Good sequels are supposed to keep the basic formula that the previous entry had, but not to stick to it like glue; rather, sequels should use the previous game as a jumping off point. A foundation. Call of Duty seems afraid to make the leap.Satsuki666 said:Well there are two problems with your statement. One is that there have been very few multiplayer focused games like CoD that have sequels. Those that are update about the same amount as CoD does. They change a few things but keep the same basic formula. The single player games generally change even less other then the story. So why is CoD getting crap for following pretty much the same formula that nearly every other sequel does?ultrachicken said:Lolwut? Care to explain what line of reasoning led to that statement?Satsuki666 said:You obviously have not played sequels to very many games.ultrachicken said:If I wanted more Modern Warfare 2, I'd play more Modern Warfare 2. They don't need to screw around with the basic formula, but sequels need more updates than this.
Play Halo 3 and then Reach. Play Bad Company 1 and then 2. You'll see that big multiplayer franchises don't have to stay the same, and can be greatly improved by working on their formula.
As for singleplayer games, look at Oblivion to Skyrim, Mass Effect to Mass Effect 2, Assassin's Creed 2 to Brotherhood. These all took what made the prequels great and built on them, meeting largely with success (I know Skyrim isn't out yet, but it doesn't take a genius to see how massive the hype train is).