Jump to content

 

Are some sequels worse than the originals?


Lightkill13
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is a very general gaming question: Are some sequels worse than the originals? I know the answer to be yes, but more specifically which ones? I'll play games every day and see defects that a sequel has that the original didn't. Take Left 4 dead. Left 4 Dead 2 adds so many special infected that it seems unconquerable at higher difficulties unless you know glitch spots or have hours to spend in a campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oblivion/Skyrim

Fallout 3

 

Morrowind was good, while I liked the combat changing to always hit instead of chance to hit...that was the only improvement Oblivion made over Morrowind. They started dumbing everything down and it was just a dull game. Skyrim just took it further with even less customization, but decided to keep the same boring combat system.

 

Fallout 3, I have nothing nice to say about this game in comparison to the almost perfect Fallout 1 & 2. They took Oblivion and said "hey, let's just reskin the entire game and add guns and make it Fallout 3" Removed the great freedom that Fallout games had, the dark humor no longer existed and the strategic turn based combat well... there is nothing good about Bethesda's "VATS" system.

 

They also did what they always do, they took a few structures, copied and pasted them all over the map and hoped nobody would notice. The character customization looked hilariously awful, the voice acting sucked as usual, the weapons were poorly designed in comparison to the original fallouts.

 

It's just something I wish never happened. Bethesda should just sign the rights to fallout back over to Brian Fargo and let him and his people at inXile make a proper Fallout sequel after they finish Wasteland 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oblivion/Skyrim

Fallout 3

 

Morrowind was good, while I liked the combat changing to always hit instead of chance to hit...that was the only improvement Oblivion made over Morrowind. They started dumbing everything down and it was just a dull game. Skyrim just took it further with even less customization, but decided to keep the same boring combat system.

 

Fallout 3, I have nothing nice to say about this game in comparison to the almost perfect Fallout 1 & 2. They took Oblivion and said "hey, let's just reskin the entire game and add guns and make it Fallout 3" Removed the great freedom that Fallout games had, the dark humor no longer existed and the strategic turn based combat well... there is nothing good about Bethesda's "VATS" system.

 

They also did what they always do, they took a few structures, copied and pasted them all over the map and hoped nobody would notice. The character customization looked hilariously awful, the voice acting sucked as usual, the weapons were poorly designed in comparison to the original fallouts.

 

It's just something I wish never happened. Bethesda should just sign the rights to fallout back over to Brian Fargo and let him and his people at inXile make a proper Fallout sequel after they finish Wasteland 2.

 

Although I haven't played the other fallout's my friend tells me they were actually hard and more "Survival based". As for the bolded part I never understood why everyone liked VATS. To me it just killed the game, literally 70% of the game was watching the VATS cutscene animation thing and bullets piercing enemies in slow motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oblivion/Skyrim

Fallout 3

 

Morrowind was good, while I liked the combat changing to always hit instead of chance to hit...that was the only improvement Oblivion made over Morrowind. They started dumbing everything down and it was just a dull game. Skyrim just took it further with even less customization, but decided to keep the same boring combat system.

 

Fallout 3, I have nothing nice to say about this game in comparison to the almost perfect Fallout 1 & 2. They took Oblivion and said "hey, let's just reskin the entire game and add guns and make it Fallout 3" Removed the great freedom that Fallout games had, the dark humor no longer existed and the strategic turn based combat well... there is nothing good about Bethesda's "VATS" system.

 

They also did what they always do, they took a few structures, copied and pasted them all over the map and hoped nobody would notice. The character customization looked hilariously awful, the voice acting sucked as usual, the weapons were poorly designed in comparison to the original fallouts.

 

It's just something I wish never happened. Bethesda should just sign the rights to fallout back over to Brian Fargo and let him and his people at inXile make a proper Fallout sequel after they finish Wasteland 2.

Fucking this! At last someone(besides me) disapproves The Elder Scrolls and Fallout recent "improvements"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone remember how fantastic Condemned was and how mediocre Condemned 2 was in comparison? That's my go-to for this.

 

As for The Elder Scrolls and Fallout, I never played anything earlier than Oblivion and 3 so I can't make comparisons to the past games. However, I can say that I thought Skyrim and Fallout 3 were greatly overrated. At a certain point, it just becomes "go here, clear this dungeon" gameplay for both and neither of the stories were good enough to make up for that. They're decent games, but they're not worthy of the stellar reviews they're given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oblivion/Skyrim

Fallout 3

 

Morrowind was good, while I liked the combat changing to always hit instead of chance to hit...that was the only improvement Oblivion made over Morrowind. They started dumbing everything down and it was just a dull game. Skyrim just took it further with even less customization, but decided to keep the same boring combat system.

 

Fallout 3, I have nothing nice to say about this game in comparison to the almost perfect Fallout 1 & 2. They took Oblivion and said "hey, let's just reskin the entire game and add guns and make it Fallout 3" Removed the great freedom that Fallout games had, the dark humor no longer existed and the strategic turn based combat well... there is nothing good about Bethesda's "VATS" system.

 

They also did what they always do, they took a few structures, copied and pasted them all over the map and hoped nobody would notice. The character customization looked hilariously awful, the voice acting sucked as usual, the weapons were poorly designed in comparison to the original fallouts.

 

It's just something I wish never happened. Bethesda should just sign the rights to fallout back over to Brian Fargo and let him and his people at inXile make a proper Fallout sequel after they finish Wasteland 2.

 

I really enjoyed Fallout 3 and Skyrim.

 

And then I played Fallout.

And then I played Fallout 2.

And then I played Fallout New Vegas.

These three games have left all of FO3 and skyrims many, many flaws horribly exposed to the point where I now find Skyrim to be boring and unplayable and have little reason to play FO3 anymore when I have 1,2 and NV to play.

 

Sadly Fallout 3's biggest failing was in making a new generation think that is what Fallout is meant to be-to the point that many people even complained that NV was inferior to 3 and wasn't doing it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I haven't played the other fallout's my friend tells me they were actually hard and more "Survival based". As for the bolded part I never understood why everyone liked VATS. To me it just killed the game, literally 70% of the game was watching the VATS cutscene animation thing and bullets piercing enemies in slow motion.

 

 

You could actually die outside of combat while traversing the world map in Fallout 1 (and 2 I think) if your "survivalist" skill wasn't high enough (think in terms of the old Oregon Trail random deaths and you get the idea of what I'm talking about)...So yeah, it was more "survival based".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very general gaming question: Are some sequels worse than the originals? I know the answer to be yes, but more specifically which ones? I'll play games every day and see defects that a sequel has that the original didn't. Take Left 4 dead. Left 4 Dead 2 adds so many special infected that it seems unconquerable at higher difficulties unless you know glitch spots or have hours to spend in a campaign.

 

i dont see too many people who agree with me on that, but i personally felt all the added specials was overkill. for someone like me who exclusively played on expert, it ruined the game. its near impossible to make it to extraction with all that nonsense. they even added different kinds of witches, that actually walk around. and a map that was spammed with them lol!

 

i think sequals in general are probably hard to create, you really cant please everyone. of course there are those people who feel everything needs a change, while others just want a few tweaks.

 

one sequal i didnt care for nearly as much as the original, was Mass effect2. mainly since nearly all of the RPG elements were removed from the game, or watered down. only 2 galactic years later and magically everybody is using thermal clips instead of overheating weapons. commander shepard can only reach half of his full potential (lvl30), and has less than 10% of his previous arsonal to choose from. to make matters worse im forced to work with terrorists... as someone who read the novels it kind of threw me off. obvious shepard is killed off simply to remap the combat system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my opinion based on games I've played:

 

Fable 2 > Fable 3.

 

While the main storyline is leaps and bounds better and at least has a twist, Fable 3 has far less RPG elements, slightly less character customization, a strange inventory system, and just seems to be a shorter and less developed game overall. Fable 3 even has a more restrictive expression system, which was one of the core elements that made Fable 2 unique and interesting.

 

Fable 3 does have more interesting characters and a better developed world though, and as I said, I felt the storyline was a big plus. Its kind of a mixed bag, some things are improved and some things are made worse. Its unfortunate really, because everything they changed/added going from Fable to Fable 2 was spot on. Overall, Fable 2 is a better RPG package.

 

Dragon Age: Origins > Dragon Age 2

 

The one thing that is a plus with DA2 is the voice acting and while the consensus is that the graphics are an improvement, I actually disagree. The color pallette for environments is too drab, and side quest locations (mainly caves) are recycled. Some party members are undeveloped and boring. Allies can't wear customizable armor. Your PC is restricted to just one race. Mashing the A button isn't an improvement over the auto attack system taken from KoTOR. The storyline is convoluted and ultimately, irrelevant in the greater world events. There is a much less 'epic' feel than the first game had (that's just my feeling playing the game, I'm sure many would disagree).

 

Overall, its just a worse game in my opinion, a step back on virtually every level, including a fully voiced PC in my opinion, because it restricts race choice, a hallmark of D&D inspired RPGs like what this series is supposed to be. It feels rushed, changes were made to aspects of the game that didn't need to be changed and it feels like its an attempt to cater to larger audience, which just alienates the fans they already had. Its an okay game that ends up looking a lot worse next to its predecessor. Were it the only game in the series, it may not have been received so poorly, so right here is the definition of a sequel that's worse than the original.

Edited by mastrchief33
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
  • Create New...