Is anyone else tired of good games and franchises getting bad sequels?

[Airstrike92]

Sequels are almost always of a lesser quality than their originals, this goes for movies, video games, etc.

I've seen so many good games and franchises get horrible sequels.

StarCraft & StarCraft: Ghost are amazing. StarCraft II's multiplayer, or rather, lack there of (removal of the real Battle.net) ruined the game. This is coming from a beta tester and the world's biggest StarCraft fan.

Age of Empires series

Civilization series - Revolution sucked, and from what I hear 3 and 4 do too

Total Annihilation series - Kingdoms was good, but not as good as the original, and Supreme Commander/Supreme Commander 2, the spiritual successors were total failures.

Diablo series - II just wasn't as good as one imho.

Descent series - I&II were great classics, III is a fun multiplayer game, but just not as nostalgic imho.

MechWarrior series - MechWarrior 4 is a fun game, but 3 was far better imho

Metroid series - Metroid Prime 2: Echoes is far better than Hunters.

Halo series

Call of Duty series

Medal of Honor series

Doom series - I&II&TNT&Plutonia were classics, Doom 3...well, not so classic, not so nostalgia, and not as good.

Quake series

Aliens series - The new AvP game sucks when compared to the 1999 game and it's 2001 sequel.

Battlefield series - Anyone remember when there were only four Battlefield games (1942, Vietnam, 2, and 2142)? Well now there are like 15, and they all sucked after 2142.

and so many others.

 

[Bill3000]

Civilization series - Revolution sucked, and from what I hear 3 and 4 do too

Correct on 3, incorrect on 4, which is probably the best game in the series.

 

[azzaman333]

Or you could expand on why the sequels are bad, instead of just making a list.

 

[Hygro]

Sequels are almost always of a lesser quality than their originals, this goes for movies, video games, etc.

I've seen so many good games and franchises get horrible sequels.

StarCraft & StarCraft: Ghost are amazing. StarCraft II's multiplayer, or rather, lack there of (removal of the real Battle.net) ruined the game. This is coming from a beta tester and the world's biggest StarCraft fan.

Starcraft Ghost doesn't exist.

Civilization series - Revolution sucked, and from what I hear 3 and 4 do too

Civ 2 was great, Civ 3 was great, Civ 4 was great...

Diablo series - II just wasn't as good as one imho.

They were very different games, but II has a lot more replay value.

Descent series - I&II were great classics, III is a fun multiplayer game, but just not as nostalgic imho.

Nostalgia is an internal thing, and won't come from the game but from you.

MechWarrior series - MechWarrior 4 is a fun game, but 3 was far better imho

Mechwarrior 3 is also a sequel, and by your logic should suck. I do agree though, but having played Mechwarriors 2, 3 (a tiny bit), and 4, all were good games...


So to recap the above: first you praise a spin off game that doesn't exist. Then you judged a bunch of civ games as bad that you never played. Then you opinion about Diablo, which most people don't share, in trying to build support for your claim. Then you considered a sequel to a game equal to its original despite that being counter to the thread, to use it as evidence that the third was bad simply because you had grown out of the game. Then you called sequels bad because you liked one sequel better than another sequel.

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: Thread moved to All Other Games

 

[Airstrike92]

Ghost exists, you just weren't one of the lucky few to get in the beta.

 

[Sarcasticon]

Well, it is a tough job to make a true sequel and improve enough over the original.

However some games have pulled this off successfully: Galactic Civilizations II, Space Rangers II, some of the Need for Speed games (e.g. Most Wanted) come to mind.

I'm also a little puzzled what the sense of this thread is, other than an expression of disappointment.

 

[Zack]

Sequels are only bad in movies, video game sequels are almost always better.

 

[Leonel]

Don't get me started on the SimCity franchise after 4! EA Games dumbed that crap so down.

 

[cardgame]

COD 4 is pretty good.

EU3 is pretty great.

HOI2 is undoubtedly better than 1.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Well, I think the worst in Sonic's days - Shadow the Hedgehog 05 and Sonic 06 - have passed, but yes, I did get sick of Sega for a little bit(it went downhill from series; I consider SA2 one of the best games, as do sales, and it's also my personal favorite). I kept buying into their crap ONE bad decision after another - lol let's hire worse voice actors for a few bucks, lol let's make Shadow drive vehicles, have guns, and swear every 5 seconds even though he's powerful and reserved enough that none of these make sense, lul let's introduce a new hedgehog rather than a mink as planned, lololol! - but thankfully, Unleashed and Black Knight seem to be much better. It appears Black Knight wasn't as well-received as I would have hoped. Unfortunate.

...All this said, I wouldn't be surprised if Sega screws things up again. They already have 3 games in development from what I know, not including the 20th anniversary title. I had hoped the 20th could surpass the 10th, but I may very well be disappointed due to mass production.

Let's also not forget their priorities. Despite being only a 3-4 billion dollar company, they have the highest-paid Japanese CEO. How. Does. That. Work.

Sequels are only bad in movies, video game sequels are almost always better.

Generally this, yes. Though naturally, the longer a series goes on, the easier for it to get stale in some way.

Don't get me started on the SimCity franchise after 4! EA Games dumbed that crap so down.

Oh yes. And I haven't even played SimCity Societies yet can tell from the features it may as well not be SimCity.

...kind of like what they did with Command and Conquer.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

C&C4.


RE the list:

Age of Mythology I quite enjoyed. AoE3 was OK, but what really buggered it up was the singleplayer campaign. It had no (or at best a contrived) historical foundation.

I don't know how people can hate on Civ so much. I liked 3 more than 4, but that was more because they played like different games than any intrinsic flaw. Still love 2.

Admittedly I haven't played any COD, but the impression I get is that the campaign storylines for MW and MW2 aren't as believable as their World War counterparts.

Anyone remember when there were only four Battlefield games (1942, Vietnam, 2, and 2142)? Well now there are like 15

Are there? You'll have to give me the names of them, then. Again, I haven't played BC or BC2, but I'm impressed that they fleshed out an actual singleplayer storyline.

 

[Captain2]

Ghost exists, you just weren't one of the lucky few to get in the beta.

It doesn't count as a game unless it gets released, otherwise its vapourware.

I'd say Bioshock 2 and Master of Orion 3 would be the worst sequels I've played

 

[Tani Coyote]

Nobody here thinks Sonic 06 is probably one of the worst sequels?

Never mind the fact the name of the game itself is not only disgraceful towards the original, but also completely hilarious considering it was gonna be the "reset" of the series. Oh good lord... I didn't know the original Sonic had it so that if you touched the controller, you were more likely to die. ...never mind it taking like 5 minutes between levels to load.

 

[azzaman333]

Nobody here thinks Sonic 06 is probably one of the worst sequels?

No one cares.

Moderator Action: Warned - Trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Tani Coyote]

No one cares.

Wonderful. Whatever.

---

Feeding more into the discussion and moving past those who don't have anything better than some snappy one-liner, what else is there:

Some seem to have some unusual hatred against Red Alert 3. Why is this? Simply because it changed the gameplay a bit? Maybe if you go into the game expecting Red Alert 2, you'll be disappointed, but if you just go into it as a normal player, I think it can be quite enjoyable.

...AI sucks horribly though in terms of strategy. "Oh look, vulnerable construction yard. I go back to mai base nao." What the hell, seriously?

Though I suppose going into a game expecting it to be like the last ones is the whole point of everything being in a franchise. This would probably explain why there's so many Genesis worshipers, and I'm not talking the Bible. That said, I think adaption is much wiser than expecting nothing new. I dunno about everyone else, but I get bored running from point A to point B over and over. I want new levels, new bosses, new stories, etc. New features. If you want low-tech games, that's fine, but please don't impose it on those of us who actually live in 2010.

That said. I can sympathise with old schoolers - as much as I hate them 24/7 - on the Crash series. I liked Twinsanity a lot, but Mind Over Mutant and Crash of the Titans were shockers because of the voice changes, design changes, and overall change from crate-breaking to smash em up melee style. Never mind that Crash only does like 10% of the action; the rest is all jacking mutants. You can possibly enjoy it if you don't want to play a Crash game but just a game, but otherwise they get just flat out silly. ...then again, Crash has always been that way.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

Some seem to have some unusual hatred against Red Alert 3. Why is this?

The story, man. The... the essence.

 

[Tani Coyote]

The story, man. The... the essence.

Seems as insane and time travel-ridden as ever... But now with a British guy playing a Russian!

It could also be that it evokes "Oh god..." when you see the Empire's forces, due to how it seems otaku have taken over Japan.

I hear Red Alert being insane is actually one of its distinguishing traits in Command and Conquer; contrast to the Tiberian series which takes itself far more seriously. Man-cannons, wanting to fly to Space to escape capitalism, and war bears just wouldn't fit with Nod or GDI.

 

[Captain2]

..... I like Red Alert 3

*wanders off*

 

[warpstorm]

No, I like good games and franchises getting bad sequels.