Now, there are many cases in video game history where a company makes a classic game, and than makes a great sequel... but which is usualy still the best?
Poll: Original game VS Sequel.
- Thread starter TrogzTheTroll
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sequel. Because unlike movies, game sequels normally listen to what their audience did and didn't like from the first game and fix it. I point to you the Gears of War series.
Rainbow Six Vegas 2 was much better than it's predecessor.
Condemned 2, even though they fucked up the second half of the story, the combat was much better and it was still scary.
Condemned 2, even though they fucked up the second half of the story, the combat was much better and it was still scary.
I like originals, to many times now the sequels are just the first game with a new paint job and some new weapons. I still thing Halo: CE was best
well i figure that depends, if its planned to make a bigger and better sequel, then it can work out to be better, but if there making it for some form of cash in, cause the game they released before was awesome and well liked
Exhibit A: Rainbow 6 Vegas > Rainbow 6 Vegas 2
this games Sequel may not have been planned off the bat, but the game was Well Received, and liked, so they made a improvement, and it was well received as well
Exhibit B: Halo, Halo 2, Halo 3
these games were planned, and the developer made Strives to make each one bigger and better then the one before it, improving controls, weapons, visuals and everything they could to make the game Enjoyable
Exhibit C: Sonic games
heres a Example of Not to do with your Sequels, the first ones were simple, and fun, and as they progressed with different ideas, they slowly and surely sucked the life, and fun outta everything they could
Exhibit A: Rainbow 6 Vegas > Rainbow 6 Vegas 2
this games Sequel may not have been planned off the bat, but the game was Well Received, and liked, so they made a improvement, and it was well received as well
Exhibit B: Halo, Halo 2, Halo 3
these games were planned, and the developer made Strives to make each one bigger and better then the one before it, improving controls, weapons, visuals and everything they could to make the game Enjoyable
Exhibit C: Sonic games
heres a Example of Not to do with your Sequels, the first ones were simple, and fun, and as they progressed with different ideas, they slowly and surely sucked the life, and fun outta everything they could
Yes and No because Gears of War 2 Multiplayer was laggy as hell and Sonic sequels have taught me that if the original creator isn't helping in development then expect sh!t.
But other times if the give you more of what you want (Sonic 1,2,3, and Knuckles) then most of times it turns out better because it's bigger and better.
But other times if the give you more of what you want (Sonic 1,2,3, and Knuckles) then most of times it turns out better because it's bigger and better.
The original sequel's been a pretty reliable thing to buy, two examples that immediately spring to mind are the Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero series. TH2 is still my favorite Tony Hawk, they stopped being good after Underground, and GHII is still loved by many many people.
I think it's a toss up. For every sequel I can think of that's been better than the original (Baldur's Gate 2 by a slim margin, Rainbow Six Vegas 2, Metal Gear Solid 3), there are just as many that crashed and burned (KOTOR 2, Silent Hill 4, Resident Evil 4). I think it really depends on production staff--did the team that worked on the original work on this game--and the freshness of the title. It's harder to resurrect older titles because nostalgia goggles make a lot of people look upon the originals as untouchable perfection. For me, this happened with the Fallout games. I loved the first two, and the third disappointed. I've been going back recently and playing it. I have to admit it's not as bad as I first decried, and it would have been damn enjoyable if they hadn't called it Fallout. I also look at KOTOR 2, which was handed to a completely different developer and it shows. The game is far inferior.
I can't make a blanket statement saying all sequels are better, or all originals. I think you really have to evaluate them on a case by case basis.
I can't make a blanket statement saying all sequels are better, or all originals. I think you really have to evaluate them on a case by case basis.
I think both are usually equal because usually half the time the sequel implements additions and innovations that that improve the original, and at other times the sequel fails to succeed its predecessor. Some games do a little of both (Halo games are the first example that comes to mind).
It depends. I'd say that sequels are, on average, slightly worse. Firstly because they're not as original and what you could do in the first one isn't as exciting the second time round. Secondly, the story in a sequel is usually worse than the original because sequels are often tacked on.
Originals are usually better, but there are obvious examples of amazing sequels. Halo 2, CoD4, Warcraft 3 just to name a few.
