View Full Version : Do game sequels live up to their potential?

03-05-2003, 07:36 PM
My question to you guys (please vote in the poll if anything), is this:

Do game sequels live up to their hype? Do you think they are often rushed, seeing as though the company will know that they can make a quick buck off of a crappy sequel to a great game?

Please vote, I need the info for an article.


03-05-2003, 07:43 PM
A lot of sequels have lived up to my expectations and more (JO). There are sequels that are rushed, but not everything turns out good. Many of my favorite games are sequels (civ 2, worms 2, doom 2, Dark Forces 2)

btw like my new sig and avatar everyone?

03-05-2003, 07:59 PM
Some do, some don't. It depends on who's making the sequel (is it the same company that made the original), what kind of budget is used and deadline constraints.

Master of Orion and Master of Orion 2 were good games Master of Orion 3 is not. Reason: not enough time, different company and not enough cash.

03-05-2003, 08:00 PM
same goes for movies too...sequels just have to live under the reputation and shadow the original made...and usually arent better (except graphically)

03-05-2003, 08:01 PM
Damn, I love that cat pic.

03-05-2003, 08:03 PM
http://www.o-t.us/upload/guest/kitty.jpg ^_^

03-05-2003, 08:30 PM
Back on topic, you crazy people >_<

Nice thread topic btw:thumbsup:IMO, only a few sequels have been worse than their predecessors, like for instance Battle of Toshinden back on the PS, and Mortal Kombat. However there have been a lot more sequels that have surpassed the original game, and get better as you go through the series. Metal Gear Solid is one, and GTA, Final Fantasy (of course) and Jedi Kinght/Dark Forces. With films, it is the opposite.

Games: Sequels get better with technological improvements.
Films: Sequels are shoddier remakes or continuations of stories.

03-05-2003, 08:51 PM
I think there are arguments both for and against, but I would tend to say that sometimes a sequel fails to build on the strengths of the original game, or doesn't do enough in terms of additional gameplay. The current trend for sequels seems to be 'streamlining' and making them shorter, and from an SP standpoint, I think that's a bad thing.

Obviously the games industry is driven by sales targets, profits, and a need to keep abreast of current technology...with the effect that some game developers seem to believe outstanding graphics is the key component that sells games, instead of raw gameplay.

Some of the best games I've played were Deus Ex, No One Lives Forever, and Unreal. In the case of Deus Ex, we know the sequel will be 'streamlining' gameplay elements, be a shorter length, and have much-improved graphics. In the case of NOLF2 (which I haven't finished yet), I'm told it's shorter than the first game, and so far some of the fun and innovative elements (like skydives, etc., ) appear to be missing. On the other hand, it has managed to build on the strengths of the original game, and is a better game for it. Unreal was an epic quest with some RPG elements, and Unreal II is a short, straightforward shooter with pretty graphics by comparison. System Shock 2 is arguably not quite as good as System Shock 1. Return to Castle Wolfenstein I felt went way beyond the gameplay of the original Wolf3D.

UT2K3 also does not have as many options or game tweaks that were available in it's predecessor, and some game modes (that I happened to like) were simply dropped.

Doom II just felt like an expansion pack of Doom...and a poor one at that, IMHO.

As far as Jedi Knight is concerned...it improved on Dark Forces, and Jedi Outcast improved on elements of JK and added some new stuff, while dropping other features. I have to rate JK and JO about the same, for that reason.

So, there are some that improve on the original (which tend to be shorter than the original), while there are others that fail to innovate on what has gone before.

I think more care should be given when some game developers assess what worked and what didn't in a particular game before attempting a sequel. And they should be aware of gamer expectations in the context of the previous game...simply slapping a 2 on the box, and delivering a game that feels totally different to the original (like Unreal/Unreal II), just doesn't work and leads to disappointment.

Perhaps it's up to gamers to more clearly define their expectations...while the developers should take more notice of the details, like individual game features, that made a previous title enjoyable.

Game sequels usually exceed the graphics of the original...but it's harder to exceed the gameplay, especially given the sense of wonder a gamer may feel when playing an original game for the first time. It's hard to duplicate that sense of wonder in a second outing, because the gamer is familiar with a particular game world or game features. My own view is that the majority of gameplay elements should be left intact, but simply improved, while newer elements are added to bring something fresh and innovative into play. Cutting elements that existed in the original I usually view as a bad thing...

03-05-2003, 08:55 PM
the warcraft series was GREAT until 2 came out :(

03-05-2003, 10:31 PM
I say the games get better, a great example?

GTA3: That game is great! But versions 2 & 1 were not (have you played them? There like in 2d! :eek: )

Another good example is the AOE series. Each one following the origonal (AOK, AOM) was far superiour and much more better/complex in my opinion.

03-05-2003, 10:53 PM
It depends on the games story or gameplay, really.

I mean, look at the Soul Reaver(not the entire LoK series). Both 1 and 2 have ended in cliff hangers, which is cool for story games SUCH AS Soul Reaver. I'm glad they didn't end the SR series in 1 the way it was supposed to end...SR2 was a total surprise, full of action and side turning and...back on topic.

Now GTA. GTA1&2 were cool, for the PSX. But then 3 came out and it was amazing. Now Vice City is the same thing, just with aircraft:rolleyes:. Not as exciting. That and they ruined it by giving the main character a name...bad move.

Final Fantasy 1-9 were great, and then came the dreaded double digits...FFX was horrid. Being led around by the bloody nose and no world exploration. And the ending sucked ass.Tidus disappears...STUPID!!

Tomb Raider series has gotten better and better, but I could've done fine without Chronicles. That and the Last Revalation pissed me off by taking out her mansion...which blew balls(and the movie was all off).

So, like I said. The game just has to have availability for sequels. *CANT WAIT FOR SR3!!! Too bad no info until late May:(*

03-06-2003, 10:45 PM
I swear ive seen this thread somewhere before :D

03-07-2003, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by jokemaster
I swear ive seen this thread somewhere before :D

lol, me too. And I voted differently here. I think for the most part, they do get better.

There are only a few examples of sequels I hated or did not enjoy alot.

Jedi Outcast

Need for Speed 2 & 5 (have yet to play Hot Pursuit 2, which is really 6, but if it is good as NFS 3: Hot Pursuit, it'll be good)

Alot of games with stories seem to go downhill after to many games, or an idea was so great, everything they come up with afterwards just sucked (cough *Jedi Outcast* cough)

Games without a story, excluding the 2 mentioned, get better and better as they go cause there is no chance of ruining plot.

03-07-2003, 10:23 PM
You voted differently?

Meh, both threads have been complete washes anyway.

03-07-2003, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by Jedi220
You voted differently?

At EB, I voted they aren't as good, but here, I said they are if not better...

Commander Bond
03-10-2003, 01:05 PM
Usually, I only purchase games based on reviews or a friend recomending a certain title. However, some amazing sequels have popped up over the past few years that have quickly superceeded their predecessors, just like:

"007 - NightFire" is much better than "007 - Agent Under Fire".

Both "Star Wars: Episode I - Racer" and "Star Wars - Starfighter" were easily beaten by their sequels, "Star Wars - Racer Revenge" and "Star Wars - Jedi Starfighter.

The "Tomb Raider" series has got better and better with every game, soon to be joined by the wonderful "Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness".

"TimeSplitters 2"... need I say more?

"Metal Gear Solid 2 - Sons of Liberty" is a superb game, probably the best game ever made in the history of computer games from the beginning of time. Clearly beats "Metal Gear Solid" by miles.

"Hitman 2: Silent Assassin" is amazing, but I have yet to play the first game. I assume that it was just as good as the sequel, although it was only for the PC, so I probably won't like it...

I think the same can be said for movies as well. Generally, sequels (or even prequels) can be much more entertaining than the original film which made the name (examples include "Star Wars", "Austin Powers" and, of course, the absolutely wonderfully perfect-in-every-way "James Bond 007" series of no less than TWENTY pictures).

This is because the first game or film can usually be called a run-through, to see where the film company stand with their chosen idea. A second game or movie is where the makers say "OK, we had a successful first go, now what can we do to improve?", and they do so on numerous occasions. Whether it be enhanced graphics, better level design, character development or a multi-player feature added on to the first game's engine, the sequel usually emerges victorious.

Hope that helps... :007:

03-10-2003, 01:55 PM
Im not voting, you only give one extreem or the other, I'dd say somthing in between.

03-10-2003, 02:00 PM
I guess it depends on the game. Usually sequels are similar but improve in some ways upon the original, but once you get to three, it starts going downhill (WC3 aside).