The best (and worst) sequels

[civvver]

In light of the horrid sim city 5 launch there's been a lot of discussion on how bad a lot of sequels are. It seems to come up frequently and I wanted to make a list of not just some of the worst ones, but also some of the best sequels in my view. I am going to limit this to games available for pc (otherwise it'd quickly be dominated by zelda and mario sequels on my end) but feel free to count any sequel even if it's the 5th or 6th in the series. Sometimes games reach an apex and then quickly fall off around 3 or 4 releases.

Best sequels:
Civ4 Beyond the Sword
Mass Effect 2
Mech Warrior 4 Mercenaries
Command and Conquer 2 Red Alert
Tie Fighter (sequel to x-wing basically)

Worst:
Civ5
Supreme Commander 2
Stronghold 2
X-Wing alliance
Master of Orion 3


Civ4 to me is the apex of civ gaming. It's not perfect, but I think it easily does the best job of balance, has lots of variation and depth.

Contrast that to civ5, it was a huge step back. Major design changes weren't necessarily better, just different, but the game lost a ton of depth and variation. This is a hard one because on it's own civ5 is a decent, enjoyable game. But every time I play it it just makes me long to go back to 4 and I cannot enjoy it more than an hour or so.

I love Mass Effect 2. One of my favorite games. A lot of people complained it wasn't open enough and didn't have enough weapon types and stuff as ME1 but to me this was a huge improvement. First ME1 tried to be an rpg and kind of failed imo. ME2 streamlined it into what it should've been all along. Second ME1 was too much exploring for me when all I wanted to do was go shoot stuff. And finally just too many akward controls in 1 like trying to shoot out of cover didn't always work right. 2 fixed a lot of those.

Mechwarrior 4 gave mechwarrior much needed modern graphics and really cool mission gameplay. Mercs provided a really cool interface with the credits and black market and choosing your missions that brought in some great rpg elements. Best mechwarrior easily.

Red Alert stands out for me because it was what got me hooked on rts for a while. And I hated the original C&C. But I spent hours on red alert. It just clicked for me. Haven't played a C&C since.

Tie fighter was basically a better x-wing from the dark side perspective and who doesn't love that? Strong storyline for a sim game too.

For worst, I already spoke to civ5 as being hugely disappointing. Supreme commander 2 is along the same lines. They took an amazing game in SC1 and way over simplified it. Gone are the tiers of buildings and engineer units. Gone are the massive amounts and types of units. Gone is the unique resource control that made SC1 stand out among rts games. It's a totally different game and not in a good way.

Stronghold 2 was just a stupid crappy version of stronghold. I played it for like 30 mins before turning it off. It's sad because 1 had so much potential just needed to be fleshed out a bit and it was a good game even with its flaws.

X-wing alliance (and all x-wing titles after tie fighter) kept trying to push for multiplayer while neglecting single player campaign and story. Made for a crappy game no one liked.

Master of Orion 3- I didn't even play 1 or 2 and I can tell you this is the worst sequel ever because it's quite possibly the worst game I have ever played. I heard a lot of good things about 1 and 2 and was so excited to try 3. When I played it I couldn't understand a damn thing. I kept at it thinking maybe this game will make sense after a bit but it just got more and more confusing, my decisions didn't seem to do anything except confuse me more. Easily the worst game I've played.

 

[Maniacal]

Civ4 BTS is an expansion, not a sequel and it did nothing to fix the game's numerous smaller annoyances or the awful combat that pretty much ruined the game.

(otherwise it'd quickly be dominated by zelda and mario sequels on my end)

Good choice, we don't want the list of bad sequels taking over the thread

Stronghold 2 was really disappointing, they tried to do a few new things like the estate/manor system but the 3D unit models were horrendous, the game was and probably still suffers from a number of bugs and late game problems running your castles and stuff (or so I've heard, I don't know many people who played long enough for that to happen). I don't know how Firefly Studios is still in business since all they have made are bad sequels and "EXTREME" versions of their older games.

Some of the best sequels I have played, off the top of my head:

Trine 2 continues with what made Trine 1 great (three at least somewhat interesting and likable characters with different abilities, frequent puzzles (mostly involving physics), jaw-dropping beautiful graphics and aesthetic design). One of the best indie platformers out there IMO and one of the few that really stands out of the increasingly massive pack.

More of a stand-alone expansion than a sequel (but it has replaced the original game), Mount&Blade: Warband added HDR lighting, multiplayer, and various other tweaks, fixes, and small additions to Mount&Blade that really expanded the community (for better and worse). Oh, and added in an Arabic faction.

Crusader Kings II is an excellent example of a sequel that is completely rebuilt from the ground up but continues with, expands upon and improves the gameplay and goals of the first game. Its also one of Paradox's first games that didn't need a lot of patching and expansions to bring it to glory

Chivalry: Medieval Warfare is one of a number examples of a mod team making their own stand alone game and it being a success. I never liked the mod, Mount&Blade was better, but Chivalry is a lot of fun and the combat has a wonderful CRUNCH! to it!

Mafia II is a sequel that while it wasn't necessarily better than the original (story wise anyway) it didn't suck and is still a very fun game.

I'll get a couple of obvious examples of bad sequels out of the way too:

Dragon Age 2, there wasn't really anything it actually did better overall. It had some great dialogue and characters and moments, but for the most part its many, many flaws due to way too short development time and rushed release. Combat edged towards more MMORPG like abilities, reused areas even worse than the awful DLC for DAO, some characters were just plain bad and others were mismanaged and poorly implemented, not many changes to the city despite it taking place over 10 years, enemies often appeared in waves literally out of the air, and it was just generally disappointing.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Worst sequel of all time that I've played, in terms of directly comparing it to the first game, has to be Deus Ex: Invisible War. It was a step (or 12) down from the first game in basically every respect, I don't think there was a single thing that it did better.

Also, and this one is just me maybe, but Neverwinter Nights 2. Really loved the first game an awful lot but I"ve never been able to get farther than about 2 hours after arriving in Neverwinter in the second game. I can see that they were attempting to go for more of an old school Baldur's Gate style feel with it but it just didn't work for me.

 

[Matthew.]

Diablo 3 under worst

I've heard the latest Duke Nukem was terrible, but haven't played it.

 

[coanda]

Dungeon Keeper 2. How they never got around to a 3 is beyond me (yes, I know they tried, ran overbudget, had issues, and generally flubbed it... but the fact that nobody tried again a few years down the line still astounds me).

 

[civvver]

Civ4 BTS is an expansion, not a sequel and it did nothing to fix the game's numerous smaller annoyances or the awful combat that pretty much ruined the game.

I meant civ4 in general as a sequel but specifying the complete version of the game, since bts added a lot of stuff.

Good choice, we don't want the list of bad sequels taking over the thread

I was actually thinking of all the amazing mario and zelda sequels like super mario 3 (amazing, way better than super mario bros), link's awakening, a link to the past and ocarina of time. I have also heard super mario galaxy is very good though I haven't played it. I'm hard pressed to think of any mario or zelda title that's been bad enough (or bad at all) to merit a worst sequels, other than perhaps some ds zelda titles I never played.

So I should try neverwinter nights 1? Because I didn't like 2 at all and it has pretty much turned me off to trying any dd titles (planescape, baulder's gate, icewind dale etc). It's the only heavy dd title I've played and I didn't like it. Maybe I just picked the worst one?

 

[filli_noctus]

I'm with you on Red Alert, I'd also add GTA3 and Half Life 2 to the list.
Even though 3 isn't the best Grand Theft Auto (that award going to Vice City in my book) the improvement in gameplay between it and its predecessors is much greater than between it and its successors, making it the best sequel even if it isn't the best game.

 

[Maniacal]

EDIT: Another good sequel, Guild Wars 2. Whiel not perfect (it is still an MMORPG) it is the only MMORPG really worth playing. Lots of fun, wonderful NPC banter and random dialogue and world to explore (outside of the Personal Story, which wasn't written by the writers for some reason and it shows).

I was actually thinking of all the amazing mario and zelda sequels like super mario 3 (amazing, way better than super mario bros), link's awakening, a link to the past

Yeah the older titles were good, although I'm not sure how much of a difference there really was between them gameplay wise

and ocarina of time.

Excellent example of something that was only good when it came out becuase it did some unique stuff that hadn't been done yet, and then was supersceded by most games since.

I'm hard pressed to think of any mario or zelda title that's been bad enough (or bad at all) to merit a worst sequels, other than perhaps some ds zelda titles I never played.

Pretty much any of the 3D zelda games are worse than the 2D ones. I never played Windwaker, but the other titles are disgustingly overrated.

So I should try neverwinter nights 1? Because I didn't like 2 at all and it has pretty much turned me off to trying any dd titles (planescape, baulder's gate, icewind dale etc). It's the only heavy dd title I've played and I didn't like it. Maybe I just picked the worst one?

Based on what I have heard and read, you probably will. Although reactions to its main story/campaign are mixed but it has a lot of mods.

 

[warpus]

Star Control II was the best sequel ever

Star Control III on the other hand.. was a pile of steaming crap

 

[sophie]

I thought Far Cry 3 was an excellent game. One of the most interesting endings in video games.

 

[Polycrates]

I'm going to go with Civ V as one of the best sequels, actually - I really like that they took a step back and focused on the essentials and redesigned around that, rather than just "add more stuff!".

Master of Orion 2 - Radically different mechanically to the first, and I really like the greater emphasis on the character of the planets/systems. I gather the third game is definitely amongst the worst sequels, though I've never tried it

The Witcher 2 - The first one was fun but wonky, the second is just all-round excellent

Assassin's Creed 2 - One of the best examples of developers learning all the right lessons from the shortcomings of the first game and fixing them for the sequel. They got lost in bloat in the later ones, but this one is great. EDIT: okay, not all the right lessons, they didn't kill off Desmond in the opening cutscene.

Morrowind - Daggerfall was in many ways more a proof-of-concept than an actual fun game, but laid the seeds of the massive world where you can do whatever. Morrowind took that template and replaced the dull procedurally-generated stuff with an incredible world full of character and history, and gameplay mechanics that admittedly were still clunky but a lot more workable and fun. Skyrim could also go here for many of the same reasons, after the trainwreck that was Oblivion.

Team Fortress 2 - Is this a sequel? Anyway I loved TFC when I was younger, and the core gameplay is kept mostly intact but with an incredible amount of care and polish and character put into it. Seems a bit bloated now for my tastes, but I guess that's the price of keeping it popular.

XCOM Enemy Unknown - A great example of a fantastic old game pared back to its essentials and then rebuilt into something immediately familiar but very different with another 15 or so years of game design experience to work with.

Special mentions to both Fallout 3 and Human Revolution for beating the odds and doing credit to beloved old games. And to Trine 2 and Crusader Kings II and Half-Life 2 already mentioned above.

EDIT: How could I have forgotten Day of the Tentacle and Monkey Island 2! The originals were okay, but these are pretty close to the two best adventure games ever made. Also their fantastic art styles mean they're both still very very playable today.

Worst sequels

Oblivion - Morrowind's world is one of the most fantastic achievements in any game, for my money. Oblivion came out and returned it to the most dull and generic fantasy world I've ever seen, and then really ramped up the don't-give-a-crap meter by making everything a cut-and-paste of the same bit of forest and the same three dungeons. Plus of course the ludicrous mechanics in the vanilla version, the terrible story and the creepy, creepy NPCs. The Dark Brotherhood quests were good, though.

Also, and this one is just me maybe, but Neverwinter Nights 2. Really loved the first game an awful lot but I"ve never been able to get farther than about 2 hours after arriving in Neverwinter in the second game. I can see that they were attempting to go for more of an old school Baldur's Gate style feel with it but it just didn't work for me.

I bounced off this one really hard at first as well, but it ended up growing on me quite a lot as I kept going.

 

[Glassmage]

OP is troll for saying civ5 is worst sequel.

 

[sophie]

Assassin's Creed 2 - One of the best examples of developers learning all the right lessons from the shortcomings of the first game and fixing them for the sequel. They got lost in bloat in the later ones, but this one is great. EDIT: okay, not all the right lessons, they didn't kill off Desmond in the opening cutscene.

It was mostly a good sequel. I loved the cityscapes - the uniqueness of Florence and Venice made the cities feel a lot more distinct than in the first one, which other than palette swaps and a few landmarks really didn't feel different at all. The varied quests were great, and freerunning was a lot better.

But I thought the game was ruined by health vials. Being able to heal yourself on the fly at negligible cost basically made the game a joke. AC1 was at least a little bit difficult. 2 was not even remotely a challenge. This has been continued in subsequent iterations.

 

[Joecoolyo]

It was mostly a good sequel. I loved the cityscapes - the uniqueness of Florence and Venice made the cities feel a lot more distinct than in the first one, which other than palette swaps and a few landmarks really didn't feel different at all. The varied quests were great, and freerunning was a lot better.

But I thought the game was ruined by health vials. Being able to heal yourself on the fly at negligible cost basically made the game a joke. AC1 was at least a little bit difficult. 2 was not even remotely a challenge. This has been continued in subsequent iterations.

Once you learned how to counter in ACI, the game became really easy. (its a shame I learned it on the last mission).

ACII at least nullified that and it made it more situational, making me more likely to flee combat when too many enemies gathered around.

 

[Polycrates]

OP is troll for saying civ5 is worst sequel.

As much as I love Civ V, it's pretty polarising, and the design decisions are definitely not for everyone. And let's be honest, it had a pretty disastrous launch.

It was mostly a good sequel. I loved the cityscapes - the uniqueness of Florence and Venice made the cities feel a lot more distinct than in the first one, which other than palette swaps and a few landmarks really didn't feel different at all. The varied quests were great, and freerunning was a lot better.

But I thought the game was ruined by health vials. Being able to heal yourself on the fly at negligible cost basically made the game a joke. AC1 was at least a little bit difficult. 2 was not even remotely a challenge. This has been continued in subsequent iterations.

I dunno, I reckon the health thing really helped for just the messing around on rooftops, jumping wherever aspect of it (since you'd invariably end up losing health to falling, and the health vials are very convenient). The combat is certainly easier in the second, which I agree is a shame since it removes the sense of danger the original had, but I would have put that down more to the variety of fancy moves etc you get. The combat is at least nowhere near the cakewalk that Brotherhood was, where you can slaughter 20 guards without even trying.

 

[sophie]

Once you learned how to counter in ACI, the game became really easy. (its a shame I learned it on the last mission).

ACII at least nullified that and it made it more situational, making me more likely to flee combat when too many enemies gathered around.

Well the game didn't let you counterkill until the 3rd segment I think. If you were proficient at the game you didn't really need counterkills so it wasn't too bad. But the health system in the game meant that if you made a bunch of mistakes you could go from comfortable killer to life or death situation in a matter of minutes. The other aspect of AC1 was the combat options were limited. It was legitimately difficult to kill an enemy if they could counterkill or block your own counterkills. I remember that fighting Templars was downright harrowing if you tried to engage them in more than one-on-one situations. The addition of health vials made it so you could make as many mistakes as you wanted and not have to worry about the repercussions.

The thing I would have loved to see in AC2 was a system which felt like you were genuinely learning alongside Ezio. The point of you experiencing his life was that you (the player) were learning just as Ezio was, but you have access to all the advanced combat mechanics on day one. You're always as good as you'll ever be the instant you fire the game up. The great thing about games is they can use gameplay mechanics to give a more visceral experience than cinema, but most triple-A titles don't really take advantage of this. Presumably because controls need to be intuitive so they appeal to a wider audience. It doesn't make it any less frustrating though.

The combat is at least nowhere near the cakewalk that Brotherhood was, where you can slaughter 20 guards without even trying.

Beats the hell out of AC3 where I had no idea what I was doing but could still go wherever I wanted without thinking about it.

 

[civvver]

A simple analogy for civ5. Civ5 is like a mcdonald's hamburger. Civ4 is like a perfectly seasoned, perfectly cooked bone in ribeye from ruth's chris. Now I'm not one to really turn down a mcdonald's hamburger, in fact in a pinch they are quite delicious. I even get cravings for them from time to time. But price aside there is no way in hell I am choosing to eat mcdonald's burger over a juicy ribeye steak.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? I like civ5 and as a stand alone it would be acceptable. But when I compare it to my preference for civ4 it falls woefully short. And because I loved 4 I had really high hopes for 5 and was extremely let down. Thus to me it belongs as one of the worst sequels ever.

Glad to hear about assassin's creed 2. I played probably 20 hours on 1 and got pretty bored. I got 2 as a gift but never loaded it. Excited to try it now.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Well the game didn't let you counterkill until the 3rd segment I think. If you were proficient at the game you didn't really need counterkills so it wasn't too bad. But the health system in the game meant that if you made a bunch of mistakes you could go from comfortable killer to life or death situation in a matter of minutes. The other aspect of AC1 was the combat options were limited. It was legitimately difficult to kill an enemy if they could counterkill or block your own counterkills. I remember that fighting Templars was downright harrowing if you tried to engage them in more than one-on-one situations. The addition of health vials made it so you could make as many mistakes as you wanted and not have to worry about the repercussions.

Yeah, I'll agree the health vials do make things much easier. And to be honest, I don't remember all that much about combat in the first one, I played it so long ago, I just remember being able to counter kill a group of enemies if they ever fought me.

The thing I would have loved to see in AC2 was a system which felt like you were genuinely learning alongside Ezio. The point of you experiencing his life was that you (the player) were learning just as Ezio was, but you have access to all the advanced combat mechanics on day one. You're always as good as you'll ever be the instant you fire the game up. The great thing about games is they can use gameplay mechanics to give a more visceral experience than cinema, but most triple-A titles don't really take advantage of this. Presumably because controls need to be intuitive so they appeal to a wider audience. It doesn't make it any less frustrating though.

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.

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

Fallout New Vegas was a massive improvement on Fallout 3

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I bounced off this one really hard at first as well, but it ended up growing on me quite a lot as I kept going.

I'll probably give it another try at some point. My commute to and from work is so long that I pretty much only get to game on weekends now, and I just started a playthrough of Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition, so that's going to take me a while. By the time I'm finished with that I'll probably be looking at Shadowrun Returns and/or Brave New World coming out so I'll be playing those first. Maybe in like a year I'll have time to try NWN2 again lol.