The best (and worst) sequels

[alpav]

Are you kidding? I absolutely hated NV, i though FO3 was so much better in every way.

 

[Joecoolyo]

There was nothing to do in Fallout 3. The main quest was over in like 5 missions, and there were barely in side missions to find wandering around. I played New Vegas first, and was expecting a plethora of things to do along the route of the main mission in F3, was pretty disappointed.

 

[Maniacal]

Are you kidding? I absolutely hated NV, i though FO3 was so much better in every way.

Yeah... you're pretty much alone in that. I like Fallout 3, its not a bad game, but it doesn't match the same level of writing and humour that NV and the other Fallout games do.

 

[Antilogic]

Speaking of the Master of Orion series, I think the "original" Master of Orion was an excellent sequel to Star Lords or whatever that game was called.

 

[Polycrates]

Not alone. I think of Fallout 3 and New Vegas as equal but different, although I'll be honest that I do prefer Fallout 3 overall.

Of course Fallout 3 has a pretty terrible story and crummy NPCs and hardly any quest quests. But it's a Bethesda game so I don't really give a toss about the actual quests or daddy, I care about going out and scavenging the wastes, and gingerly picking through the ruins of civilisation utterly alone. It's a game about exploring for the sake of exploring, discovering all the little things that aren't part of any quest, and with a couple of balance/difficulty/needs mods it becomes a great survivalist sim. And in all those respects it's the much better game, just because the world is so much better-built, and so full of character and detail.

I don't think anyone would deny that New Vegas has the better story and better NPCs and much more numerous and better quests, but the flipside is that it is a game very much focused on its story and quests and much more on the rails. And it's pretty clear that they thought of the world as the backdrop rather than as a star of the show, so it's not nearly as inspired or well-built, and doesn't really promote wandering for the sake of just seeing what you can see.
So they each have a really different design ethos, and I think it's very much about what you actually want out of the game; for me Fallout 3 is slightly ahead.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

To me New Vegas is superior for pretty much the same reasons Polycrates thinks FO3 is better. When I pick up a game with Fallout in the title, I want something more like the first 2 games, something that is focused on the story and quests and NPC's. Fallout 3 is fun, I enjoyed it a lot for what it was, but New Vegas is a more worthy successor to the Fallout legacy simply by virtue of being more like the original games.

 

[sophie]

That's actually what I was expecting going into the game

They do kind of drip-feed you some abilities here and there though, which can be annoying. I spent half an hour trying to climb this one tower in Venice until a friend told me that I had to get the double jump ability from a mission first before doing that.

So I guess there's a line between freedom to do as one wants (giving them all the abilities at the get go) and restricting that freedom for gameplay purposes (drip-feeding it to them over the course of the game). I'm not sure where my loyalties lie in that one.

I made the same mistake with that tower in Venice. From a roleplaying perspective it makes the most sense to hit all the towers immediately so it was downright frustrating. But that's a conveyance issue and not a mechanics issue. The game did a really poor job of telling you "you can't climb this...yet" because they put the eagle icon on it but gave no indication that further abilities would be required to access it, especially when the climbing mechanics in the game were already finnicky as was, so I spent a long time thinking that I just wasn't approaching from the right angle or my thumbstick wasn't quite tilted in the right direction as is often the case in the regular game.

I really wish game developers would think more about the possibilities games allow from an artistic standpoint. A game like FarCry3 is a great example. The whole point of the game is that you are transformed from a bumbling unfocused unskilled imbecile into a honed killing machine. They kind of get it right. The first hunting mission was really tricky and I loved the "thrust straight into the fire" of the first enemy camp takedown mission. I liked that the developing of skills shaped the refinement of your technique, but the controls are still generic FPS as is the general gameplay feel (although I like how hard it is to just go in guns a-blazing). If you go into the game with experience in FPSes you are going to be a badass from the word go. They should have put things in to make you really feel like you are inexperienced and untested. Maybe in earlier stages have your guy go into panic mode if you stay in a firefight too long (like your vision gets blurry or your gun starts drifting when you're trying to aim downsight. Maybe your guy wavers when he does a bloody takedown; I don't know about you but if I was suddenly forced to stab a guy through the chest with a machete I would need a second to recover). The problem, as I mentioned is that AAA publishers generally don't have the time or the money to flesh out these ideas - they're trying to make the game widely accessible and understandable. Framing the game as a standard AAA FPS means it's immediately accessible to the CoD crowd, but I think it restricts the video game's prowess as an innovative omni-possible artistic media. Thankfully there are a lot of indie games which approach it in a much better way. Amnesia is a perfect example of this. ErrantSignal actually made a really interesting video on AAA's approach to mechanics in the context of movie adaptations:


Link to video.

 

[Quintillus]

Not to derail the thread into semantics, but "In lieu of" means "instead of". What you mean is "In light of" or "As a result of". I guess I could necro the thread about "misused words that annoy you" and add this to it...

Civ5 would be one of my least favorite sequels, although when it was fairly new, Civ4 would have been too (now it's much improved from vanilla).

Battlefield Vietnam was disappointing compared to 1942. Mostly due to map design (1942 had mostly attacker-defender type maps; in Vietnam it quickly devolved into everyone everywhere) and lack of a campaign.

I'm still unconvinced that any Railroad Tycoon game beats the second one. It seems that II was the best of that series, and it was downhill each iteration after that. Though I'm trying to give III a more fair chance.

Half-Life: Opposing Force was disappointing. In part because HL1 was better, in part because Opposing Force got stuck at a place where it froze and I could never finish it.

Favorite ones?

Hmm, that's tougher. Generally if the first one I played was so-so, I probably won't buy the sequel. Even if the first one was good, I might not (if it seems like too much of the same, or I'm just tired of the game). Sim City 3000 was a lot more fun than the original to me, but I never played 2000, so I can't compare to direct prequels. Not really coming up with any others right now...

Chivalry is great, but I don't consider it a sequel. I know there was a mod before it, which I haven't played, but is that enough to qualify it as a sequel?

 

[sophie]

I'm still unconvinced that any Railroad Tycoon game beats the second one. It seems that II was the best of that series, and it was downhill each iteration after that. Though I'm trying to give III a more fair chance.

3 is far superior to 2. The economic simulation in 3 is the best and most sophisticated of any game I've ever played and quite possibly the best in any game billed for mainstream audiences (i.e. not an economic simulation game designed solely for business students)

 

[Azale]

Are you kidding? I absolutely hated NV, i though FO3 was so much better in every way.

It's ok to have a wrong opinion. This is a loving and accepting forum.

Good:

Madden 2003
Mass Effect 2
Street Fighter II
Chrono Cross
Pokemon Gold/Silver
Earthbound
Terranigma
Fallout 3 (FNV is superior, but FO3 gets credit for mostly making a successful jump from top-down obscure RPG to sprawling 3D sandbox)

Bad:

Final Fantasy Tactics Advance

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The worst sequel that I have played was Star Fox Assault, the Gamecube sequel to Star Fox 64. It was a terrible game, not just a terrible sequel. To this day I have no idea why Nintendo handed over one of their Flagship titles to a third party developer and then let them publish a crap game. The franchise would've been better off if they canned it even though it was a finished project. Given the dearth of new Star Fox titles after that (there was only one new SF on the DS and then obligatory cross-platform ports of SF64) it is safe to say that Assault killed the franchise.

They never put out Star Fox games like they did Zelda or Mario games, but the Wii didn't even get one and the Wii U probably won't either.


Star Fox Adventures didn't help the franchise either, but since it was an RPG it didn't hurt. It was purposely different from traditional Star Fox games while Assault was different because it sucked.

 

[sophie]

That game wasn't intended to be a Star Fox game until late in development.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Star Fox Adventure aka Dinosaur Planet? Yeah I know. It actually turned into a pretty good RPG (zelda style, not FF style if that makes any sense) with gorgeous graphics. They did an ok job of putting Fox McCloud and co. into it (and they even brought back Krystal in the later DS Star Fox Command game to help integrage Adventure into the series and canon) but yeah it wasn't much of a 'Star Fox' game.

Or are you talking about Star Fox Assualt?

 

[sophie]

Star Fox Adventure aka Dinosaur Planet? Yeah I know. It actually turned into a pretty good RPG (zelda style, not FF style if that makes any sense) with gorgeous graphics. They did an ok job of putting Fox McCloud and co. into it (and they even brought back Krystal in the later DS Star Fox Command game to help integrage Adventure into the series and canon) but yeah it wasn't much of a 'Star Fox' game.

Or are you talking about Star Fox Assualt?

The former.

 

[civvver]

Not to derail the thread into semantics, but "In lieu of" means "instead of". What you mean is "In light of" or "As a result of". I guess I could necro the thread about "misused words that annoy you" and add this to it...

Whoops, edited

 

[civvver]

Bad:

Final Fantasy Tactics Advance

I actually liked tactics advance but I never played the original. I get the feeling the original was better in every way. The new one does feel kind of lacking.

 

[coanda]

Not alone. I think of Fallout 3 and New Vegas as equal but different, although I'll be honest that I do prefer Fallout 3 overall.

Of course Fallout 3 has a pretty terrible story and crummy NPCs and hardly any quest quests. But it's a Bethesda game so I don't really give a toss about the actual quests or daddy, I care about going out and scavenging the wastes, and gingerly picking through the ruins of civilisation utterly alone. It's a game about exploring for the sake of exploring, discovering all the little things that aren't part of any quest

You've pretty much nailed it. I actually thought that Fallout 3 was Bethesda's best work (this from a huge fan of Morrowind, and a modest fan of Oblivion and Skyrim) - there was a story deducible behind almost every location. Sure, the vast majority of them didn't have formal "quests" which included dialogue, updated your journal, gave you checkpoints, and rewarded experience. But poking around trying to figure out what happened in each area without a quest leading me by the hand was a blast, and it really never got old because every area was significantly different.

 

[Antilogic]

I actually liked tactics advance but I never played the original. I get the feeling the original was better in every way. The new one does feel kind of lacking.

I loved the original Final Fantasy Tactics, despite that several of the story battles were somewhat repetitive (so many job classes and yet you are always fighting knights!) and the mechanics were ripe (and I mean RIPE) for abuse.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I loved the original Final Fantasy Tactics, despite that several of the story battles were somewhat repetitive (so many job classes and yet you are always fighting knights!) and the mechanics were ripe (and I mean RIPE) for abuse.

Hell sometimes you didn't even have to try to be abusive, some of the characters they gave you managed that very well all on their own without any input from you. Looking at you, Orlandu.

 

[alpav]

You've pretty much nailed it. I actually thought that Fallout 3 was Bethesda's best work (this from a huge fan of Morrowind, and a modest fan of Oblivion and Skyrim) - there was a story deducible behind almost every location. Sure, the vast majority of them didn't have formal "quests" which included dialogue, updated your journal, gave you checkpoints, and rewarded experience. But poking around trying to figure out what happened in each area without a quest leading me by the hand was a blast, and it really never got old because every area was significantly different.

And this is exaclty why I like 3 better than NV. 3 was different than the usual questing in other games. It seemed somehow more real, disregarding the scifi setting. You could really get immersed into the game.