The most disappointing game sequels
- Thread starter Cridhe
- Start date
Does Halo ODST count as a sequel? It wasn't very good. I love Halo but god damn, that game sucked.
It's just so... dumbed down. I can't stand it, yet I love SupCom1 and it's expansion to bits.Caligulas.dog said:
Oh my, where to start?
Final Fantasy VIII.
After VII rocked my socks, I'll admit my expectations for VIII were probably never going to be met. However, the game just too damn long to get anything done. Every little "walk to the other side of town" moment was plaqued with dialogue and moments of utter stupidity.
Going off mission, risking the lives of your friends, and leaving the fate of the world blowing in the wind... to apologise to someone for being mean? Yeah. Ruined.
Call of Duty - Any title after Modern Warfare.
Call of Duty was a revelation; cinematic action heavy gameplay, that still knew how to give you those heart-in-throat moments. COD2 wasn't as good, COD3 was a piece of shit, but COD4 knocked it out of the park. And every game since then has gotten worse, dumber and less fun. Remember when Call of Duty used to attempt to be semi-realistic?
Resident Evil 5.
Depsite any claims to the contrary, Resident Evil 4 still remains the best in the series. 1 and 2 were terrific - and still are - but nostalgia blinds, and tank controls with a fixed perspective aren't much fun any more. Resident Evil 5 decided to become Gears of War, without anything that made Gears of War actually fun. I had no fun, at any moment, playing this game, and it remains a candidate for the worst game of this generation.
Real Time inventory? Co-op focus... in a survival horror game? The second worst companion A.I. in a hyped game (Hi, Daikatana!) of all time? A confusing menu system that treats you as inferior if you're playing single player?
Crysis 2.
If Crysis 2 had of been called anything other than a Crysis game, I'd slap a big 4 star banner on that baby and recommend it to my friends. However, it did stick a Crysis sticker on the box, and unfortunately this is possible the worst shooter sequel since Farcry 2. Gone is... everything from Crysis. In its place is a console centric menu system, console centric multiplayer, console centric graphics engine, and a story that is actually worse if you've played the original game. Flying ice testicle monsters? Gone. Alien grunts that look and act like very Military Shooter bad-guy since Modern Warfare? Check. How did they fuck this up? Seriously.
Supreme Commander 2.
The worst RTS sequel of all time. That includes Command & Conquer 4. Let that sink in for a moment. The single player campaign was somehow even worse than the shit the first game gave us! But the worst thing that ever happened was to the gameplay. Gone was the scale of the first game - because fuck people who like your games, right? Everything that was good about the first game was removed, in favour a poor selling Xbox 360 version that left the developer in such a bad state financially they had to sell off one of their own I.P.s to keep the company afloat. Consoles have destroyed a lot of series - this is one of the few I'll never forget. I play the original. It's literally better in every single aspect. No exceptions. None.
Deus Ex: Invisible War.
It's as bad as you've read. It destroyed Deus Ex, and nearly left the series completely abandoned. Luckily, Human Revolution came along and revived the series by basically ignoring this title. Every thing it does is an item to ensure you never do with a sequel.
Grand Theft Auto IV.
We were promised a gritty, dirty tale - a new direction for the series, that focused on realism and consequence. What we got was 15 hours of fetch quests, side missions that were even more mindless than the single player campaign, and a broken multiplayer system. At least the city was cool. For about an hour.
Starcraft II.
Industry leading production values. The worst story, characters, plot and dialogue I've seen in a game that takes itself seriously since Ultima IX. The Terran-focused balance system means if you're not playing Terran, you're doing it wrong. The lack of a meaningful single player campaign means the game is utterly worthless. Blizzard finally made a bad game. And burnt whatever good will they had left.
Diablo III.
Real Money Auction House. What else do you need to know? Prepare for the great shit storm of our time.
Final Fantasy VIII.
After VII rocked my socks, I'll admit my expectations for VIII were probably never going to be met. However, the game just too damn long to get anything done. Every little "walk to the other side of town" moment was plaqued with dialogue and moments of utter stupidity.
Going off mission, risking the lives of your friends, and leaving the fate of the world blowing in the wind... to apologise to someone for being mean? Yeah. Ruined.
Call of Duty - Any title after Modern Warfare.
Call of Duty was a revelation; cinematic action heavy gameplay, that still knew how to give you those heart-in-throat moments. COD2 wasn't as good, COD3 was a piece of shit, but COD4 knocked it out of the park. And every game since then has gotten worse, dumber and less fun. Remember when Call of Duty used to attempt to be semi-realistic?
Resident Evil 5.
Depsite any claims to the contrary, Resident Evil 4 still remains the best in the series. 1 and 2 were terrific - and still are - but nostalgia blinds, and tank controls with a fixed perspective aren't much fun any more. Resident Evil 5 decided to become Gears of War, without anything that made Gears of War actually fun. I had no fun, at any moment, playing this game, and it remains a candidate for the worst game of this generation.
Real Time inventory? Co-op focus... in a survival horror game? The second worst companion A.I. in a hyped game (Hi, Daikatana!) of all time? A confusing menu system that treats you as inferior if you're playing single player?
Crysis 2.
If Crysis 2 had of been called anything other than a Crysis game, I'd slap a big 4 star banner on that baby and recommend it to my friends. However, it did stick a Crysis sticker on the box, and unfortunately this is possible the worst shooter sequel since Farcry 2. Gone is... everything from Crysis. In its place is a console centric menu system, console centric multiplayer, console centric graphics engine, and a story that is actually worse if you've played the original game. Flying ice testicle monsters? Gone. Alien grunts that look and act like very Military Shooter bad-guy since Modern Warfare? Check. How did they fuck this up? Seriously.
Supreme Commander 2.
The worst RTS sequel of all time. That includes Command & Conquer 4. Let that sink in for a moment. The single player campaign was somehow even worse than the shit the first game gave us! But the worst thing that ever happened was to the gameplay. Gone was the scale of the first game - because fuck people who like your games, right? Everything that was good about the first game was removed, in favour a poor selling Xbox 360 version that left the developer in such a bad state financially they had to sell off one of their own I.P.s to keep the company afloat. Consoles have destroyed a lot of series - this is one of the few I'll never forget. I play the original. It's literally better in every single aspect. No exceptions. None.
Deus Ex: Invisible War.
It's as bad as you've read. It destroyed Deus Ex, and nearly left the series completely abandoned. Luckily, Human Revolution came along and revived the series by basically ignoring this title. Every thing it does is an item to ensure you never do with a sequel.
Grand Theft Auto IV.
We were promised a gritty, dirty tale - a new direction for the series, that focused on realism and consequence. What we got was 15 hours of fetch quests, side missions that were even more mindless than the single player campaign, and a broken multiplayer system. At least the city was cool. For about an hour.
Starcraft II.
Industry leading production values. The worst story, characters, plot and dialogue I've seen in a game that takes itself seriously since Ultima IX. The Terran-focused balance system means if you're not playing Terran, you're doing it wrong. The lack of a meaningful single player campaign means the game is utterly worthless. Blizzard finally made a bad game. And burnt whatever good will they had left.
Diablo III.
Real Money Auction House. What else do you need to know? Prepare for the great shit storm of our time.
That's basically all MGS4 is; expensive fanservice.DarkishFriend said:
Not that I didn't feel all warm and fuzzy when Snake returns to Shadow Moses and you hear that mourful song swell up, but this game was a huge clusterfuck.
For me, Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee.
I never played Invisible War but I thought that Human Revolution was utter garbage. I couldn't bring myself to continue playing beyond the first level because I hated it so much. Maybe I am too used to action games where you are playing a hard nut but I hated the fact that three shots saw you dead even on normal.
Also GTA IV. I enjoyed the game but Rockstar in a way lost the spirit of the game by making it too serious. That and the targeting system was horrible. Make the game again with the improved targeting of Red Dead Redemption and you might tempt me back.
Finally, Bioshock 2. You are supposed to be playing a genetically engineered superman, but you can't handle a bunch of measly splicers without snuffing it? Seriously? I mean, I want a challenge in my gaming, but going into every fight at a disadvantage seems to be a bit too far in the opposite direction (at least when playing on normal difficulty!).
Also GTA IV. I enjoyed the game but Rockstar in a way lost the spirit of the game by making it too serious. That and the targeting system was horrible. Make the game again with the improved targeting of Red Dead Redemption and you might tempt me back.
Finally, Bioshock 2. You are supposed to be playing a genetically engineered superman, but you can't handle a bunch of measly splicers without snuffing it? Seriously? I mean, I want a challenge in my gaming, but going into every fight at a disadvantage seems to be a bit too far in the opposite direction (at least when playing on normal difficulty!).
Oooooh, nice one!FallenTraveler said:
I'm going for Shadow Hearts: From The New World.
Except for the fact that they still had Yoshitaka Hirota handling a big chunk of the soundtrack, this one really hurt me.
- In Covenant, the horror-aspect was severely toned down, but here it's just GONE.
- Only 5 fusions as opposed to the 23 from Covenant. What?!
- Hardly any (worthwhile) connection with the previous two games.
- The Stellar magic system is far less interesting than the Key of Solomon magic system.
- Where's Koudelka? We saw her going to America at the end of the original Shadow Hearts - now where is she?!
- Uninteresting cast with a story not up to par with the rest of the series.
- Is it just me, or is the game graphically worse than its predecessor?
- None of the CG-movies are as impressive as those from Covenant.
- Am I the only one where the game crashes when Natan is used in a battle?
Crackdown 2.
Nothing about it was in any way superior to the first.
NOTHING AT ALL.
And the city was the exact same one from the first Crackdown as well.
Nothing about it was in any way superior to the first.
NOTHING AT ALL.
And the city was the exact same one from the first Crackdown as well.
Star Control 3. Poor interface, buggy game mechanics, the ignoring of large chunks of what was established in 2 followed by rehashing large amounts of sc2 dialogue. The fact you can end up dead ended if something fails to happen at the right time and then the game becomes unwinnable.
All in all, it took everything that was great in SC2 and threw it out the window.
All in all, it took everything that was great in SC2 and threw it out the window.
Every heroes of might and magic after 3(haven't seen much of new one yet, so it doesn't count. But it looks like 4)
and
Dreamfall the longest journey. First half of why it's so disappointing is because the first one was an awesome point and click adventure, but this one was more and action game. And the second part is because it was planned to be sold in 2 parts, but guess what they weren't happy with the sales of the first one, so they canned it. And now I remember a good story on a cliffhanger with exactly half of it told. I mean they introduced a new playable character so near the end. And he was kinda cool.
and
Dreamfall the longest journey. First half of why it's so disappointing is because the first one was an awesome point and click adventure, but this one was more and action game. And the second part is because it was planned to be sold in 2 parts, but guess what they weren't happy with the sales of the first one, so they canned it. And now I remember a good story on a cliffhanger with exactly half of it told. I mean they introduced a new playable character so near the end. And he was kinda cool.
![Violator[xL]](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/24/24558.jpg?1620210777){kind=avatar}
People bashing RE4, DA2, WoW, Final Fantasy, Oblivion and even Fallout 3?
Can't change anyone's opinion but I just have to ask, where are your bloody standards?
RE4 is probably one of the best 3rd-person shooters ever made, DA2 wasn't up to the standards of the first one but heck, it's still a great game. WoW raping the storyline of WC3? There is no doubt that WoW is probably one of the best storyline's ever written, considering the massive amount of text that is the entire world of Azeroth. Final Fantasy 8 and 13 was, agreeably, huge disappointments but most of them are really good (FFX is one of my favorite games of all time, X-2 is quite high as well). Bashing Oblivion for not being as good as Morrowind is quite stupid, the same for DA2, since no artist can create the same masterpiece twice (example: Mona Lisa) and I'm not even gonna go into why Fallout 3 shouldn't be anywhere near this list, that's common sense and logic.
OT: As someone said, any Heroes after 3 was just... bad. Megaman X7 was also really bad and the same goes for almost any modern Nintendo-sequel, where did the awesome platforming and unforgiving difficulties go? :'(
PS. Sorry for feeding the trolls, couldn't keep my fingers off the keyboard.. DS.
Can't change anyone's opinion but I just have to ask, where are your bloody standards?
RE4 is probably one of the best 3rd-person shooters ever made, DA2 wasn't up to the standards of the first one but heck, it's still a great game. WoW raping the storyline of WC3? There is no doubt that WoW is probably one of the best storyline's ever written, considering the massive amount of text that is the entire world of Azeroth. Final Fantasy 8 and 13 was, agreeably, huge disappointments but most of them are really good (FFX is one of my favorite games of all time, X-2 is quite high as well). Bashing Oblivion for not being as good as Morrowind is quite stupid, the same for DA2, since no artist can create the same masterpiece twice (example: Mona Lisa) and I'm not even gonna go into why Fallout 3 shouldn't be anywhere near this list, that's common sense and logic.
OT: As someone said, any Heroes after 3 was just... bad. Megaman X7 was also really bad and the same goes for almost any modern Nintendo-sequel, where did the awesome platforming and unforgiving difficulties go? :'(
PS. Sorry for feeding the trolls, couldn't keep my fingers off the keyboard.. DS.
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,170
- 143
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
the spud said:
It was cleverly disguised spam, but the mods have edited out the link now.Arontala said:
OT: For me it was Red Steel 2, while it was superior in many ways to the first game, in graphics and combat, just felt like it had something missing. Oh right, the story. While the first game wasn't going to win any awards for it's clichéd storyline (save your kidnapped girlfriend), at-least it was interesting and a good motivator. Number 2 moved down the rung to simply "the bad guys have taken over your clan's city, take it back." with no explanation of who you or anyone was.
GTA IV - Simply put, it wasn't fun. Part of that may have been the set-up. Instead of trying to build a crime empire, my focus was simply a revenge killing on one guy. Just not as fun a concept. Additionally, if I want to take a friend out for drinks/bowling/strip club, I'll turn off the game and do so. That it was almost mandatory to keep this huge stable of friends and girlfriend happy was a massive headache. Near the end, I would take turns, one day, I do missions, the next run around keeping everyone happy. Felt like it was thrown in just to pad the game's hours.
Civ V - I don't hate it, but I don't love it the way I love IV. Too much seemed dumbed down, but I generally don't want my games dumbed down at all.
Civ V - I don't hate it, but I don't love it the way I love IV. Too much seemed dumbed down, but I generally don't want my games dumbed down at all.
And yeah dow 2 wasnt a bad game, but i was looking forwards to swarming the place with tyranid hordes like i did with orks and guard in the older ones, but then they cut the numbers and added this cover based stuff which kinda annoyed me.
The story and campaign were vastly imporved and interesting compared to the last ones, but i just didnt enjoy it as much, maybe cause it felt almost cut down, less races, less manpower you could deploy and while the campaign as good, it was still a lot smaller.
but then i do like rts games where i can build large armie so im probably biased there[/quote]
The original WH40k tabletop game was based on battle scenarios. When they made dow, they were taking a game more like dow 2 and making it an RTS. It's a great achievement to have successfully turned WH40k into a RTS, and I can see the disappointment in taking that series ideal, and stepping backwards with it.[/quote]
Yeah, its a good point, ive played the tabletop game for like a decade now and still love it today, but fielding large scale battles or say over 2,000 points could take ages, the older dow games i felt helped do larger scale stuff, and while unrelated to the game, were just as fun to me but without having to spend possibly a whole day playing the tabletop game.
(Also, its a lot lot cheaper considering the recent price hikes...)
The story and campaign were vastly imporved and interesting compared to the last ones, but i just didnt enjoy it as much, maybe cause it felt almost cut down, less races, less manpower you could deploy and while the campaign as good, it was still a lot smaller.
but then i do like rts games where i can build large armie so im probably biased there[/quote]
The original WH40k tabletop game was based on battle scenarios. When they made dow, they were taking a game more like dow 2 and making it an RTS. It's a great achievement to have successfully turned WH40k into a RTS, and I can see the disappointment in taking that series ideal, and stepping backwards with it.[/quote]
Yeah, its a good point, ive played the tabletop game for like a decade now and still love it today, but fielding large scale battles or say over 2,000 points could take ages, the older dow games i felt helped do larger scale stuff, and while unrelated to the game, were just as fun to me but without having to spend possibly a whole day playing the tabletop game.
(Also, its a lot lot cheaper considering the recent price hikes...)