdown.

I haven't played most of the other spinoffs but I have heard that each one introduced new wrinkles to the combat system (like the sleights in Chain of Memories) that could be good or bad. Penny Arcade even made a comic about how much strange new stuff got thrown into Dream Drop Distance for it's own sake (also OT, I remember them making one about the third Phantasy Star Online becoming a card game whereas it was previously a sci-fi MMO), and that's one I'm actually interested in trying. I suppose it's good that they're trying to improve it with new things, but remember where that got Final Fantasy.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'll go with Dragon Age Inquisition.

Tried to improve on DA2's limited scope and re-used assets by providing a huge open world...that was utterly static and devoid of personality, and stuffed to the gills with horrifyingly banal busy work.

Said busy work artificially bloated the game's length, often by necessity, completely destroying the story pacing and character interaction that Bioware had previously been known for.

They responded to criticism of ME3's 'ambitious' philosophical twist by doing a 180 and delivering one of the most stale and overused blobs of formula ever delivered, and still managed to make it weird and off-putting by having your character be the religious figurehead of a fundamentalist church-state self-identifying as "An Inquisition".

Ditched the high-falutin' shades of grey attempted (poorly) in DA2 and ME3 in favor of a completely one dimensional and hilariously limp villain with an impossible to pronounce name.

Feature creep infesting everything, with a plurality of wrong-headed and poorly considered design choices bogging everything down and clogging everything up. It's very difficult to go five minutes in the game without tripping over some crap-sack design flaw.

Can't even be blessed with "ambitious failure", because so many elements of it just REEK of concentrated mediocrity. So little passion evident in its design. Feels like a game designed by an inept committee.

Bioshock Infinite, big time.

I view Infinite as being a refinement and re-focus on the only elements of Bioshock that ever really mattered to begin with. It was ALWAYS naff at the shooty bits. If there'd been a third Bioshock and it had been a point and click adventure game it would have been even MORE true to itself.

 

[Something Amyss]

Saints Row 3 immediately comes to mind.

The game improves certain things, like the control scheme. SR2 is sort of hard for me to go back to because of control issues (and even harder to play on my PC thanks to a less-than-competent version). On the other hand, it is a much more shallow experience that removes a lot of the black humour and exploration. The combat basically became more competent, but it adopted many elements of shooters I don't like (bullet sponge enemies).


I feel like IV did a better job, in that it traded off into a different subtype of sandbox game without sacrificing all that much. It's still kind of got issues I had with 3, but it doesn't feel like a reduced experience. Is it as good as 2? I don't know, but at least it doesn't come off as gutted out.

AC: Revelations.
-We got to see the end of Ezio's and Altair's story. Meanwhile, the present story is in a complete holding pattern(Justified in the plot, but still annoying).
-We finally get to learn more about Clays(Subject 16) and Desmonds backstories. Except these characters were introduced 3 games ago and that's way too long before you get around to telling us anything interesting about them. Also, the means you learn about their backstories are through a wierd 3d, 1st person tetris mini-game(which you have to unlock by collecting those animus fragments).

The first bit and the second bit are kind o tied together. I'm actually more or less fine with the present plot and Desmond being pushed to the back in part because it's been three games in which little was done with the latter and I still don't have a reason to care about the former. Like, okay, tie together Altair and Ezio's stories and bring them to a close. Great. But then they attach what little character development Ezio gets to this new element you unlock specifically by slogging through collectable, essentially dumping it in the background. If they wanted to develop Ezio, doing it this way was the worst of both worlds.

Also, the minigame was basically "spam blocks and walk," except a very slight amount of difficulty in the last part. I defeated myself more often than the game did by overthinking when the solution was "spam block." I literally would have preferred a walking simulator. t least then I could have focused more on the plot. Oh, and Clay is locked behind a ten dollar DLC. So I'm not going to get that development, because the idea of paying for more gameplay I didn't like just doesn't do it for me. I'm not sure if this is a step forward, a step back, or both: the ore-patched version of AC II made the DLC memory sequences necessary for in-game 100% completion and a trophy, and I suspect they would have kept it that way if not for fan outrage.

I also felt like the combat in Bro/Rev was more simplified. It wasn't until 2/3 of the way into the game I felt the need to start relying on counters. Yes, 2 also simplified things, but it still felt like Assassin's Creed, rather than feeling like a squishier Dynasty Warriors.

But AC is really a series where they seem to throw things to a wall and see what sticks.

This also reminded me of Mass Effect:

"Here, try the Mako."
"The Mako handles bad and makes things tedious."
"You don't like the Mako? We'll replace it with a time-wasting mining minigame."
"This is slow and boring."
"Gone. We'll replace it with a new minigame in 3. The important thing is we throw in some new broken, extraneous crap rather than making things fun."

Same with the combat, really.

 

[Dalisclock]

But AC is really a series where they seem to throw things to a wall and see what sticks.

That's kind of how I feel about Rogue(which I'm playing through for the first time right now).

It feels like Ubisoft just decided to cram in almost every gameplay element from earlier games that they think people liked.

Hunting/Crafting from III? Check.
Whaling/Crafting from IV? Check.
Conquering Cities one district at a time by taking out strongholds from Brotherhood? Check.
Hunting Indian Artifacts to unlock special armor from IV? Check.
Destroying/Conquering forts from IV? Check.
"Strategic" management minigame from Brotherhood? Check.
Renovating buildings from II for cash flow? Check.
Computer hacking from IV? Check.
The Pirating from IV? Check.

At least they didn't try to cram the tower defense mini-game from revelations or the beaver pelt trading from III in the as well.

I realize that these elements have built up over time but the feature creep is getting daunting, especially in a game whose main story isn't that long. I actually replayed all the games(except 1, because I still don't particularly like the first one) this last year(mostly in order) and including story DLC and it was kind of weird and fascinating to watch the evolution of the series and how, somehow, despite adding more and different features, the whole thing seems to be.....I don't know, losing itself? Choking on it's own bloat?

Maybe I need to start a separate topic just for this.

 

[FalloutJack]

Let's just start with an obligatory slap in the face of Final Fantasy 8, since it's both obvious and an easy target for having such a shitty...everything.

Let us also just throw out there 'any game that deserved a sequel and retained the setback of not getting one.

And then, we move on.

Legacy of Kain Series - Reaching high, we start with that Shakespearean style-acted tale of vampires and wraiths... LoK has had both ups AND downs for various reasons. Of course, the first Blood Omen and Soul Reaver game were limited in comparison to their PS2 sequels, but they had problems. Soul Reaver 2 was a puzzle sword quest with bi-polar difficulty and some rather unforgiving demon segments that was originally suppose to be attached to its prior game, but resources ran out and they had to move on. Blood Omen 2 was...not designed well. It was interesting and dark, but it was awkward and, at times, tedious. Plus, unforgiving Hylden segments. They finally nailed it with Defiance, and then...Tony Jay died. Gods all the dammits!

MDK Games - Another case of the transitions from Playstation to PS2 and such. MDK was a straightforward and fun shooter/sniper game developed by Shiny Entertainment. The sequel was not, but it WAS a good game, even though you have three characters with three play-styles to get through in order to win. One problem: There's at least one segment in there where you have to navigate an area as something NOT your characrer, and therefore be instantly killed if you fail and have to go back. This should not be in the game, even though it also added mad science and outright comedy to the equation.

Bad Games with 3s In Them - Twisted Metal 3, Street Fighter 3 (any version), Mortal Kombat 3 (either of them), and probably others. I noticed that these games in particular were either not that good or just meh in terms of quality overall. Did they run out of ideas or something? It's hard to say. Note that this does not included the kickass Devil Mat Cry 3, because everyone knows that the second game was terrible. Still, the games that came after these examples...turned out better, at least.

That's all that comes to mind right now.

 

[sageoftruth]

Halo 2:
You know, looking for health packs is so stressful. Let's do away with them completely and replace it with regenerating health. Who knows? Maybe this great idea will become a staple of bland shooters for years to come.

I still remember the puzzled "WTF" in my head when first I saw that there was no health bar in Halo 2.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Halo 2:
You know, looking for health packs is so stressful. Let's do away with them completely and replace it with regenerating health. Who knows? Maybe this great idea will become a staple of bland shooters for years to come.

I still remember the puzzled "WTF" in my head when first I saw that there was no health bar in Halo 2.

There was no healthbar/healthkits in Halo from the very first installment if memory serves me correctly.

 

[sageoftruth]

Halo 2:
You know, looking for health packs is so stressful. Let's do away with them completely and replace it with regenerating health. Who knows? Maybe this great idea will become a staple of bland shooters for years to come.

I still remember the puzzled "WTF" in my head when first I saw that there was no health bar in Halo 2.

There was no healthbar/healthkits in Halo from the very first installment if memory serves me correctly.

There was. I was watching a friend play it just last week. It still had regenerating shields, but health could only be restored via health packs. That was a healthy compromise for me. Then again, what do you mean by "first installment"? I could be mistaken based on that.

Anyway, here's a link that mentions the health system in Halo
http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Health

 

[Casual Shinji]

There was. I was watching a friend play it just last week. It still had regenerating shields, but health could only be restored via health packs. That was a healthy compromise for me. Then again, what do you mean by "first installment"? I could be mistaken based on that.

Well I'll be, you're right.

I can't for the life of me remember any healthpacks in that game though. It's been ages since I last played it.

 

[Mister K]

SNIP

But... But Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike is concidered to be one of the BEST Street Fighter games! I mean, yes, the majority of the cast are new faces, compared to other games in the series (which is IMO good, how many versions of Sagat can there be?), but it had great mechanics, (IMHO) the best fight speed and with relatively nice character balance (Yes, kung-fu twins are too good, 12 is really bad, but everyone else is viable).

As far as I know, the only reason it didn't sell well originaly is because of markets saturation with different fighting games, with majority of them being 3D (which was considered cool and modern), while SF stayed 2D.

I mean, I am not saying that you are OBLIGED to like it, but it is NOT one of the games that deserve a place in this thread, not by a long shot.

 

[FalloutJack]

SNIP

But... But Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike is concidered to be one of the BEST Street Fighter games! I mean, yes, the majority of the cast are new faces, compared to other games in the series (which is IMO good, how many versions of Sagat can there be?), but it had great mechanics, (IMHO) the best fight speed and with relatively nice character balance (Yes, kung-fu twins are too good, 12 is really bad, but everyone else is viable).

As far as I know, the only reason it didn't sell well originaly is because of markets saturation with different fighting games, with majority of them being 3D (which was considered cool and modern), while SF stayed 2D.

I mean, I am not saying that you are OBLIGED to like it, but it is NOT one of the games that deserve a place in this thread, not by a long shot.

Streat Fighter games became the butt of many "Capcom can't count" jokes because they kept on making add-ons to their games, rather than progressing. I heard an arcade machine of Super Street Fighter Alpha 3 announce itself with that mouthful and I just busted out laughing. So, for them, it's more like the ERA of three was getting ridiculous for them, since it took so long for them to reach Street Fighter 4, which I think is good.

 

[Batou667]

I still remember the puzzled "WTF" in my head when first I saw that there was no health bar in Halo 2.

There was a health bar... only it was invisible. And also regenerating.

I think the switch to regenerating health was overall a good one, and the logical end-point of the system they didn't *quite* have the cajones to fully implement in Halo:CE. It also made canonical sense, as you play as a genetically engineered dude in a suit of AI-augmented armour. Granted it makes a lot less sense when the same mechanic is then used in loads of supposedly realistic real-world games... but that's not strictly Halo's fault is it, they didn't tell every bugger and their dog to rip them off.

No health packs in 2 or 3. They came back in Reach though, which was a bit of a compromise where the health bar was split into regenerating threshold health.

Were there? I played the bejeezus out of Reach and I don't remember health packs. That's not to say they *weren't* in the game, but I don't remember it. I know they made an appearance in ODST.


it] You're right, there were health packs in Reach.
----

Anywhoo, my examples of "two steps back" games would be:

Halo 4 - No Firefight, no Campaign Theatre, and its version of Forge was frankly disappointing compared with Reach's glorious Forge World.

Gears of War Judgment - No Horde Mode, and the traditional system of using the D-pad to select between four weapons was discarded in favour of a Halo-style 2-weapon system. Overrun Mode was the only silver lining.

 

[Vigormortis]

I still remember the puzzled "WTF" in my head when first I saw that there was no health bar in Halo 2.

There was a health bar... only it was invisible. And also regenerating.

I think the switch to regenerating health was overall a good one, and the logical end-point of the system they didn't *quite* have the cajones to fully implement in Halo:CE. It also made canonical sense, as you play as a genetically engineered dude in a suit of AI-augmented armour. Granted it makes a lot less sense when the same mechanic is then used in loads of supposedly realistic real-world games... but that's not strictly Halo's fault is it, they didn't tell every bugger and their dog to rip them off.

I disagree.

Halo: CE had both a non-regenerative health bar and a regenerating shield bar. Damage was applied to the shield first, but when depleted damage was applied to your health bar. If you took cover for long enough, your shield would recharge but your health would remain at whatever level it was lowered to.

This was a brilliant mechanic, in my opinion. It encouraged players to not go full-on Rambo into a fight. Instead, it encouraged players to play more tactically. To play more mindfully and to think ahead. It provided a punishment for mistakes (the lower health you're left over with) but allowed some leeway for later fights (the regen'd shield).

Even canonically it made more sense. While the Spartans, via their suits and biology, have increased strength, stamina, and endurance, they aren't invincible. They can still be hurt, thus necessitating the need for medical attention when wounds become too great. This is reflected in a health/shield mechanic.

The change to a single, fully regenerating health bar in Halo 2 and onward made little sense. Neither mechanically nor canonically. And, if I may, I feel it takes more "cajones" to implement a system similar to CE's than it does 2's. The former encourages smarter plays and made encounters more thrilling. The latter encourages recklessness and removes much of the challenge and thrill from any given encounter. It's essentially like this: Someone can royally cock up a fight through a long string of poor planning and reckless moves. But, as long as he survives, he returns to full health shortly after. There're no consequences for his mistakes. He learns nothing from the encounter. He's no reason to plan out a better approach to a similar situation in the future.

For me, this takes a lot away from the experience. Much of the fun and thrill are lost. I feel less accomplished for coming out of a fight triumphant.

I know this doesn't apply to everyone, but for me it does. This is why, among several reasons, I just really dislike Halo 2.

Oh, and the health bar wasn't invisible in Halo 2. There simply wasn't one. There was only a general "shield" bar above the map.

 

[Batou667]

I disagree.
...
It encouraged players to not go full-on Rambo into a fight. Instead, it encouraged players to play more tactically. To play more mindfully and to think ahead. It provided a punishment for mistakes (the lower health you're left over with) but allowed some leeway for later fights (the regen'd shield).

I dunno, with non-inventory health kits there's always the issue of backtracking. Halo CE had some wonderful open levels (Halo and Silent Cartographer in particular) where it actually was possible to come out of a firefight and decide to double back to that supply cache you found earlier but didn't need. Halo 2/3/4 levels tended to be a lot more linear, even accounting for the occasional free-roam environment, you'd get barriers (physical or figurative) come down behind you at intervals. Remove health kits from the mix and checkpoints become roughly analogous to supply caches, and for the most part the Halo games have had pretty good checkpoint design and integration. ODST's health-dispensers further underline this relationship between health kit and savepoint IMO - they're both ways of achieving the same "second chance" in gameplay.

Even canonically it made more sense. While the Spartans, via their suits and biology, have increased strength, stamina, and endurance, they aren't invincible. They can still be hurt, thus necessitating the need for medical attention when wounds become too great. This is reflected in a health/shield mechanic.

Well, the canon is rather elastic - recall all the stuff that happens in cutscenes and off-camera that would be an insta-death in gameplay (like the time Chief fell from orbit and got up and fought at 100% capability). According the the Halo Wiki, the regenerating health in 2/3 represents the Mjolnir IV's bio-foam injectors... but that sounds a bit made-up to me. It's primarily a gameplay streamlining decision.

Oh, and the health bar wasn't invisible in Halo 2. There simply wasn't one. There was only a general "shield" bar above the map.

Sure, not one that was ever shown to us, but unless any unshielded damage was a one hit kill there must have been an ersatz health meter. I remember reading a Bungie blog post explaining how the "invisible health bar" worked in Halo 3, and AFAIK Halo 2 worked on the same principle.

 

[Vigormortis]

I dunno, with non-inventory health kits there's always the issue of backtracking. Halo CE had some wonderful open levels (Halo and Silent Cartographer in particular) where it actually was possible to come out of a firefight and decide to double back to that supply cache you found earlier but didn't need. Halo 2/3/4 levels tended to be a lot more linear, even accounting for the occasional free-roam environment, you'd get barriers (physical or figurative) come down behind you at intervals. Remove health kits from the mix and checkpoints become roughly analogous to supply caches, and for the most part the Halo games have had pretty good checkpoint design and integration. ODST's health-dispensers further underline this relationship between health kit and savepoint IMO - they're both ways of achieving the same "second chance" in gameplay.

I don't feel that they are analogous. Your health regens to full, regardless of your progression to or from a checkpoint. So, to me, they don't really seem like a variation of 'supply caches'.

Backtracking isn't an inherently bad mechanic. Provided clever planning is done in level design, backtracking can be kept at a minimum. Halo 2 and onward suffered from forced linear progression because there was no need to create 'supply caches'. They didn't have to be clever with the level design since player resources regen'd naturally.

ODST's health dispensers are equivalent to the same health/shield/medkit system that was present in CE. It's one of many reasons why ODST still remains one of my favorite of the Halo games.

That said, I'm not saying the methods used in 2 and onward are inherently wrong. They're just as valid as most other systems. I just preferred the systems present in CE and ODST. That's all.

Well, the canon is rather elastic - recall all the stuff that happens in cutscenes and off-camera that would be an insta-death in gameplay (like the time Chief fell from orbit and got up and fought at 100% capability). According the the Halo Wiki, the regenerating health in 2/3 represents the Mjolnir IV's bio-foam injectors... but that sounds a bit made-up to me. It's primarily a gameplay streamlining decision.

Egh. Fan-run wikis are almost universally full of absurdities as the fans attempt to explain away inconsistencies and
nonsensical elements within game narratives.

You should see some of the fan explanations for why the Combine had so many fuel barrels laying around....

Sure, not one that was ever shown to us, but unless any unshielded damage was a one hit kill there must have been an ersatz health meter. I remember reading a Bungie blog post explaining how the "invisible health bar" worked in Halo 3, and AFAIK Halo 2 worked on the same principle.

It wasn't really a health 'bar' so much as it was an ifthenelse statement. When the shield was depleted the game would check how much further damage you'd taken until the shield began to recharge. If the damage hit or exceeded a certain amount the player was killed.

We can't really say the 'meter' was invisible, since there really wasn't one, but that's just me arguing semantics. I get the point you were conveying.