Lightkill13 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 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 More sharing options...
French_Kid Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Gears of War 3 I'm a gears fanboy and was thoroughly disapointed with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gackt Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 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 More sharing options...
Jakez123 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 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 More sharing options...
Kunduz Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 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 More sharing options...
yourbreakfast99 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I am pretty pleased with skyrim actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEG23 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Bioshock 2. I'm not saying it was a disaster, but for me it didn't have the same feel to it that the original had. On a larger scale i would say the current gen Splinter Cell titles are worse than the originals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverender Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 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 More sharing options...
FFFreak1129 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Bioshock 2 Assassin's Creed Brotherhood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iBuzz7S Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Saints Row: The Third They removed things from SR and SR2, then gave us a third game. Along with that came shit add-ons, a poorly structured season pass and adult-related content that must've cost far more than what they made in return. No wonder why THQ is in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skilled Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Gears 3 is the main one right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewdude1023 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Most sequels are worse. Not just for games, but in movies as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hydrosugar Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I think more than half are. I'm not gonna list them all, but the most prominent one to me is AC Brotherhood. AC2 was so much better it's not funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkweather Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 A lot of them are, a couple of my favorite games ever had disappointing sequels but others luckily are better. A perfect example of having a better sequel though is Red Dead: Redemption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGoogles Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I thought that Dead Space 2 wasn't as great as its predecessor, but it was a decent game nonetheless. Fallout: New Vegas is another one as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
combustible lemon Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 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 More sharing options...
CHIRUNO99 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Yep, loads of times, I remember back on the PS1 there was a Dukes of Hazard game, and the sequel was the exact same game with a few extra missions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SicklyPlague Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 The only bad squeal i have played was Assassins creed brotherhood, it felt like it should have been a expensive piece of dlc much like Awakening from DA:O and not a full retail release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoujiYamamoto Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Any good story driven game is bound to have a terrible sequel. For example, Gears, Saints row. But when you have a rubbish game at firt, then sequels are sometimes better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChickinOnaChain Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 The one good thing about sequels are, they usually have a lot better graphics than the pervious one. As far as game play and storyline, that's debatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbear. Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 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 More sharing options...
Iceskater101 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Bioshock 2. I'm not saying it was a disaster, but for me it didn't have the same feel to it that the original had. I completely agree with this. I thought Bioshock 2 was good, not as good as the first one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niko da bos Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 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 More sharing options...
skaghead Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Crackdown 2 , they made the graphics worse , took all the good gameplay features out and actually had the gall to sell it as a "sequal" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastrchief33 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) 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 July 16, 2012 by mastrchief33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now