# Why sequels suffer and why they succeed



## ShadowSoldier (Sep 12, 2012)

MAJOR tl;dr sequence ahead.

So if you read my previous blogs, you would see that I absolutely hate Final Fantasy XIII. There's no good redeeming quality about it.

And in my last blog, I had no idea what game I should play out of my list. So I decided to play some Uncharted 3. I took a major break from it after going through the first 2 quickly non stop. But I wasn't that far in so I could still remember the story. I just finished the part where I escaped from the burning building.

This is how a video game should be. Why is it that when Uncharted 2 came out, it blew Uncharted 1 out of the water. And now that Uncharted 3 came out, it hit the frickin ball out of the park and made Uncharted 1 and 2 look like it's bitch.

How is it that these games constantly get better and better. And yet so many games these days, seem to be getting worse and worse? Granted I'm looking at my library of games now and all of them have been greatly improved over their prequel.








Games like Mass Effect 3 (I don't care what you say, that game is a god damn masterpiece in my mind), Skyrim which is milestones better than Oblivion, and that's coming from someone who doesn't even like TES, but I love Skyrim. Batman Arkham City is another example. Somehow these games just destroy their prequel in every single way possible. And these are big budget titles that have a lot of hype behind them, so they have a lot to live up to, and they shine like gold through a pile of shit at the bottom of a pool.

So why is it something like (again, going to use it here as an example because it's my most recent frustration and an example everybody will understand) Final Fantasy is just getting worse and worse? To me, I loved Final Fantasy X. I thought that game was probably the best in the series, but I never played the older ones, so I can't speak from much experience past FFV. But Square is a big company, well, was, and their games are just getting worse and worse? That doesn't make sense to me at all. I have a couple theories as to why some games become better and better, and others become worse.

- Some games don't change much from the formula. They follow the rule "If it ain't broken, don't fix it". Uncharted hasn't changed much in it's gameplay, Batman hasn't, neither has Skyrim or the NHL games which I am a fan of (They actually improve on the games unlike the Madden series).

- Instead of constantly trying to reinvent itself, it gives the fans what we want in most cases, just another story to play through in a new land with a few tweaks.

- They find ways to improve on the graphics to make it look more realistic. I mean, lets be honest, Uncharted had fantastic visuals, we thought there was no way they could get better. But nope, not once, but twice we were proven wrong. It doesn't have to be a complete overhaul, just the tiniest things like adding a blur, or simple foliage or garbage on the streets immerse us into the games so much more.


Final Fantasy, I believe, is no longer Final Fantasy. I believe that Final Fantasy was all about exploring dungeons, going to towns, getting lots of weapons and armor, playing mini games, and have a simple turn based battle system. That's what it was like up until FFX, then they changed it all, and look what happened. We no longer have stories about the characters growing from some "I don't want to help nobody" asshole to "I'll die saving this planet".







Speaking of Final Fantasy, I feel that Hironobu Sakaguchi, the father of Final Fantasy, was the only reason the series was good. What do I mean? He was either the producer the Executive producer up until XII where he was no longer working on the games. Sure X-2 sucked, but it was still a pretty enjoyable game and the battle system I think is one of the funnest in the franchises. But ever since he left Square, Square has just been going down hill and making no money at all. Then Hironobu leaves and forms Mistwalker and gives us games like Blue Dragon (eh, mediocre but still alright), and Lost Odyssey, which I believe is totally underrated and should be played by everyone. And it kept the gameplay simple to what Final Fantasy was. Then he gave us The Last Story, which I never played so I can't speak for it.

I'm going to leave it there because I'm kind of getting off track, but I just wanted to know if you guys agreed as to why I think sequels in games suffer. I would love to hear your opinions on why you think sequels suffer and why they succeed.


----------



## Clarky (Sep 12, 2012)

my take for some sequels going rotton is that the publisher is usually wanting to export the game to a larger audience or chasing whatever is popular at the time. As for Final Fantasy now a days, it really is just a name now a days


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Sep 12, 2012)

Final Fantasy X may have been great but Meg Ryan is still a horrible protagonist.

In all seriousness, companies like Square-Enix release shit games because they "try something new" too often. For example,the vast differences between XIII, XIII-2 and now the dreaded Lightning Returns is completely ludicrous. XIII was a step in the right direction but SQEX had us running down pretty looking hallways which gets fucking annoying after 10 minutes.and other factors which just made it an overall shit game. XIII-2 fixed most of the problems people had with XIII but failed where XIII succeeded in some areas. We've yet to see a lot information regrading the final installment but I'm sure as hell that as more info is revealed Lightning Returns will be drastically different game from it's predecessors. As you mentioned, most successful gaming franchises stick to a "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy. Hence why the earlier installments in the Final Fantasy franchise are more successful then their modern counterparts.

In short, I concur with your long rant.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Sep 12, 2012)

I always do get annoyed at the tendency for people to say that an older game is better than a newer game simply for nostalgic or "retro" purposes. Like Ocarina of Time was a great game... 15 years ago. Nowadays though Twilight Princess was just so much better. Frankly I can't sing as many praises for the Zelda franchise as others do but Twilight Princess is a fantastic game and it was a surprisingly bolder direction for the series than people want to admit.

I mean there are bad sequels but generally most sequels are better. For Final Fantasy, they're not really "sequels" as much as they are "other games in the franchise". You could abandon the numbers and put new names like "Final Fantasy: Cloud's Journey" or "Final Fantasy: A Broody Emo" (for FFVIII of course) and it'd be the same, exceptions for FFX-2 and FFXIII-2.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Sep 12, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I always do get annoyed at the tendency for people to say that an older game is better than a newer game simply for nostalgic or "retro" purposes. Like Ocarina of Time was a great game... 15 years ago. Nowadays though Twilight Princess was just so much better. Frankly I can't sing as many praises for the Zelda franchise as others do but Twilight Princess is a fantastic game and it was a surprisingly bolder direction for the series than people want to admit.
> 
> I mean there are bad sequels but generally most sequels are better. For Final Fantasy, they're not really "sequels" as much as they are "other games in the franchise". You could abandon the numbers and put new names like "Final Fantasy: Cloud's Journey" or "Final Fantasy: A Broody Emo" (for FFVIII of course) and it'd be the same, exceptions for FFX-2 and FFXIII-2.


But some older games in some franchises are better than newer ones in alot of aspects except for graphics. I mean looking back at FF I can easily say that the older ones like 1, 2 and 3 are  much better than XIII and Crisis Core is horrible compared to VII. Not all series are affect by this very often like LoZ but this can easily happen to a series with alot of sequels and stuff.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Sep 12, 2012)

Just Another Gamer said:


> Guild McCommunist said:
> 
> 
> > I always do get annoyed at the tendency for people to say that an older game is better than a newer game simply for nostalgic or "retro" purposes. Like Ocarina of Time was a great game... 15 years ago. Nowadays though Twilight Princess was just so much better. Frankly I can't sing as many praises for the Zelda franchise as others do but Twilight Princess is a fantastic game and it was a surprisingly bolder direction for the series than people want to admit.
> ...



I feel like you skipped my whole thing on Final Fantasy. The games are hardly related. And yeah, there are better games in a franchise that are predecessors instead of successors but people blow this way out of proportion. People seem to instantly assume the previous game is better because it makes them "retro" or "unique".


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Sep 12, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Just Another Gamer said:
> 
> 
> > Guild McCommunist said:
> ...


I didn't really skip as I said series and not sequel since a series like FF, Persona etc aren't connected to each other but they can still be compared to each other in terms of quality, gameplay and whatever so my statement to XIII being shit compared to an earlier game in the series does work, I don't think they assume instantly that the new game is shit and the older game is better but usually the newer addition needs to top all previous games in its series in order to get fans. I mean if the only improvement is the graphics and everything else was rushed then its obvious it will be shit when compared to the older game so I don't think nostalgia or retro counts but this is just how I see it i'm sure there are people who likes the previous game just because it is.


----------



## The Milkman (Sep 12, 2012)

I'm sorry, wat? I read up to the point you said Skyrim was better then Oblivion. How is dull combat, watered-down stats and one-way dungeons better then Oblivion? Oblivion introduced aspects people never thought to put in RPGs such as physics engines for environmental combat, adding things like Block-and-Slash that were prior to, used mostly in Action-Adventure (like Zelda) and fighters. All Skyrim added to the series was pretty graphics and Shouts. Ill keep reading before I say anything else but I felt that needed pointing out.

EDIT: Ok, you got some good points there buddy, I thought you were just hating on RPGs for a second there, till I saw you played LO and FFX (Hell, I don't even like FFX, I think they started sucking after FFIIV) but I don't agree with your points of making a new story with the same features and mechanics. I like a similar game here and there don't get me wrong, but ill strike up an example like Zelda. If EVERY Zelda game was exactly alike (You have the same dungeon running, combat, weapons and such) I would have dropped that shit a long time ago. In fact, to me sometimes its things like gimmicks that offer and bit more fun to the experience. Think of one of Smash Bros or Monster Hunter, if they never added anything to those games from release to release who the hell would play them? I would just stick with Melee and Tri if that was the case. Also, I feel like your making this problem seen nore widespread then just Square. Square is shit now, like Sega, they are running off the fanboy fumes which cant keep them alive forever. But Capcom has been doing similar with Megaman (I mean, look how much he changes so often, BT and Zero were released within a year of each other and they are radically different, still both were great games)


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Sep 12, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> I'm sorry, wat? I read up to the point you said Skyrim was better then Oblivion. How is dull combat, watered-down stats and one-way dungeons better then Oblivion? Oblivion introduced aspects people never thought to put in RPGs such as physics engines for environmental combat, adding things like Block-and-Slash that were prior to, used mostly in Action-Adventure (like Zelda) and fighters. All Skyrim added to the series was pretty graphics and Shouts. Ill keep reading before I say anything else but I felt that needed pointing out.



Oblivion had horrific combat. Skyrim's isn't great by any means but it was tenfold better than Oblivion.

Stats, eh, that's more of an opinion I guess. On one hand, it's a lot more accessible and streamlined. Some people like that, I did for one. But yeah, you have a point.

Physics engines for environmental combat? Doesn't Skyrim have that?

Block-and-slash in Oblivion was still fucking horrible though. You literally attacked once or twice then blocked until they hit your shield and staggered back. At least Skyrim added some variety with like shield bashing and such.

It doesn't really matter what Skyrim added or didn't add, it matters if it's a better game. It took what Oblivion introduced to and refined it greatly. It looks better, it plays better, and there's more to do. Yes, it's heavily flawed, but no more so than Oblivion was.

EDIT: But New Vegas is better than both those games.


----------



## Ritsuki (Sep 12, 2012)

This kind of debate could be interesting if most of the people could make the difference between "a bad game" and "a game I don't like". I'm not saying that's easy, but at least we shoud try to have some constructive debate 

I think that old gamers are used to a certain type of games, and unfortunately, tastes have changed. It's not that the sequels are worse, it's just that now the public is not the same, and the games change with the tastes of the people. Just look at games like Call of Duty. Pretty much no difference between the new episodes, but it sells. Why ? People like this game. Doesn't matter if it's good or not, people like it and they'll buy it.


----------



## The Milkman (Sep 12, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Zantigo said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry, wat? I read up to the point you said Skyrim was better then Oblivion. How is dull combat, watered-down stats and one-way dungeons better then Oblivion? Oblivion introduced aspects people never thought to put in RPGs such as physics engines for environmental combat, adding things like Block-and-Slash that were prior to, used mostly in Action-Adventure (like Zelda) and fighters. All Skyrim added to the series was pretty graphics and Shouts. Ill keep reading before I say anything else but I felt that needed pointing out.
> ...



you got a point there, but the way he stated his points it sounded like he was talking more as in what the game ment at the time. Oblivion ment shitloads more when it was released then skyrim, while Skyrim clearly expanded and fixed things like Oblivion, it overall feels more like a mediveal FPS then a Open-World Action RPG.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Sep 12, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> you got a point there, but the way he stated his points it sounded like he was talking more as in what the game ment at the time. Oblivion ment shitloads more when it was released then skyrim, while Skyrim clearly expanded and fixed things like Oblivion, it overall feels more like a mediveal FPS then a Open-World Action RPG.



The whole "when it was released" argument just doesn't work. Games age. It happens. Doom was revolutionary at the time but was it as good as Half Life when it came out? Absolutely not. And in retrospect, was Half Life better than Half Life 2? Absolutely not. What it did at the time doesn't matter, how good the game is now does.

Calling it a "medieval FPS" is just an incredibly atrocious case of mislabeling. How is Skyrim a "medieval FPS" any more than Oblivion? They each have a large open world, each have a series of quests to do, players have choice, players customize their character from appearance to adventure to profession. Difference is that Skyrim is just better. What makes Skyrim a "medieval FPS" when it's very close to Oblivion, just more refined? If you're going to make such a claim you should have a slew of evidence to back it up.

Plus it's not like so much time has passed from Oblivion to Skyrim. It was still the same console generation, even the same engine. They could have easily done what they did with Skyrim on Oblivion. But Oblivion was more of a stepping stone onto a superior game. If Oblivion came out ten years ago then I might consider your point but the games aren't a stone's throw away from each other.

As I said in my earlier example, Ocarina of Time was a great game when it came out but it's really not any more when subsequent titles have done what it does both bigger and better.


----------



## jalaneme (Sep 12, 2012)

I can't stand Final Fantasy XIII and Final Fantasy XIII-2  all you do in the game is press X for 100 hours, the dungeons are linear and no diversity apart from pretty nice graphics, i own both games and brought them both at full price when they launched but i still haven't played them, you know why? because of reasons above on top of that jrpgs are going the way of the dodo, no one wants linearity anymore, they want exploration and diversity.

Sorry it had to be said, but i played mass effect 3 the other day and stopped, you know why? I didn't care so much for the characters, the game didn't seem to want me to care about them, i tried so hard with thier avalible setting to get a rpg experience but it still feels like a shooter to me.

Each and everytime i play these games i always go back to skyrim, you know why? Because that game has diversity, free choices, non linear gameplay, yes the combat is not up to scratch compared to demon souls but the other parts of the gameplay makes the game great.

Also there is a reason why people go back to the older games not because of nogilstic reasons but because the classics will always be better time and time again, i think a lot of game developers seem to forget thier roots and only please thier investors and companies or risk loosing thier jobs, these days they have to make the games as casual and as simple as they can, not only that but to take out stuff to sell later too.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Sep 12, 2012)

jalaneme said:


> I can't stand Final Fantasy XIII and Final Fantasy XIII-2  all you do in the game is press X for 100 hours, the dungeons are linear and no diversity apart from pretty nice graphics, i own both games and brought them both at full price when they launched but i still haven't played them, you know why? because of reasons above on top of that jrpgs are going the way of the dodo, no one wants linearity anymore, they want exploration and diversity.
> 
> Sorry it had to be said, but i played mass effect 3 the other day and stopped, you know why? I didn't care so much for the characters, the game didn't seem to want me to care about them, i tried so hard with thier avalible setting to get a rpg experience but it still feels like a shooter to me.
> 
> ...



Mass Effect 3 is part shooter. It's no more RPG than shooter and no more shooter than RPG. The series realized that we shouldn't have to choose between having a good RPG and good combat. I mean it's an action game still, it's supposed to be action-filled. People seem to think there's some mutual exclusivity when it comes to RPGs and gameplay. You either choose a RPG with a good storyline and all the stat-based goodness to make a Microsoft Excel programmer get a raging erection or you choose good combat which is actually enjoyable but doesn't require all this stat or storyline bullshit. As for ME3 itself, I agree with ShadowSoldier on most things with it (see his blog on it if you want more).

TBH Skyrim has the exact opposite of diversity. Every quest involves going to a dungeon and killing draugr. Like literally, almost every mission devolves to going here and killing monsters. There's a lot of quests but they're incredibly samey. There's an embarrassing lack of monster diversity and quests are all practically the same. And combat is pretty bad as well so that doesn't help.


----------



## jalaneme (Sep 12, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> TBH Skyrim has the exact opposite of diversity. Every quest involves going to a dungeon and killing draugr. Like literally, almost every mission devolves to going here and killing monsters. There's a lot of quests but they're incredibly samey. There's an embarrassing lack of monster diversity and quests are all practically the same. And combat is pretty bad as well so that doesn't help.



mods take care of that problem, unfortunately console players don't have that, but it's still possible for pc players, good thing about TES games is you can do anything at your own pace you don't even have to do the main questline you can just explore and that will easily take hours before you even touched the surface.


----------



## jalaneme (Sep 12, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Mass Effect 3 is part shooter. It's no more RPG than shooter and no more shooter than RPG. The series realized that we shouldn't have to choose between having a good RPG and good combat. I mean it's an action game still, it's supposed to be action-filled. People seem to think there's some mutual exclusivity when it comes to RPGs and gameplay. You either choose a RPG with a good storyline and all the stat-based goodness to make a Microsoft Excel programmer get a raging erection or you choose good combat which is actually enjoyable but doesn't require all this stat or storyline bullshit. As for ME3 itself, I agree with ShadowSoldier on most things with it (see his blog on it if you want more).



imo mass effect is 90% shooter and about 10% role playing, there is even a option for the game to choose the answers for you in conversations! how can that be a *ROLE* playeing game? the game lets you create a character that you are supposed to control and decide options for future events in the series. so why does such a option exist? i understand the other option where you can just watch a movie and let the story play out, it may be for lest experienced players, but the other option shouldn't be there you are the main character and should be making the choices, end off.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Sep 12, 2012)

jalaneme said:


> Guild McCommunist said:
> 
> 
> > Mass Effect 3 is part shooter. It's no more RPG than shooter and no more shooter than RPG. The series realized that we shouldn't have to choose between having a good RPG and good combat. I mean it's an action game still, it's supposed to be action-filled. People seem to think there's some mutual exclusivity when it comes to RPGs and gameplay. You either choose a RPG with a good storyline and all the stat-based goodness to make a Microsoft Excel programmer get a raging erection or you choose good combat which is actually enjoyable but doesn't require all this stat or storyline bullshit. As for ME3 itself, I agree with ShadowSoldier on most things with it (see his blog on it if you want more).
> ...



Because like it said in the game:

RPG is for the people who want the RPG type game and full ME3 experience
Shooter is just for people who just want to blow shit up
Story is for people who just want the story.


----------



## The Milkman (Sep 12, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> jalaneme said:
> 
> 
> > I can't stand Final Fantasy XIII and Final Fantasy XIII-2  all you do in the game is press X for 100 hours, the dungeons are linear and no diversity apart from pretty nice graphics, i own both games and brought them both at full price when they launched but i still haven't played them, you know why? because of reasons above on top of that jrpgs are going the way of the dodo, no one wants linearity anymore, they want exploration and diversity.
> ...



Wait... weren't you JUST defending Skyrim?! And pretty much everything you said about it is why I thought it more of a medival FPS then RPG, are you in one of those moods today ?


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Sep 12, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> Wait... weren't you JUST defending Skyrim?! And pretty much everything you said about it is why I thought it more of a medival FPS then RPG, are you in one of those moods today ?



I'm defending Skyrim in terms of Oblivion, both games are horrifically flawed. I never said that Skyrim is a god amongst games, I was simply defending it as better than Oblivion. I enjoyed the time put into Skyrim but it seems very bland compared to something like Dragon's Dogma or even Kingdoms of Amalur.

I'm in a mood where if you make a terribly inaccurate statement that you have to defend it.


----------



## The Milkman (Sep 12, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Zantigo said:
> 
> 
> > Wait... weren't you JUST defending Skyrim?! And pretty much everything you said about it is why I thought it more of a medival FPS then RPG, are you in one of those moods today ?
> ...



How is an opinion terribly inaccurate >_>


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Sep 12, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> Guild McCommunist said:
> 
> 
> > Zantigo said:
> ...



An opinion is only good if there's reasoning behind it. You can't just state an opinion and not expect to defend it.


----------



## ouch123 (Sep 12, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> An opinion is only good if there's reasoning behind it. You can't just state an opinion and not expect to defend it.


The wealth of ten-year-olds on the internet beg to differ.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Sep 12, 2012)

With regard to the OP, generally sequels _are_ far more grand than their predecessors.  Devs have had an opportunity to see what works and what doesn't, where they might be able to add something to the table, and fit in ideas that they wanted to implement in the previous game but couldn't due to lack of time or tech.

I think you're projecting your disdain for the inconsistent mess that the Final Fantasy series has become onto the industry as a whole.  In a topic titled "Why sequels suffer and why they succeed" you name one series that has gone downhill and four that got it right.  This seems more like yet another "Final Fantasy makes me sad" thread.

As was pointed out earlier, the Final Fantasy games are for the most part separate entities.  But, seeing as they are all called "Final Fantasy" (still wondering which of them is actually the Final fantasy...) and numbered...I think they fall into the realm of sequels...  It is definitely a series that could be well served by looking back at what worked in the past rather than what could be added in the future, but having said that, I'd rather not see EA Sports Final Fantasy 2013 with updated graphics and rosters...


----------



## pasc (Sep 12, 2012)

Not sure about this...

However KH II >KHI    Metroid Prime 2,3< 1

However this is only opinion based (and I had a hard time telling this about MP1, since I love that game)


----------



## The Milkman (Sep 12, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Zantigo said:
> 
> 
> > Guild McCommunist said:
> ...



What says? I cant possibly PROVE my opinion to you and I have already defended it, how much more is there to do.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Sep 12, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> With regard to the OP, generally sequels _are_ far more grand than their predecessors.  Devs have had an opportunity to see what works and what doesn't, where they might be able to add something to the table, and fit in ideas that they wanted to implement in the previous game but couldn't due to lack of time or tech.
> 
> I think you're projecting your disdain for the inconsistent mess that the Final Fantasy series has become onto the industry as a whole.  In a topic titled "Why sequels suffer and why they succeed" you name one series that has gone downhill and four that got it right.  This seems more like yet another "Final Fantasy makes me sad" thread.
> 
> As was pointed out earlier, the Final Fantasy games are for the most part separate entities.  But, seeing as they are all called "Final Fantasy" (still wondering which of them is actually the Final fantasy...) and numbered...I think they fall into the realm of sequels...  It is definitely a series that could be well served by looking back at what worked in the past rather than what could be added in the future, but having said that, I'd rather not see EA Sports Final Fantasy 2013 with updated graphics and rosters...



-I used it as an example because it's the most recent title that I experienced.
-The opening post was already long enough, I'm not going to add more.
-Used it as the example because not only is it the most recent title, but because a lot of people here have tried XIII and would understand more what I mean. I'm not going to add a title like Super Adventure Island 2 (which I love) but was completely different from Super Adventure Island 1, a lot of people haven't played those games.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Sep 12, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> What says? I cant possibly PROVE my opinion to you and I have already defended it, how much more is there to do.



An opinion is formulated through copious research in the area the opinion is formed. You didn't defend calling it a "medieval FPS", you simply said "It doesn't feel open world, it feels like a medieval FPS" and have constantly denied giving any reason as to why you would formulate such an opinion. You can't just drop an opinion and simply stonewall from the rest of the argument. If you present an opinion, you should have some reason behind it. You can't just drop in and say "I think X", you have to drop in and say "I think X because". Which you didn't.

Opinions have to be defended. It doesn't matter if it's your opinion, your opinion is shit if you have no evidence.

If you have an unfounded opinion, don't state it next time.


----------



## Gahars (Sep 13, 2012)

I find that the best sequels (in games or any other medium) are the ones that build upon the foundation set by the original instead of simply working within its confines. Take the leap from Portal 2 to Portal, Terminator 2: Judgement Day to The Terminator, Arkham City to Arkham Asylum, or The Evil Dead to The Evil Dead 2 to Army Of Darkness.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Sep 13, 2012)

Gahars said:


> I find that the best sequels (in games or any other medium) are the ones that build upon the foundation set by the original instead of simply working within its confines. Take the leap from Portal 2 to Portal, Terminator 2: Judgement Day to The Terminator, Arkham City to Arkham Asylum, or The Evil Dead to The Evil Dead 2 to Army Of Darkness.



Exactly, they don't try to change it at all and become it's own game. They improve on the previous ones. And, as I stated in the OP, the final fantasy games don't do that. But there are exceptions to that rule, such as the Mario games for example.


----------



## DS1 (Sep 13, 2012)

This is more like, "Why does Final Fantasy Suck Now [if it was ever good]?" than, "why sequels suffer". If you're going to pick X as the point of departure, I'll just fall back on the common belief that SquareEnix ruined everything (IX was Squaresoft's last FF game).

But just because I don't completely understand what you're getting at, let me pick at your main statement:


ShadowSoldier said:


> Final Fantasy, I believe, is no longer Final Fantasy. I believe that Final Fantasy was all about exploring dungeons, going to towns, getting lots of weapons and armor, playing mini games, and have a simple turn based battle system. That's what it was like up until FFX, then they changed it all, and look what happened. We no longer have stories about the characters growing from some "I don't want to help nobody" asshole to "I'll die saving this planet".



1. All about exploring dungeons
-FFXII had dungeons in spades

2. Going to towns
-FFXII had tons of towns, the biggest in the franchise

3. Getting lots of weapons and armor
-This is every FF game, except for FFVIII. I wouldn't call the reduction in redundancy of weapons (beginning with FFVII) a bad thing, considering they largely only affect your attack and hit% in FF games, but whatever. Consider this the same as the streamlined inventory between Mass Effect 1 and 2.

4. Playing mini games
-Not many mini games in I-V, or XIII, the rest had a bunch

5. Simple Turn-Based Battle System
-This ended with XI (and by extension, XII). FFX's battle system was not only simple, it was revolutionary. It's one of the few JRPGs I can name where your vanilla attack is NOT always the best option for defeating enemies in a timely manner. Up until that point, it was 'equip the best weapons, grind your attack stat, use attack -> win'. Any deviation from this pattern would cause you to lose turns, time, health, and eventually, the entire battle. 90% of magic spells were useless. On the other hand, FFX actually gave enemies specific status weaknesses in addition to elemental weaknesses, the effectiveness of which were increased over 2-fold, so that it was smarter to blind a bunch of flying enemies and throw lightning at them than it was to constantly mash 'attack' with your heavies. But I digress, most people can't get past the story, inability to skip cutscenes, lack of a world map, etc. etc.

6. Story (?)
I don't know how you concluded that a change in gameplay resulted in a change in story development, but look no further than Motomu Toriyama and Daisuke Watanabe, who led the scenario and script writing on X, XII, and XIII (while their roles were minor or non-existent in previous entries).

Basically I think your argument boils down to, "Final Fantasy XIII is terrible", and I agree. The battle system is actually pretty fun and entertaining, but you don't really get to use it until you've crawled over 40 hours of absolute garbage. Then the game becomes a real Final Fantasy game, albeit without interesting environments, the ability to use all of your characters, and any real goal other than some mediocre side-quests. I chalk all this failure up to the inability of Japanese developers to utilize current-gen hardware. FFXIII feels like they spent more time on the graphics than anything else (and the graphics aren't even _that _good).

But whatever, a lot of people made the same exact arguments when FFVIII came out, and now it's regarded as a classic. For those who were still upset by VIII, Squaresoft created IX, which was a big throwback to the SNES titles, as well as homage to the entire series, including VIII. SquareEnix's problem is that they never really responded to the ire of fans after XIII. Instead they took the G.W. Bush route and said, "We can either admit that we screwed up, or stick to our guns and make things worse. Because sticking to your guns shows character, and people would rather have character than quality." Of course now there are FFXIII fans who were pissed off at FFXIII-2, which, in an uncharacteristic gesture, SE is apologizing for with yet another sequel. But this is another digression... I've stopped hyping myself up for each new entry, at least until they give up on all the Ivalice and Fabula Crystal whatever crap.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Sep 13, 2012)

@[member='DS1']

I thought his argument was that sequels more often then not are worse then their predecessor. The Final Fantasy series is a prime example of that.


Sales (From Wikipedia):

_*Final Fantasy XIII: approx. 6.2 million*_
_*Final Fantasy XIII-2: approx. 2.5 million *_

_*Final Fantasy X: approx. 6.6 million*_
_*Final Fantasy X-2: approx. 1.85 million*_

_*Uncharted: Drake's Fortune - approx. 2.6 million*_
_*Uncharted 2: Among Thieves - approx. 5 million*_


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Sep 13, 2012)

Well sales really don't reflect quality. It's very rare that true sequels outsell their predecessors. For this I mean story-based sequels, not gameplay based sequels like NSMB DS to NSMB Wii or NSMB2.

I mean you can only lose people as a story goes on. Like your example, not everyone who buys Uncharted will like it. Those people won't bother with a sequel and not a lot of people will buy a sequel without playing the previous game first. It just filters down honestly.

I think there are some rare instances where this is reversed, I thought Mass Effect had this where the sequels outsold their predecessors. Which is odd because I can't imagine playing the series without starting at square one.


----------



## Black-Ice (Sep 13, 2012)

Why do people hate so hard on XIII?
I bet most of the people who do found it too hard and are venting frustration. Sure it was a bit linear but damn it wasnt as bad as people say,
Theres a right to say XIII-2 was much worse than XIII coz it was, but people write off the whole series so quickly and say the 'retro' ones are better. Have any of you 'retro' fans played a range of the FF games? Coz I have a sure bet you've only played one.

/rant over


----------



## emigre (Sep 13, 2012)

Black-Ice said:


> Why do people hate so hard on XIII?
> I bet most of the people who do found it too hard and are venting frustration. Sure it was a bit linear but damn it wasnt as bad as people say,
> Theres a right to say XIII-2 was much worse than XIII coz it was, but people write off the whole series so quickly and say the 'retro' ones are better. Have any of you 'retro' fans played a range of the FF games? Coz I have a sure bet you've only played one.
> 
> /rant over



Hipsters gonna hip.


----------



## DS1 (Sep 13, 2012)

Black-Ice said:


> Why do people hate so hard on XIII?
> I bet most of the people who do found it too hard and are venting frustration. Sure it was a bit linear but damn it wasnt as bad as people say,
> Theres a right to say XIII-2 was much worse than XIII coz it was, but people write off the whole series so quickly and say the 'retro' ones are better. Have any of you 'retro' fans played a range of the FF games? Coz I have a sure bet you've only played one.
> 
> /rant over



I've played every single non-MMO FF game from start to finish (a few of them several times over), and honestly XIII is as bad as most people make it out to be. The problem I have with the game is that you have to go through a fairly long and poorly written story before 'unlocking' the entire battle system. Linearity isn't the issue, but the fact that freedom in battle and your party choice is choked off completely. After that, I have to say the game is pretty damn good and I really like the battle system. Getting to that point is such a slog though, and the payoff isn't big enough for most people. Compare this to Suikoden V, which took around 10 hours to really get going, but after that it was a solid 40 hours of great gameplay and story. There is only so much BS I will tolerate to get to 'the good parts' of a game.

When I first played XIII, it was on my friend's completed save file, where he was just running around doing sidequests and collecting materials and stuff. Based on that alone, I thought the game was way better than people were making it out to be! But a while later, when I started my own new game, I quickly figured out exactly why everyone was complaining. My friend, another die-hard FF fan, admitted he'd skipped the majority of the cutscenes. Considering how many dang cutscenes there are during the main game, I'd say that's a pretty serious detractor. But hey, he completed the game 100%, so no, it's not all bad.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Sep 14, 2012)

Black-Ice said:


> Why do people hate so hard on XIII?
> I bet most of the people who do found it too hard and are venting frustration. Sure it was a bit linear but damn it wasnt as bad as people say,
> Theres a right to say XIII-2 was much worse than XIII coz it was, but people write off the whole series so quickly and say the 'retro' ones are better. Have any of you 'retro' fans played a range of the FF games? Coz I have a sure bet you've only played one.
> 
> /rant over


I haven't played all of them but I've played and finished 1 to 7, played a little bit of 8, 9 and 12 as well as the spinoffs Tactics, Tactics Advanced, Tactics A2, Crisis Core, Dissidia, Dissidia 012 and watched through the anime and Advent Children movie and i'm not even a fan of the series and even I know XIII was crap. If a game has to drag on and on before it really grabs you and makes you want to play more then it is shit just compare it to another JRPG like Persona 3 it grabs you in the first few minutes not in the first few hours of playthrough and thats why alot of people complain about the lastest installments in the FF series and why alot of people reguard the so called "retro" games better because it has everything the newer FF lacks.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Sep 22, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I always do get annoyed at the tendency for people to say that an older game is better than a newer game simply for nostalgic or "retro" purposes. Like Ocarina of Time was a great game... 15 years ago. Nowadays though Twilight Princess was just so much better. Frankly I can't sing as many praises for the Zelda franchise as others do but Twilight Princess is a fantastic game and it was a surprisingly bolder direction for the series than people want to admit.


I agree with the jist of what you're saying here, but I find it a bit ironic that you use Twilight Princess as an example of a Zelda game better than Ocarina of Time. Mostly because, despite the fact that I liked Twilight Princess, my main problem is that it felt too much like "Ocarina of Time 2" (and from what I've seen said elsewhere, I'm not the only person who thinks that either). But most importantly, I don't feel like there's anything that truly sets it apart as unique from any previous Zelda titles. I mean, take a look...



Spoiler



Ocarina of Time: First truly 3D Zelda game. Pioneered the core of the elements that would become mainstays for future main Zelda installments. Though essentially very similar to A Link to the Past storywise (in many ways), it still introduced its own twists and plot elements that have become mainstays of future Zelda plots, for better or for worse.

Majora's Mask: A sequel to Ocarina of Time with the same graphical style and game engine (though updated a bit), but with a wildly different story and ways to play. Introduced an interactive time-based world with tons of colorful characters who truly mean something to the plot and gameplay, and has arguably the darkest story to date.

Wind Waker: Took place on an open sea with tons of islands to explore, and required sailing to get anywhere. Featured a unique cell-shaded graphical style that still looks pretty today. Introduces special action commands in battle

Twilight Princess: After the backlash over Wind Waker's graphical style, Nintendo retreated a bit and basically said "let's make Ocarina of Time HD!" Features an older Link (like Ocarina of Time) a more "realistic" graphical style (like Ocarina of Time), a Hylian shield that looks identical to the one in Ocarina of Time, a horse (like Ocarina of Time), a more "classic" Zelda story where Link saves Princess Zelda and Hyrule from Ganon (like Ocarina of Time), and travels into a dark world which transforms him into an animal (like a Link to the Past). Introduces the concept of "tear collecting" and refines the action commands previously seen in Wind Waker. Featured tacked-on motion controls in the Wii version.

Skyward Sword: Takes place in the open sky, and pioneers TRUE motion controls as an integrated part of gameplay. Introduces an RPG-like weapons and items upgrade system requiring money and mixtures of different materials, as well as a limit to the carryable amount of items and breakable shields. Adds stamina as a part of gameplay. Also introduces slightly more extensive dialog choices (though they usually don't affect the game or story much) and greatly refines the tear-collecting and action commands from Twilight Princess.



So, you see what I'm saying? Twilight Princess brought very little that was new to the table, and not much that truly sets it apart from other games. Sure, it was cool to play a more "Realistic" OoT pseudo-sequel with better graphics, it was really cool to be a wolf and ride Epona again, and it was cool to alternate between light and twilight realms, but none of those are really unique to Twilight Princess at all. Really, the only thing Twilight Princess seemed to do that influenced the next installment is tear collecting, pseudo-motion controls (neither of which were truly perfected until Skyward Sword, imo), and the names of certain areas in Skyward Sword (such as the different provinces).


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Sep 22, 2012)

Black-Ice said:


> Why do people hate so hard on XIII?
> I bet most of the people who do found it too hard and are venting frustration. Sure it was a bit linear but damn it wasnt as bad as people say,
> Theres a right to say XIII-2 was much worse than XIII coz it was, but people write off the whole series so quickly and say the 'retro' ones are better. Have any of you 'retro' fans played a range of the FF games? Coz I have a sure bet you've only played one.
> 
> /rant over



XIII sucks. Honestly, I liked FFV and FFVI the best. 1 and 2 were okay, but the series didn't start kicking ass until later on. And by VI I mean 3 for North America. But still. XIII sucked compared to every other final fantasy.


----------



## Black-Ice (Sep 22, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> *XIII sucks.* Honestly, I liked FFV and FFVI the best. 1 and 2 were okay, but the series didn't start kicking ass until later on. And by VI I mean 3 for North America. But still. XIII sucked compared to every other final fantasy.


Only one person has given me legit reasons besides just blindly saying 'it sucks derp'
And most people dont get the full experience because watching nicely done cut scenes is somehow tedious?
Gaming of today has become too impulsive and impatient. and thats why gems like XIII which require patience will never be liked.

Also, every other FF? Have you played every other in depth? I doubt you're qualified to make that decision.
Coz you've clearly overlooked the bullshit which was XI


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Sep 22, 2012)

Black-Ice said:


> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> > *XIII sucks.* Honestly, I liked FFV and FFVI the best. 1 and 2 were okay, but the series didn't start kicking ass until later on. And by VI I mean 3 for North America. But still. XIII sucked compared to every other final fantasy.
> ...


Lol, everyone else gave a legit reason but only you think it isn't and whether that is plain ignorance or trolling who knows. 




Black-Ice said:


> And most people dont get the full experience because watching nicely done cut scenes is somehow tedious?
> Gaming of today has become too impulsive and impatient. and thats why gems like XIII which require patience will never be liked.


Watching cutscenes are fine and I don't think anyone has a problem with that in fact it may be hard to believe but other successful JRPGs has cutscenes and they're selling very well even with more sequels and so forth on the way.
MegaTen games need more patience than XIII and is alot more irritating to play than XIII but they aren't getting hated in fact they're getting more and more popular, its just XIII that sucks.


----------



## Black-Ice (Sep 22, 2012)

Xiii doesnt suck.
What sucks is peoples expectations, memory and gaming sense. 
But hey, who am I to complain. Everyone's different. 

My lasting quote before I leave this annoying thread?
Sequels dont suck. People's over-active expectations and over-active hipster-ness let them down.


----------



## The Milkman (Sep 22, 2012)

Black-Ice said:


> Xiii doesnt suck.
> What sucks is peoples expectations, memory and gaming sense.
> But hey, who am I to complain. Everyone's different.
> 
> ...



HEY! Leave Hipsters out of this, they neva dun nothin wrong to nobody.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Sep 22, 2012)

Black-Ice said:


> Xiii doesnt suck.
> What sucks is peoples expectations, memory and gaming sense.
> But hey, who am I to complain. Everyone's different.
> 
> ...


So expecting a sequel to be everything good about the last game with all new and better features etc is wrong now?
Sequels are good if done right I mean looking at P3 and P4, P4 took the best parts of 3 and expanded on it with an improvement in gameplay with a good story to go with it now look at XIII and compare it to any FF before it and its easy to say the older one is better and honestly thats not right, it should be the older one is good but the new one improved on it and is better.

Your right sequels don't suck UNLESS they are poorly made then they really suck.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Sep 22, 2012)

Black-Ice said:


> Xiii doesnt suck.
> What sucks is peoples expectations, memory and gaming sense.
> But hey, who am I to complain. Everyone's different.
> 
> ...



Disliking XIII doesn't really fit into the "hipsters don't like sequels" category since almost every Final Fantasy game is basically standalone. Seeing as the stories are independent and the battle system is changing a lot between games, it's not a cookie cutter sequel series.


----------



## Black-Ice (Sep 22, 2012)

Just Another Gamer said:


> Black-Ice said:
> 
> 
> > Xiii doesnt suck.
> ...


Yeah see.
XIII is better than XI and IX and III
but thats my OPINION, and thats what I fear people are missing. I CAN say Xiii was miles better than those 3 because its my opinion.
It may be a common opinion that XIII sucks but it isnt fact. The rating of any game isn't fact because ratings are based of opinion. What I dont like is people preaching opinion like its fact.

And besides, every FF tries to be a little different and XIII was the big step up to current gen consoles, of course it wont be as good as if they were accustomed to current gen console play and expectations.
I remember not liking tekken 4 much, but i realise it was coz they were experimenting with gameplay after upgrading from ps1 to ps2.
While I respect everyones opinions, I just feel that people are bullying the game with un-realism. And its not just xiii
Its harder to make games these days with the possibilities expanding and the market getting waaay more violent and expectant.

We remember games that were older for being better because the overall quality back then was alot lower and it was easier to make games that satisfied an audience who werent accustomed to the vaster possibilities of today.
Not to mention when you are a kid, EVERYTHING looks bloddy amazing.

/sorry am I ranting a bit?


----------



## DoubleeDee (Sep 22, 2012)

All the fable sequels fail.
Fable 1 was amazing, the others failedddd.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Sep 22, 2012)

Black-Ice said:


> Just Another Gamer said:
> 
> 
> > Black-Ice said:
> ...


No one is missing that YOU personally think XIII is a good game but the general consensus among JRPG fans is that XIII is horrible compared to majority of the FF series while the others because I personally think from 8-11 aren't that good is more accepted as opinion because it got if i'm right average reviews.
The only one I see trying to enforce that XIII isn't crap as fact is you since no one here as argued that sequels are shit because they are sequels.

Persona changed alot from P2 to P3 when it moved to the PS2 and it got a whole lot better so it isn't that people aren't accustomed to the current gen its how the game is presented in its gameplay, story, characters etc and those play a big part in how the game does. Yes Persona isn't FF but they had to make transitions as well to keep up to date with the current gen and they seem to have no problems doing that.
I think I said before that its not unreal to expect a sequel to be everything its predecessor is and more and the only thing I really saw improve with XIII is the graphics.

It is only better if you have played it before. I haven't played any Persona game before getting my PSP and having P3P and I then played all the PSX games before it and then the updated releases on the PSP and I can honestly say I loved them even with poor graphics and a different gameplay style, this was last year when I bought a PSP. This just depends on how the games are really and if the same effort has been put into it each release then they would still be fun regardless of when they're played.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Sep 22, 2012)

Batman: Arkham City is an example of a good sequel. Instead of following in the same style as Arkham Asylum, they made it more open than linear, made the combat even better and gave it a more fleshed out story.

Super Mario Galaxy 2 is another example. The first one is amazing but this tops even that with new levels, better camera, new power-ups/characters (Yoshi!) and even a revamped hub world. Even if the game plays like more of the same, it's still really stellar.

Assassin's Creed 2 is the perfect example, though. They took all the criticism for the first one (repetition for the most part, poor mission-design) and fixed all of that. They turned a pretty shit game into a really good game with the sequel.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Sep 22, 2012)

Black-Ice said:


> Xiii doesnt suck.
> What sucks is peoples expectations, memory and gaming sense.
> But hey, who am I to complain. Everyone's different.
> 
> ...



XI? XI was a great game, what are you smoking?

I've played nearly all the other FF games. I say nearly because obviously there's one or two that I missed, like Final Fantasy Tactics on the GBA I think it was.

But still, XIII is not a good Final Fantasy game. When did it become acceptable to play through a 30 hour tutorial? The game is ridiculously linear with no where to explore like past Final Fantasy titles. It's all just one big long ass hallway that you're going through. The battle system is broken and is garbage. And Summons turning into vehicles? Are you kidding me? What the hell?

I have no problem with the open type combat they used, hell, Tales of Vesperia did a fantastic job with it, but Final Fantasy XIII just did not pull it off at all. It's the blacksheep of the franchise. XIII-2 didn't even fix it, and now they're coming out with a third installment? What the hell? Not to mention, let's not kid ourselves, the story in XIII is absolute shit and a clusterfuck of a mess.


----------



## emigre (Sep 22, 2012)

I spent over forty hours on Final Fantasy  XIII. And I still have no idea what the story was about.


----------



## Smuff (Sep 22, 2012)

I have never played a FF title in my life.
Ever.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Sep 22, 2012)

SmuffTheMagicDragon said:


> I have never played a FF title in my life.
> Ever.


Almost the same for me. The only Final Fantasy game I played was FFV and I didn't even complete that.

Although I did say I was going to start playing through them. Too many games in my backlog...


----------



## xwatchmanx (Sep 22, 2012)

SmuffTheMagicDragon said:


> I have never played a FF title in my life.
> Ever.


I really TRIED to get through the older 8 and 16 bit ones, and I just can't. I really honestly try, but I just can't get into them. And I tried 7 once, and absolutely hated it. I couldn't get through more than an hour or so of it. Maybe I'll give them another chance sometime in the future. Honestly, the only Square titles I ever liked were Chrono Trigger and Einhander.


----------



## Black-Ice (Sep 22, 2012)

Why do I bother?
Not quite sure.

Tekken Tag 2 is a sequel and the best sequel the series has ever made.
Awesome game
I lose my faith in humanity if people disagree with that at least


----------



## xwatchmanx (Sep 22, 2012)

Black-Ice said:


> I lose my faith in humanity if people disagree with that at least


If disagreements over what video games are good make you lose faith in humanity, you must REALLY have zero faith in humanity right now.


----------



## emigre (Sep 22, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> SmuffTheMagicDragon said:
> 
> 
> > I have never played a FF title in my life.
> ...



The 8 bit titles are a waste of time. The bare bone story and repetitive gameplay have meant the games really haven't aged well. Tne 16 bit titles have some more staying power but to play them afresh now, I say fall into the trap of being seemingly rote and generic. I spent around fifteen hours on FFVI and just gave up on it because the melodrama just hit a point of stupidity. 

My favorite FF game is FF VII mind. I put that down to my love of the cyberpunk setting. Which was just awesome, I honestly wish the entire game was just set in Midgar. It would have been cool as fuck.


----------



## Black-Ice (Sep 22, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> Black-Ice said:
> 
> 
> > I lose my faith in humanity if people disagree with that at least
> ...


I do 
And im proud of it
Tekken is my fav game series thoughm and they did very well with Tag 2


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 23, 2012)

@OP: isn't it a bit unfair to compare Final Fantasy...what? *Thirteen*? To unchartered two and three? the main problem with sequels is that everyone is always comparing them to previous titles. It has to be improved every time yet stay close to the original formula. That gets progressively harder over time. Of course it has to adapt to what is becoming standard in the gaming world (e.g.: the wiimote plus in Skyward sword), but that's not an easy task to keep the audience entertained.
Also: lots of things are hindsight. _On hindsight_, Mario 64 was a success. _On hindsight_, Sonic's 3D adventures weren't. While making those, it's all pretty much a gamble. It's easy to praise unchartered now that they can still get away with doing the exact thing over and over again. I'm more curious how the series will fare once they hit their seventh or eighth game.


My view on sequels is that they usually fall flat if they start doing things radically different.
-I absolutely HATED C&C tiberian sun. After red alert, I expected fights on land, sea and in the air, in a distant kinda-dystopia future. There wasn't a ship to be seen, they went all-out sci-fi (WTF...aliens?) and introduced ridiculously overpowered vehicles for no reason. That killed it (okay, that and the cutscenes that don't address you but some B-actor that's "supposed" to be you).
-Unreal 2...I don't even think it deserves the name to begin with. The exploring part was gone, the music was gone, the weapons were completely different...heck, it wasn't even on the same planet. Honestly...they ditched EVERYTHING that made unreal a great game. If they had given it a different name, nobody would have even noticed a similarity.
-Unreal tournament 3. This is a sad story. UT2003 did things radically different than the original UT, but sorta got away with it. Especially with UT2004, which was what UT2003 should have been. However, these two games had a pretty steep learning curve to become a good player (online, that is). It's good that UT3 toned that down. Unfortunately, they toned it down way too much. That all the tricks like slope dodging of impact jumping were nerfed to nothing was forgivable (at least it evened the battlefield between veterans and newbies). That they got rid of the entire unreal universe as well wasn't so bad either (the singleplayer was so bad it became hilarious...but I'd hate to think what someone who just plays singleplayer would think of it). But the vehicles changed completely (if they had looked at the community for ONE FREAKIN' MINUTE in the last year, they would have found that onslaught wasn't broken...the stock maps just sucked), and not for the better. And the nail on the coffin: it was clearly designed for consoles. It's amazing that a GUI manages to be a factor in how a game plays, but really: it was that ridiculously bad. You couldn't even properly browse for an online game anymore.
Sigh...I'm getting annoyed thinking of it. The tragedy is that without vehicles, regular capture the flag is the best gameplay ever (_every _map is a masterpiece). But it's near-impossible to properly play it because you have to wade through a retarded GUI to set it up.

Now...for the good sequels:
-starcraft 2. Okay, perhaps not entirely fair, but it IS a sequel. And with the immense popularity of starcraft, it takes balls to even attempt it (try making "soccer 2.0" as popular as how it's played now). But they managed to do it. With great success.
-UT2004. Mentioned above, but worth mentioning. Critics may say that it is just a glorified expansion pack at full price, but I say: if all expansion packs had this kind of content, they DESERVE to be at full price. All the gametypes had just minor tweaks and it shipped with the exact same weapons and maps...but easily doubled the map count (with much better ones) and included two awesome extra modes. If anything: this is how you make a safe sequel: just make sure you include EVERYTHING from the previous one.
-GTA San Andreas. I'm still amazed how fucking HUGE this game is. After GTA 3 and Vice city, you expected more of the same (with a nineties kind of theme). And you more or less got that. And then you got out of San Andreas and it turns out you're only at about one third of what the game actually offers.
-Fallout 3. I remember picking this up with not that much hope. It obviously wasn't going to match up to fallout 1 & 2, wasn't it? I mean...3D? As it turns out...it DID. Fallout 3 is to the series what Mario 64 was to Mario platforming: it kept all the goodies (yes, including the dark humor) and changed the rest. My only gripe is that you get a slow motion death scene for EVERY FREAKIN' PERSON you kill, but that's a pretty minor detail.

Undecided:
Prince of Persia. I'm not going to deny Sands of time was awesome (it certainly is!). But I cannot match it to the original platformer. Yes, it has the same sort of theme, pit traps and antics, but it somehow isn't the same game. The pleasures I had with that were many, but of a completely different kind than the running over falling bridges, grabbing a ledge and climbing up JUST before a trapdoor closes. The swordfigthing also has that "it's also fun, but totally different". I think I'll have to wait until they decide that a platforming Prince of Persia isn't so bad of an idea.


----------



## Felipe_9595 (Sep 23, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> I'm sorry, wat? I read up to the point you said Skyrim was better then Oblivion. How is dull combat, watered-down stats and one-way dungeons better then Oblivion? Oblivion introduced aspects people never thought to put in RPGs such as physics engines for environmental combat, adding things like Block-and-Slash that were prior to, used mostly in Action-Adventure (like Zelda) and fighters. All Skyrim added to the series was pretty graphics and Shouts. Ill keep reading before I say anything else but I felt that needed pointing out.
> 
> EDIT: Ok, you got some good points there buddy, I thought you were just hating on RPGs for a second there, till I saw you played LO and FFX (Hell, I don't even like FFX, I think they started sucking after FFIIV) but I don't agree with your points of making a new story with the same features and mechanics. I like a similar game here and there don't get me wrong, but ill strike up an example like Zelda. If EVERY Zelda game was exactly alike (You have the same dungeon running, combat, weapons and such) I would have dropped that shit a long time ago. In fact, to me sometimes its things like gimmicks that offer and bit more fun to the experience. Think of one of Smash Bros or Monster Hunter, if they never added anything to those games from release to release who the hell would play them? I would just stick with Melee and Tri if that was the case. Also, I feel like your making this problem seen nore widespread then just Square. Square is shit now, like Sega, they are running off the fanboy fumes which cant keep them alive forever. But Capcom has been doing similar with Megaman (I mean, look how much he changes so often, BT and Zero were released within a year of each other and they are radically different, still both were great games)



Just to point it out, True, after VII came FF VIII, and it sucked ass, but FF IX blows VII out of the water (But yeah i get your point, square went to shit after X),


----------



## ZAFDeltaForce (Sep 23, 2012)

Dragon Age 2, in my opinion, was a terrible disappointment. I loved Dragon Age: Origins so damn much for it's story - Killing darkspawn.

Taking majority of the darkspawn away was like a slap on the face for me.


----------



## Ryufushichou (Sep 23, 2012)

A personal belief of mine is that a good sequel is a game that builds on the original, that takes what worked from the original and improves it while looking at what was broken and either fix or scrapping it, Continuing a narrative in an interesting way, while maintaining at least some resemblance of the original, 2 recent releases that have done so are Torchlight 2 and Borderlands 2. I'm playing through both now and enjoying both quite a lot, they both have issues here and there but they also do exactly what i stated above, they fixed the issues and improved what was good. Borderlands 2 hits and misses with this (The split screen is almost impossible to play) but I'm still enjoying it. I think that when a company notices a franchise failing and attempt to completely switch it up so that the sequel doesn't resemble the original, that's not a sequel, that's an entire new game that you slapped familiar textures on in the hope that the name would sell it alone, or if they do nothing to improve on it, and just spew out the same game with a continued story. I think if a sequel is done well it can be an amazing experience, but if you try and change a game too drastically, people will get annoyed, its the familiarity factor that sells a sequel.


----------

