So I loved FF7, my favourite game ever. FF8 was brilliant, FF9 was ok, FF10 a bit crap. GTA3 excellent, Vice City pretty good, San Andreas Ok. My point is that I played these games in the order they came out. If I'd played them in a different order I would probably prefer the ones I played first then. Anyone else finding this? Or do you prefer sequels even when the original was a good game itself?
Not always. Same applies to remakes, IMNSHO. Sometimes, the sequel (WC2) or expansion (Isle of Fire) is brilliant. Other times, they're not so much so (HoMM4 or BF2: Special Forces), for a variety of reasons.
It really depends on a huge array of variables, including: age of series, genre, target audience, developer, turnover in the development team, publisher, owner of rights and arguably the current direction that the buying public is headed.
Originals and sequels do not follow some decline in quality. A sequel can be just as great, even better, than the first, because of more tech available. This especially happens with RTS's. Age of Empires I was OK, interesting to see, but- as I recall- it had a 50 unit pop cap (you can't harness the world with only 50 units!) and crap buildings (not even gates, you had to build twisty corridors with your walls). AOE2 got better... so did its expansion. In fact, I'd say that generally, sequels follow one of two paths: They come across as cheap reiterations on the original, are accused of being an attempt at making more money, and fall flat. They are better than the originals, and rekindle the love of the game in fans.
Well, I haven't played many sequels.. but.. Maybe when UT2007 comes out.
Well.. for GTA: GTA2: Loved it. GTA: Vice City: Bleh. GTA: San Andreas : Loved it. (Even though it was frustrating sometimes)
Yeah I can see your point. I guess it's probably more accurate to say that plot-based games sequels aren't as good because the gameplay and general atmos of the game has been experienced. Games like RTS, where pure gameplay is everything can either be better or worse.
You can either agree with meor be wrong.
12th November 2003
naw, its just that something s "new" that makes it good, like bullet-time in max payne, GTA3 was good becuase it was something new, a GTA game in 3D..
Its Not true... personaly GTA:VC was the best in the sieres...then SA and only then GTA3! same thing with hitman sieres Hitman 2, Contracts and then the original...
SaintPsychoIts Not true... personaly GTA:VC was the best in the sieres...then SA and only then GTA3! same thing with hitman sieres Hitman 2, Contracts and then the original...
X2 about VC VC just had more dept and you had more of a purpose to keep playing not not just drve around aimlessly . sequels can be better than the original but not always, and may not have been great in 3rd and subsequent installments great sequels that come to mind: tie fighter comand and conquer red alert 2 BF2
The ContenderX2 about VC VC just had more dept and you had more of a purpose to keep playing not not just drve around aimlessly . sequels can be better than the original but not always, and may not have been great in 3rd and subsequent installments great sequels that come to mind: tie fighter comand and conquer red alert 2 BF2
whoa....tie fighter...used to love that game.
As for Vice City, I liked it the most out of the series.....the whole 80's setting was just awesome. I've got the soundtrack in my car.
Battlefield 2 got better through Special Forces in my opinion. It gave way more power to infantry.
some games arnt worth playing without the expansion... like Diablo II without Lord Of Destruction... Warcraft 3 without Frozen Throne Red Alert 2 without Yuri's Revenge... Generals without Zero Hour...