Game Sequel Vs. Original Comparative Round-Up: PART 3- Are Sequels Really Better?

OXCGN:

"Sequels are more common in gaming than any other entertainment medium.

Taking a look at the best-selling games of any particular time, platform or location displays our faith that the latest numbered title will always be the best, but sadly this can often not be the case."

[gaminoz]

Totally agree with this, though if Fable 3 had done a better (longer) job of the 'ruling over kingdom' part it may have done better.

Interesting that here most of the originals are better...

[BadCircuit]

Although Fable 1 is the original (but it was on Xbox 1, so I get it)

[BadCircuit]

I find many sequels just try to milk the success of the original and don't actually get better these days.

Some look better but don't play better.

[NovusTerminus]

It really depends on what the game is.

Assassin's Creed vs Assassin's Creed 2
AC2 wins.

So you can't say that the first on is always better. But there are times that the sequels capture the idea and make it far better.
And of course you have sequels which fall flat on their face and suck.

Devil May Cry is a confusing one.
DMC3 = DMC1 > DMC4 >>>>> DMC2... There is no part 5...

[J86blum]

OH Oh can I be the first to say it can I can I!?! Call of Duty..!

[ARTISAN]

hey graphics wise theres anoticable improvement from mw1 to mw2 especially in the weapon models but the story fell apart....

[Knightofelemia]

Sequals are good with a game that has a great story and a character that the fans can relate with. Like Uncharted 3 or Gears of War 3 people relate with those characters like Nathan Drake or Marcus Pheonix even Dom alot of people were shocked when he killed his wife. Games like that immerse a person into a game and let you feel what the chracter is feeling. Each Final Fantasy is a differant world differant time period and always uses new characters some you like and some you hate I remember being pissed off when Aeris died by the sword of Sephiroth I like it when a game shocks me like that. Sequals are bad when the name sells for itself but nothing has changed from the last game like Sonic he has been around since the Genesis days they were great. When the Dreamcast came out Sonic took a leap from 2D to 3D and that was great but now his games are getting kinda stale. Mario has been around for a while to but his game play always changes from one Mario game to another new power ups 3D.

Some sequals in a game even out do the first game I thought Uncharted 2 out did Uncharted 1. And with sequals they try and make the sequal look better than the first game. COD I don't find as a true sequal its put out yearly slap some new game play in add a few characters and away you go. Because Activision knows the game will sell true sequal takes time to develop the characters refine the story add some new game play and make it look better and maybe add an annoying character in the game.

[BrightFalls76]

If it's a series I enjoy like Uncharted or Gears then I'm all for more while a series like Halo or Fable makes me want to cut off my thumbs.

One series that I have had a love/hate relationship with has been Mass Effect. I played ME1 three times and was on my second playthrough of ME2 when my hard drive died and saves were corrupted.

So while I was really looking forward to ME3 I have mixed feelings now because all those countless hours on both games are gone forever. Sure, I can do an interactive comic to get a few highlights back or play everything all over but with so many quality titles coming out this year I have ZERO interest.

Are sequels great? Yes, but when your choices in one impact the rest of a series a sequel is dissapointing.

*edit: sorry to get a bith off topic but just reading up on Mass Effect 3:)

[Quagmire]

i found Uncharted 1 to be better than 2 personally. Same with Dead Space.

[BadCircuit]

Yeah I feel the same way, even though the graphics were superior in 2.

[Gran Touring]

I agree with most everything else in the article, but I have to call BS on Crysis 2 being better than Crysis 1. From what this guy says about the first Crysis, it sounds like he thinks it was no more than a benchmark. Crysis 2 didn't do anything better than the first, and the things it did differently, it didn't do those things that well either.

"The ideas were solid(...) but it never really managed to make it as enjoyable or immersive as rival shooters Halo 3 and Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare."

The first Crysis was critically hailed as one of the best first person shooters of all time; gamespot gave it a 9.5 and awarded it best shooter of the year above COD4 and Halo 3. Many major reviewers including IGN, Gamepro, Gameinformer, and Edge magazine gave the game a score of 90% or above. PC gamer gave it a score of 98% which tied their score of the original half life.

"The multiplayer also failed (to) build significant popularity or community, in spite of the later free release of the entire multiplayer as ‘Crysis Wars’."

...Which makes sense, because they only released an entire expansion in Crysis Warhead that added many more modes, and maps (namely team death match) to what many described as a great synthesis between the Battlefield and Counter Strike games. It wasn't a "fix," it was to appease the many consumers who wanted more. Crysis 2 is carbon copy of, well, do I really even need to say what game? And it's still plagued with many glitches and hitbox issues.

"Level design was much tighter thanks to the new city setting but provided more strategic options through extensive cover and multi-tiered environments."

Yes, because a series which was based on OPEN ENVIRONMENTS can only be improved by removing that option entirely. Because adding more corners and places to hide behind is more strategic than having vehicles, flanking, circling around, and having destructible environments at your disposal.

I could go on about the graphics, pacing, interfacing, and every other reason why Crysis 2 pretty much typifies everything wrong with the direction developers take towards PC gaming today. But then I'd be overstepping my bounds in giving constructive feedback to a small portion of an article I thought was incorrect. I'll leave it at this.