Are Game Sequels Disappointing?

[Mendon]

I've been reading threads in the official forums on Microsoft and Sony (and on a couple of independent Nintendo sites since there are no forums on the Nintendo website) and a lot of posts are complaining that the current game sequels are really disappointing:

 

Gears of War 2 is catching flak for being unbalanced, not tactical like GoW1, and terrible matchmaking.

Fable II is catching flak for being too short and the co-op is weak.

Resistence II is catching flak for "just not being as good as the first and not graphically advanced enough".

Halo III caught flak for the solo campaign being short and the online not as fun as Halo II, along with weak maps.

 

And there are others I could list.

 

 

What does everyone here think: Are the current release of sequels not as fun/good as the first games? Are gamers being too picky or expecting too much? Are developers trying to crank out money-making sequels as fast as they can without quality being the first order of business? All or none of these?

 

 

For myself, I haven't played any of the four games I listed above yet, so I really can't comment. But I have played CoD4 and that was an incredible advancement over CoD 1 - 3.... but in fairness, CoD4 was a totally different game, IMO.

 

Anyway, any comments on thoughts on game sequels?

 

 

Mendon

Edited November 9, 2008 by Mendon

[Seob]

Depending if the publisher is in for fast cashing. If they do, a sequel will be more if the same. I did like all cod versions even the 3, that gets poor ratings because it was developed by an other team.

I have fable I, but i haven't played it yet.

If you look at the gta serie, most sequels ad some new thing to the game.

[shadow460]

Red Alert 3 got ripped up pretty badly by the reviewers at GameFAQs. I don't have the hardware to play it, so I don't know for sure if it's better than the first two or not. The previews made it seem kind of cheap to me.

[Freakin' Duck]

I've been reading threads in the official forums on Microsoft and Sony (and on a couple of independent Nintendo sites since there are no forums on the Nintendo website) and a lot of posts are complaining that the current game sequels are really disappointing:

 

Gears of War 2 is catching flak for being unbalanced, not tactical like GoW1, and terrible matchmaking.

Fable II is catching flak for being too short and the co-op is weak.

Resistence II is catching flak for "just not being as good as the first and not graphically advanced enough".

Halo III caught flak for the solo campaign being short and the online not as fun as Halo II, along with weak maps.

 

And there are others I could list.

 

 

What does everyone here think: Are the current release of sequels not as fun/good as the first games? Are gamers being too picky or expecting too much? Are developers trying to crank out money-making sequels as fast as they can without quality being the first order of business? All or none of these?

 

 

For myself, I haven't played any of the four games I listed above yet, so I really can't comment. But I have played CoD4 and that was an incredible advancement over CoD 1 - 3.... but in fairness, CoD4 was a totally different game, IMO.

 

Anyway, any comments on thoughts on game sequels?

 

 

Mendon

 

Ahem!

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/vie...ned-2-Bloodshot

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/vie...one-in-the-Dark

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/vie...Hill-Homecoming

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/vie...uation/30-Turok

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/vie...1-Mercenaries-2

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/vie...K-E-R-Clear-Sky

 

Well, there you have it.

Edited November 10, 2008 by Freakin' Duck

[Shawn]

I've loved all the rayman games. Only one that disapointed me is the most current one Raving Rabbids 2. I think RR2 suffers from the "cash in" effect posted about above. RR1 was awesome and I think the only reaosn they made a second one was to quickly rehash the same engine and double their money with a mediocre title as RR2 was more of the same and shorter. If they had put more time and a little more originality into it, RR2 might have been as cool as the first. Alas it is not. Pretty good streak from Ubi though seeing as there is what like 10 different rayman games now? I'll cut them some slack for RR2 and I will buy the next title but if it's as bad as RR2 I think rayman might be done. Going back to the 3d platformer game style might be best for the rayman franchise acutally.

[moycon]

From what I can tell...the games that catch flak many times only catch flak from a hand full of players.

If .5 million people found Halo 3 disappointing, and 5.5 million love it, then it's safe to say the producers of the game succeeded.

 

Me personally, my experience so far is that the sequels kick ass!!!

 

Oblivion > Morrowind

Halo 3 > any Halo yet

Dead or Alive 4 > Dead or Alive 3

Pac-Man Championship Ed. > Pac-Man

Burnout Paradise > Burnout Revenge (Except for maybe the music)

 

And there are others I could list.....

 

I have yet to play many of the games you have mentioned though. So maybe what you are referring to is a recent phenomenon? I will have to say GTA4 didn't exactly float my boat in spite of the high production values and I do know I have been disappointed in the past.

 

Shadowman 2 < Shadowman

Deus Ex 2 < Deus Ex

Devil May Cry 2 < Devil May Cry

 

History repeats itself?

Edited November 10, 2008 by moycon

[godslabrat]

Halo 3 had a major backlash since it was hyped beyond control and most people, except major fanboys, left feeling just a bit underwhealmed. Not that it wasn't a good game or that they didn't have fun, but it just couldn't possibly live up to the pre-release excitement. We can call that the "Star Wars: Episode I" factor.

 

Generally, I think it's great that games generally get better with each sequel, unlike movies. The only time I feel that sequels hurt a game is when they add so many features that the core fun of the game gets lost. I stopped playing fighter games after every game adopted some insane combo system (MK3 and beyond). I got away from RPGs after every one went 3D, and even further away when MMORPGs became the thing.

 

On the other hand, there are franchises that consistently churn out excellent games, but never manage to top an earlier installment. The Metroid Prime series is great, but does it have the same wow-factor as Metroid 3? Also, has any Zelda game ever topped LTTP? Yes, the newer ones are good, but are they over-the-top good?

[Video]

It just depends on the sequel, Halo was an awesome game, Halo2 (for the campaign) wasn't as good IMO, and 3 was WAY to short. And what? Still no bots? So unless you can get a hell of a lan party going, it's not much fun for the multiplayer either (sorry, us rednecks can't all afford Broadband, or in my case, even get it) The only falling for 2 though, IMO, was the ending sucked. I mean, 1 could have been the one and only game the way it ended, but 2...nah.

 

Then there's Oblivion, I played and LOVED morrowind, I still haven't finished all the stuff on there. But Oblivion, it feels a lot stripped down in comparrison, like it's more difficlut to get custom armor and such, but the graphics are awesome. But honestly, I've finished it, and other than maybe one side mission, I've done everything there is to do. I would love to see morrowind working exactly as is, but on Oblivions graphic engine, that would be friggin sweet, then you'd have a unsurpassable game.

 

And these are NOT "just a quick buck" games

 

Then there's is just a quick buck games, like Unreal, whore out the engine, and make mild updates, but each new game still seems to be just a little b etter than the last, oh, especially the newest one, Unreal Tournament 3 (BTW, Unreal Championship for X-box doesn't work on the 360, boo) But it also has the biggest improvement (to me) in the addition of all kinds of vehicles, and a neat story that determins what ones you get, depending on how you play. I still want a rocketpack like Tribes, but eh...maybe next game.

 

The zillions of Mario party games, thos, just depends on what mini games youlike, some are added, some are removed, but other than that, it's virtually the same from game to game.

 

As I said, it'll just depend, over all, IMO, first sequels (like part two) have a tendancy to be a little better, while second sequels (like part 3) have a tendancy to be a little worse.

[Mendon]

Many Thanks to everyone who has posted so far. Interesting reading and viewpoints!

 

Sequels have got to be hard to make because the developers might not know what the fans of the original really want to see in the sequel. Do they want more of the exact same, only with a few improvements? Do they want a new story line? Do they want new characters? Do they want new locations?

 

Let me give two examples:

 

1) Far Cry 2: I loved the first Far Cry on the Xbox360. I enjoyed the story, the characters, the bright locations, and more. When I heard a sequel was in the works, I was excited!

 

I received the game a short while ago from GameFly and I was really disappointed. I wasn't disappointed because it had low production quality because it doesn't.... the world the developers created is incredible. My disappointment was in the fact that this game was NOT a sequel to Far Cry..... where was Jack Carver? Where were the mutants? Where were the feral powers? Where was the world of Far Cry: Predator?

 

To me, Far Cry 2 isn't a sequel at all... its an entirely new game.

 

 

2) Bioshock: I loved Bioshock and believe it to be one of the best games I've played in many years.

 

There is talk of Bioshock 2.... but what should it be? Should they continue the story line started in the original, somehow? Should they start a whole new story with a new lead character? Where should it take place?

 

If the developers start an entirely new story, many Bioshock fans might be disappointed and say its not Bioshock. If they continue the same storyline, same situations, and same characters, many Bioshock fans might say "more of the same.. ho-hum".

 

 

It has to be a fine line the developers are walking. Sometimes I think that we gamers are to blame by being too picky; sometimes I think its the developers who are to blame by not changing the sequel enough or changing the sequel too much.

 

Any additional thoughts?

 

 

Mendon

[Video]

Oh yeah, I hate it when a "sequel" comes out and it's really a new game. Thinking back to when I got mario 2, it wasn't a bad game by any stretch, and over the years it's a really cool game (as a standalone) but as a Mario game....other than charactures, it's really not, as it's not the same type of game reallly. Even as a 3D game, Mario 64 holds more in common to Super Mario Bros than Super Mario 2 does.

 

I'm cool with new games, it's just...say it's a new game, or maybe Mario in or sopmething like taht. Actually paisting the name on would get the name recognition without the misleading this is the same game stuff.

[Shawn]

Oh yeah, I hate it when a "sequel" comes out and it's really a new game. Thinking back to when I got mario 2, it wasn't a bad game by any stretch, and over the years it's a really cool game (as a standalone) but as a Mario game....other than charactures, it's really not, as it's not the same type of game reallly. Even as a 3D game, Mario 64 holds more in common to Super Mario Bros than Super Mario 2 does.

 

I'm cool with new games, it's just...say it's a new game, or maybe Mario in or sopmething like taht. Actually paisting the name on would get the name recognition without the misleading this is the same game stuff.

 

Thats cause what you are speaking of isn't even a Mario game at all. It's Doki Doki Panic by Fuju TV with Mario Sprites hacked onto it. The actual Mario 2 is what you would think of as Lost Levels that was first really thrown at us on this side of the pond on the SNES Mario All-Stars. Myself I was lucky enough as a kid to get both Mario 2 and then later Doki Doki on famicom carts with converters for the NES.

Edited November 19, 2008 by Shawn Sr.

[+Charlie Cat]

Hi guys,

 

At this moment. No! Games like Saints Row 2, Fallout 3 and Gears of War 2 are doing A-OK and fans are getting there moneys worth.

 

Anthony....

[Artlover]

In a word, yes. Most sequels suck. This applies to movies as well as video games.

 

There are exceptions. SMB3, Saints Row 2. But beyond that. Blah.

 

Halo 3 > any Halo yet

<smack!><slap!><smack!>

Edited November 19, 2008 by Artlover

[Gorf]

Most of todays games suck anyway. All they seem to be are audiovisual showcases.

Very few games of today have that yesteryear charm.

 

From the older days, I think the Quake series was a good one and Doom series too.

Iron Soldier series definitely.

Cyber/BattleMorph.

 

 

Then of course nothing is like the OLD school sequels....

 

Asteroids/Deluxe

Invaders/deluxe

Centipede/Millipede

Pac Man/MsPacMan

Defender/Stargate

Berzerk/Frenzy

Edited November 19, 2008 by Gorf

[HammR25]

The entire Ratchet and Clank series has been pretty well written as well. Insomniac has some very good story writers on their staff.

 

Yesteryear games only have "charm" because you were a kid when they came out.

[liveinabin]

I think it depends on the type of game. Story led games tend to have more disappointing sequels (although there are high-profile exceptions, Fallout 3, Silent Hill 2 etc) whereas games based more around the game mechanic just tend to get better (bust a move 2, Ridge Racer 4, Ms. Pacman).

 

Generally, with the amount of time and effort thrown at big name games like Bioshock, you have to wonder whether in all that development time, they've probably already used all of the ideas that were any good. I can't imagine what they'd pull out for a sequel. Most of the time it's just 'the same but bigger' and that's never good (Halo 2's one player campaign for instance).

[crunchysuperman]

My three favorite games of all time (Deus Ex, Unreal, Serious Sam) all had sequels that are probably my three least favorite games of all time.