Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Curse of the Wayward Sequel

Zonk posted about 8 years ago | from the when-good-games-go-bad dept.


As big a part of the industry has sequels have become, they don't all turn out for the best. 1up takes a look at anticipated or promising sequels that just failed to deliver the goodness a second time around. From the article: "By the next Christmas season, Ubisoft released Prince of Persia: Warrior Within - except things had changed drastically. The biggest diversion was with the Prince himself, whose clean-cut looks were altered into a rugged, rock star style. Taking with that same theme, the soundtrack featured a sizable amount of death metal, including an anachronistic appearance by a Godsmack song. The fighting engine was improved over the original, but with it came tons of cheesy dialogue spewed out during combat."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Bow wow wow yippee yo yippee yay (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16565412)

News For Turds in da mutha fukken hizzouse!

go to hell.

Love Always,
News For Turds

Devil May Cry? (1)

Zantetsuken (935350) | about 8 years ago | (#16565422)

Sounds to me like they wanted it to feel kinda like the DMC series?

Re:Devil May Cry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16573624)

I'm shocked to see DMC 2 didn't make the list, now that you mention it.

What about canceled projects? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16565456)

Some amazing games resulted in sequels so bad or uninspired that they didn't even make it to market. I know this happened with Full Throttle [] , the success and humor of the first game was an accident, and you can't duplicate accidents according to market demand.

If you're going to post a "story"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16565512)

At least add something to it. Or next time, just post the link without your filler.

Nice ad placement (1)

Jordanis (955796) | about 8 years ago | (#16565548)

The ad I got just below the article was for Neverwinter Nights 2. I'm not sure they were going for when they bought that ad...

Re:Nice ad placement (1)

NewWorldDan (899800) | about 8 years ago | (#16565910)

NWN 2 has been advertising like crazy. That's usually a very bad sign. Good sequels don't need advertising.

Re:Nice ad placement (2, Insightful)

Dev59 (953144) | about 8 years ago | (#16566194)

Good sequels might not NEED a lot of advertising... but if they're sequels to big games they're going to get it anyways.

Re:Nice ad placement (1)

Jordanis (955796) | about 8 years ago | (#16568234)

It is a little bit worrying, but I liked NWN too much. I'll probably buy it, for I am weak.

wtf (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16565610)

"As big a part of the industry has sequels have become, they don't all turn out for the best." What does that mean? "Sequels big, industry become part, all they don't best turn out for." "Sa gbi a prat of eht idutsnry sah sequles hvae bcemoe, tehy dnot lal trun tuo rfo eht bset." A Toyota's a Toyota.

Re:wtf (1)

creimer (824291) | about 8 years ago | (#16565836)

First time I ever seen an AC comment go through a feedback loop to spit out, "A Toyota's a Toyota". Hmmm... Is that you, Mr. President?

Re:wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16573248)

If it looks like a Toyota, walks like a Toyota and quacks like a Toyota, it must be a Toyota. And Dick Cheney will shoot it.

Re:wtf (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | about 8 years ago | (#16566192)

A Toyota's a Toyota.
Can any mods do my nan, AC?

Re:wtf (1)

Jerf (17166) | about 8 years ago | (#16567298)


Re:wtf (1)

21st Century Peon (812997) | about 8 years ago | (#16566566)

"Has," should be, "as". Once you change that, the sentence makes sense.

The pain of sequels (2, Insightful)

PreacherTom (1000306) | about 8 years ago | (#16565742)

2 words: Deus Ex. Satis est.

Re:The pain of sequels (1)

kirun (658684) | about 8 years ago | (#16565824)

Now, call me pedantic, but that's four words.

I await your no doubt pre-planned sarcastic reply.

Re:The pain of sequels (1)

Das Modell (969371) | about 8 years ago | (#16567490)

Sir, you are mistaken. I argue that there were two words and a period. I am prepared to fight this matter to the ends of the Internet.

Re:The pain of sequels (1)

RESPAWN (153636) | about 8 years ago | (#16567614)

When I read the /. synopsis, Deus Ex 2 was, indeed, the first game that came to mind. It was nice to see it on the list (Yes, I did RTMFA). I would have to say that it is hands down the most disappointing sequel I've ever been subjected to. Not the least of which was becuse I tried to play through Deus Ex 3 seperate times and was thwarted by technical issues each time, never actually making it to the end. (HD crash, what appared to be a sound card incompatability that caused severe game instability, and some weird glitch that I don't really remember which caused me lose approximately 6 hours of saved gameplay and causing me to invoke the 3 strikes rule.)

Anyway, that was definitely one game that deserved to be on the list. Although DXIW may have done well amongst those who didn't play the first, it did absolutely poorly amongst the true DX fans.

Re:The pain of sequels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16585686)

DX:IW was disappointing as a sequel, but I thought it was still a good game on its own merits.

The flaws are annoying (small levels, slow load zones, wonky physics, too much ammo/health/multitools/biomod cans). Perhaps the most aggravating part is knowing that so many of the flaws are due to the console-oriented design of the game.

But the characters are still pretty good, and the story is great. In fact, the story concept is really quite brilliant, but the story itself suffers in that it takes too long to get going and hold interest. The biomods are interesting and well done (though of course not as good as the original).

The levels that are set in cold places are generally the best ones. The final level is by the far the greatest. Even with the load zones, the layout feels much less claustrophobic. And there is a lot of variety in it, and a lot of things you can do. If only all the levels in DX:IW were as good as that one, then it really could be a worthy sequel.


What did I like about the story concept?

Until late in the game, I assumed that the DX:IW storyline was based on the New Dark Ages ending. When I found out that JC actually chose the Helios ending... that was a great moment. I liked the cynicism in the endings of the original DX, but this is even better. It is a higher order of cynicism, which shows that even with their various tradeoffs, none of those plans would have worked out as anticipated in any case.

The reactions of the various factions to what actually happened are well thought out. What they are pursuing is kept mysterious at the beginning, but it does all make sense, and it is interesting to find out. Furthermore the portrayals of the endings in DX:IW are, in my opinion, actually superior to the original DX.


Sequalitis (1)

gt_mattex (1016103) | about 8 years ago | (#16565766)

Most sequels are doomed from the start of ever being as glorious as their original. The idea for the original game is already in it's second (or third) iteration and stagnancy begins it's gradual decline.

In contrast most games that have overcome this obstacle usually prosper from a complete overhaul in storyline (FF 1 through whatever) or perspective (the Mario titles).

In the end it comes down to money. Sequels are safe bet from a sales and marketing perspective and the bottom line is the only thing that matters.

"You know it's sad but true." - Metallica

Re:Sequalitis (1)

spun (1352) | about 8 years ago | (#16566396)

I think the second sequel is always the best in a series and then everything after that sucks ass.

Are you kidding me? (1)

7Prime (871679) | about 8 years ago | (#16572728)

Oh boy... dude, I don't think you could be more far off. In looking back on many long-running series, it's almost an assurence that the second game is the weakest. Let's see:

  • Final Fantasy II (Japanese) - commonly criticized for having one of the worst magic/stat systems in RPG history
  • Mario II - if you're counting The Lost Levels, then I need not explain myself. Meanwhile, Mario 2 USA, while still pretty good, is usually considered one of the weakest in the series
  • Metroid II - I happen to dissagree with this, but it's still a common conception that this game isn't very good
  • Zelda II - Highly revered for being "unique", highly criticised for being almost entirely unplayable.
  • Devil May Cry 2 - need I say more?
  • Halo 2 - well, we'll have to see if the rest of the series can hold up
  • Metroid Prime: Echos - not terrible, but miles below the first
  • Xenosaga 2 - argggg
There's only a very few examples where Game #2 was considered one of the best in the series:
  • Mega Man 2
  • Sonic The Hedgehog 2 - although I disagree with this, it seems to be everyone's favorite (I think the first one is still the best)
  • Earthbound (Mother 2)

I'll argue that for video games, Game #3, more often than not, is a defining moment in the series, just look at this list of just a few #3 games:

  • Mario 3
  • Zelda - A Link to the Past
  • Super Metroid
  • Metal Gear Solid - Snake Eater
  • Devil May Cry 3

In fact, almost no long-running series I can think of has a bad #3 game. If #2 is good, #3 will usually be good (Mega Man, Sonic, incluced), if the #2 game sucks, well there's a very good chance of redemption at #3. Many series, however, had such weak #2 games that the series died right then and there.

Re:Are you kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16573088)

spun said "second sequel", not "first sequel" :)
First sequel = Game II, second sequel = Game III

Re:Are you kidding me? (1)

ultranova (717540) | about 8 years ago | (#16579878)

There's only a very few examples where Game #2 was considered one of the best in the series:

You forgot Ur-Quan Masters [] (Star Control 2).

Re:Are you kidding me? (1)

Syrrh (700452) | more than 7 years ago | (#16586552)

I agree the longevity of the series is a lot more impotant to consider than sophomore-letdowns. Castlevania's another good example that had a weird, clumsy #2, and then came back strong on #3. But then it went on to even more sequels that were better still, and made *all* the NES predecesors look a bit weak.

I liked SMB-2, even if it was a departure from the series. Is it really accurate to call it a poor game just because the mechanics were different in the rest of the Mario franchise?

Heck, I'd just call it a cause to celebrate that there's at least a subconscious rebellion against serialization, even if it does get strapped down with a sequel's title. 'Wayward' doesn't have to equal 'bad', some variety is great to see, even if it has a sneaky way of getting marketshare.

Re:Are you kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16601278)

System Shock 2. Enough Said.

Re:Sequalitis (1)

illegalcortex (1007791) | about 8 years ago | (#16566874)

I think the key to the successes you mentioned is that they seem to be treated as entirely new games. In other words, they don't just assume because it's a sequel it will be successful and skimp on the resources.

Death Metal (3, Interesting)

shotgunsaint (968677) | about 8 years ago | (#16565770)

"Taking with that same theme, the soundtrack featured a sizable amount of death metal, including an anachronistic appearance by a Godsmack song." If Godsmack is the submitter's idea of death metal, then there are lots of things in my music collection that would break their mind.

Re:Death Metal (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16566028)

Never thought I would hear Godsmack in the same sentence as death metal other than to differentiate between the two... please do not be giving death metal a bad name by associating the two :)

Re:Death Metal (1)

codeviking (685537) | about 8 years ago | (#16569164)

No kidding. I read that and just about blew coffee out of my nose. I think someone needs to research musical genres. What the writer meant was Mall Metal, not Death Metal.

Re:Death Metal (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 8 years ago | (#16578152)

Mall Metal

Is Godsmack even THAT hard? Stryper rocks harder.


Re:Death Metal (1)

codeviking (685537) | about 8 years ago | (#16581762)

Good old Stryper. I hadn't even realized that Godsmack was still popular. I have distanced myself from the modern trend machine so much that I have no idea what is even popular anymore.

O rly? (1)

ifrag (984323) | about 8 years ago | (#16565848)

I can't even think of reading TFA based on the summary. I thought Warrior Within was the best in the current Trilogy. I found all the improvements made completely up to my expectations. The Prince's dark and brooding attitude of impending doom made it even more thrilling than the first. The mask of the wraith was a really neat plot device and mode of game play... although some of the temporal inconsistencies it introduced were a bit disturbing.

Overall, I'd highly recommend Warrior Within as a fitting and appropriate sequel. The Two Thrones was a bit of a step back to the original in terms of the Prince's temperament, but worth playing through.

Favorite Warrior Within Quote: "You should be honored to die by my sword!"

Re:O rly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16566052)

Also, all of the game breaking bugs were prime examples of adult themes such as angst.

Fuck you Warrior Within, i am not playing through 85% of the game again just to see your crappy ending!

Come on, this was the weakest game in the series. I just want a light hearted playful romp through castles filled with sand zombies and maybe some playful banter. Is that too much to ask?

Re:O rly? (1)

scot4875 (542869) | about 8 years ago | (#16566832)

Yeah, except that in the 2nd game, his 'dark and brooding' attitude just made him a tool. At least in the first one, you could pity him because he was naive and reckless.

"You should be honored to die by my sword!" ... yeah, that right there's some brilliant, creative, original writing.


I loved Warrior Within (1)

thegnu (557446) | about 8 years ago | (#16565880)

Anything that allows you to so brutally hack an opponent to pieces in kinetically fluid combat has my vote. The combat makes the game the sheezy. Of course, I'm not a hard-core PoP fan, so I don't have to suffer the changes the way I do with, for example, the 1984 Dune movie.

Best combat I've ever experienced in an over-the-shoulder martial arts style game, though.

Overanalysis... (4, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | about 8 years ago | (#16565924)

Everybody always thinks too hard about why Warrior Within wasn't good. Perhaps it is because people don't want to admit to themselves that the combat doesn't make the game?

Here's the deal. The Sands of Time was an excelent environmental puzzle game with some crappy fighting. The Warrior Within was a crappy 3D fighter with some mediocre environmental puzzles. Neither the music, the mood, nor the combat engine had anything to do with what made the games good or bad.

It's OK to admit you like an adventure/puzzle game. It doesn't make you less 'hardcore'.

Re:Overanalysis... (1)

MBCook (132727) | about 8 years ago | (#16566426)

I've never even played Warrior Within or the third game. I played Sands of Time and LOVED it. Not only was the game beautiful, but it had great platforming challenges and puzzles. The fighting wasn't that great, but it wasn't too bad. The story was good, and the telling was fantastic (like what happened when you would die and the price would say "No wait... that wasn't how it happened").

I eagerly awaited the sequel until I found out more about it. They took the game I really loved and made it "cool". Death Metal? "Edgy" prince? These were exactly the kind of reasons I LIKED the first game. It was charming, and not "extreme" or "hip". The article says the sequel's development started during the development of the first game (which I totally believe) so I have to wonder what the theory was. "If the first one doesn't succeed, the second will 'cause it's hip. If the the first succeeds, the second will do even better because it's hip."

They could have done the story and made the game darker without going to the lengths that they did. I had (and still have) NO interest in playing the game.

Then the third game (which was supposed to be more like the original) decided to have the "rage prince" mechanic (or whatever it was called) where at certain predetermined points in the game you would be transformed into a much tougher dark-prince-monster-thing. Guess how appealing that was to me?

They got it almost perfectly right. Then they messed with it to the point I lost all interest in playing the games even though some people say they are better.

I could nit-pick at other things on the list (FF VIII is not a sequel to FF VII, although I didn't play it because I liked the cartoony misshapen characters of FF VII and IX). But Prince of Persia will probably always stick in my mind as a game that they ALREADY HAD RIGHT when they screwed it up. If they had started with Warrior Within, I might have tried it. But instead they took the character and did a major change and put me (and I'd imagine a great many parents) off of the game.

Re:Overanalysis... (1)

Khuffie (818093) | about 8 years ago | (#16568180)

Why start a sequel before the game is released? Isn't the point of a sequel to improve upon a previous game? Sure, you may know that this part isn't as much fun as it's supposed to be when you're working on it, but you have no idea what the general reaction of the public is going to be, and the example here is perfect! People LOVED the charm of the prince, the locals and the atmosphere of the original, and by making the decision to turn the prince dark before the game is release just pissed off all the fans!

I know when I rented the game I couldn't get past the first level. Not because it was hard, but mostly because I couldn't put up with the RAWR! GENERIC RAGE! ARGH! *heavy metal music*

Generally, I avoid any sequel that's released within 18 months of the original. Production of a sequel should start after the original is released. I can respect bad sequels (ie, Doom 3, Deus Ex), for the mere reason that they weren't released so soon after the original.

Also...Chrono Cross? MGS2? FFVIII? What the hell's this guy smoking?

Re:Overanalysis... (1)

yuna49 (905461) | about 8 years ago | (#16584208)

[mild spoilers ahead]

Anybody who can rank FF VIII as a worse "sequel" in the Final Fantasy series than FF X-2 (which is an actual sequel) needs his or her head examined. I particularly despised how Yuna was converted from a shy, modest, yet strong-willed and powerful woman in FF X into a gun-toting, skimpily-dressed songstress just to satisfy the marketing department's request that the sequel provide more fan service. The Yuna of FF X was a good role model for my then eleven-year-old daughter; I don't think I could say that about of the women in FF X-2.

I actually enjoyed VIII quite a bit. I liked the larger character models, and I didn't even mind the draw system all that much. I also don't agree with reviewer's dismisaal of Rinoa, whom I see as a much more intelligent and feisty heroine than the reviewer makes her out to be. (She's also an awesomely powerful sorceress in the later stages of her development.) Why Squall refuses her attempts at seduction on the space ship is beyond me.

I just started replaying Chrono Cross for the third or fourth time the other evening. It is a truly beautiful game that pushes the graphics of the PS1 to the limits. The backgrounds are lush, and the character models remarkably detailed, more so than those in FF VIII and Paradise Eve which came out at about the same time. I played Cross and Trigger in reverse order, so I didn't view Cross as a sequel. It's really only a sequel in that it shares the "Chrono" name and some of the design staff, but it's pretty much a stand-alone game. (The link with Schala isn't all that important to the CC plot.) One of my favorite aspects of Cross is having the characters meet their counterparts in the parallel universe. Also some of the musical selections are as good as any I've heard in a videogame.

Re:Overanalysis... (1)

shrykk (747039) | about 8 years ago | (#16574290)

I've never even played Warrior Within or the third game [...] I eagerly awaited the sequel until I found out more about it.

Respectfully sir, you're wrong. Warrior Within is a fine game with more of the same platforming awesomeness. It has a cool time-looping plot and takes place in a huge castle whose parts you traverse more than once, in different time periods, and you have a little more freedom in navigating them (especially when you're seeking out the hard-to find health upgrades and weapons). The combat system is improved. Let's face it, the system in Sands of Time was a little simplistic (though it did let you rush through the game in about four hours once you'd mastered it :D ).

Anyway, the soundtrack, the gratuitous semi-nudity of the female characters, and the 'darker' tone are just superficial aspects to a really good game. You can probably pick it up for pennies second-hand now; I recommend anyone to do so.

Re:Overanalysis... (1)

Jarlsberg (643324) | about 8 years ago | (#16580902)

I agree. I loved SoT, but the combat got mind-numbingly boring after a very short while. This was adressed in the two sequels, which were both excellent games.

Re:Overanalysis... (1)

Dev59 (953144) | about 8 years ago | (#16578966)

You seriously need to give the third game a chance instead of dismissing it out of hand. The "rage prince mode" as you're calling it is actually the villain of the story in many ways. The Two Thrones is a great game and I enjoyed it just as much as the first - and I had no interest at all in the second game (though the Dark Prince does a lot to reconcile the first two games with each other).

Actually (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 8 years ago | (#16566454)

I thought the fighting in Sands of Time was pretty cool. I was really worried that I was going to have a big problem with it, since the way I process 3D spaces I have trouble aiming from a 3rd person view. Nope, no problems at all, the game handles it. The combat looks impressive, but it very simple to control. Like you said, it's a puzzle game. So the combat shouldn't require hours upon hours to learn. Well, with the model it has, it doesn't. It's a fun addition to make it not just about puzzle after puzzle, but it's easy enough to control that you can just do it.

I disagree... (1)

Ender Ryan (79406) | about 8 years ago | (#16566456)

I disagree about the enviornmental puzzles in WW. I thought they were best in WW. I did like SoT more though, due to less emphasis on combat, although what was there was terribly painful. OTOH, the combat in WW was often of such extremely variable difficulty as to drive one insane.

Yeah, the puzzles though. In WW, they were the best. They were larger, more intricate, more difficult, and more beautiful. And the Dhaka(that what it was called?) sequences were amazing and intense -- insane 3d platforming in a hurry! In the final game... they improved the combat, reduced the amount of it, yet, visually, it looked terrible in comparison to the first two games(a matter of artwork I think, not technology), and the platforming sequences were just boring. Still worthwhile though.

It's as if Ubisoft was abso-fucking-lutely dead set on NOT making a perfect game. And they were so damn close..!

Re:I disagree... (1)

ivan256 (17499) | about 8 years ago | (#16571510)

The running puzzles in WW were truely excelent, but the rest of the game ruined it. The other puzzles were often buggy, and you could get the game to break (falling through areas, getting the camera stuck, etc..) if you tried to look around too much or go anywhere you weren't obviously supposed to go. It was like the game penalized you for exploring. If not by breaking, but by distracting you with yet another repetative buttonmashing combat session. Meh.

Warrior Within bugginess (1)

Ender Ryan (79406) | about 8 years ago | (#16577986)

You're damn right about the bugs in Warrior Within. In fact, I put a lot of hours into that game, got to the very end, yet couldn't finish due to a gameplay bug. All 3 of my saves were corrupted(GC version).

The bug in question was mentioned on Ubisoft's website. They provided no fix, no workaround. The only solution? Play the entire game over, and *PRAY* it doesn't happen again. Not even a mention of how to avoid triggering the bug.

So I sent Ubi a nasty(no, not like my posting history sort of nasty) email and traded the game in.


I have only one answer to this: (1)

Rachel Lucid (964267) | about 8 years ago | (#16565934)

Jak II.

Yes, I know Spyro pulled off the whole 'sucked into a new world' bit, and hell, R&C did it too, but Jak II took a decent mute protagonist and animal sidekick, and:
1) Shunted them into the Future
2) Tortured the main character for TWO YEARS (and this was IN the prologue)
3) Made him talk and basically turned him emo, and gave him 'eco-morphing' powers and a gun.

... the original was a platform/collector-style game with minigames. They don't even PLAY the same. Yes, sequels are meant to be different, but not THAT different. On top of that, in spite of the 'sprawling' world that the original Jak & Daxter made famous, the gameplay itself felt incredibly linear.

How the hell Naughty Dog pulled it off is beyond me... it's a great game, but a complete sellout of its premise.

Re:I have only one answer to this: (2, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | about 8 years ago | (#16566490)

I commented on why I never played Prince of Persia: Warrior Within above, but I'd forgotten about Jak II. I really enjoyed Jak and Daxter and I was amazed what they did with the second. Not only was it put in the future and made edgy, they decided to give the characters GUNS. If the characters were different you'd probably have no way to ever know both games took place in the same universe.

Another game I didn't play because they screwed with the original too much.

I mean, why not just give Ryu Hyabusa of Ninja Gaiden a pair of Uzis? That's more "cool". Especially is he holds them sideways. "He was Gangsta before there was Gangsta."

Sequels should improve. They should innovate. They should not be carbon copy clones. But something more than the main character's names should stay the same.

Re:I have only one answer to this: (1)

AcidLacedPenguiN (835552) | about 8 years ago | (#16575452)

man using the nunchaku was almost like giving him a pair of Uzis. . . Not to say I wouldn't play Ninja Gaiden if they gave him an uzi or two... It seems only fair to me, what with all the enemies having guns...

I remember that series! (1)

pizzach (1011925) | about 8 years ago | (#16566042)

I remember the first game. I got it real cheap because the third one was about to come out I think. It was okay. I think the most interesting part was jumping off of the ledges and wasting my rewind power when my friends were watching. First time they were impressed. 50th a bit agitated...

Command and Conquer 2 (1)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | about 8 years ago | (#16566070)

Command and Conquer was worlds funner and less buggier than its sequel. At the end of C&C, it advertised C&C2. So everyone wanted to play C&C2. C&C2 sucked.

Re:Command and Conquer 2 (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | about 8 years ago | (#16566534)

What the hell is C&C2? The only Command and Conquer game with a 2 in it was Red Alert 2. (And the only one that really sucked IMHO was Generals but that's not C&C)

Re:Command and Conquer 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16566848)

C&C: Tiberium Sun was the actual sequel to C&C and was originally called C&C 2: Tiberium Sun.

Re:Command and Conquer 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16566552)

The game advertised at the end of Command & Conquer was "Command & Conquer 2: Tiberian Sun". Unfortunately, Red Alert was released instead, and everyone said wtf to the whole Soviet time-traveling thing.

Re:Command and Conquer 2 (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | about 8 years ago | (#16567032)

You are wrong.

C&C, C&C:Tiberium Sun, and RA2 are all good.

The rest all suck.

It's very simple.

If you think that Tiberium Sun was bad, you obviously didn't get in to the grove of the Orca Bomber.

RA2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16578228)

It's funny you should say that. The dev team for RA2 _hated_ Tiberium Sun :) We didn't like the gameplay, we didn't like the graphics, and we definitely didn't like the codebase we had to work with (RA2 used fundamentally the same engine as Tiberium Sun.) There was much rejoicing the day we finally got rid of the last placeholder TibSun units and graphics, not just because it was an obvious sign of progress but because it meant we didn't have to deal with anything from TibSun anymore aside from the code itself *shudder*

Re:Command and Conquer 2 (1)

owlman17 (871857) | about 8 years ago | (#16573496)

Command and Conquer 3 [] , coming soon to a gamestore near you! Looks good so far. ...and I wish Blizzard would finally come out with StarCraft 2.

not Death Metal (3, Insightful)

Sinryc (834433) | about 8 years ago | (#16566094)

Godsmack is not death metal.

Howzabout the Ultimate Wayward Sequel? (1)

JoshDM (741866) | about 8 years ago | (#16566098)

Duke Nukem Forever, 4tw. Due out any year now.

At least... (2, Funny)

monoqlith (610041) | about 8 years ago | (#16566158)

the Prince of Persia was turned into a rugged rock star, as opposed to the effeminate, but also rocking, Artist Formerly Known as Prince of Persia.

Then again, I wouldn't go up against the latter in a game of "First to Impale the Other On A Floor With Metal Spikes Wins."

What, no Angel Of Darkness? (1)

payndz (589033) | about 8 years ago | (#16566374)

Seriously, to have a Tomb Raider game where you don't raid any tombs was just the ground-glass icing on the turd cake that was AoD. (And we got Angry Emo Lara a few years before the MySpace Prince.)

Re:What, no Angel Of Darkness? (1)

Dev59 (953144) | about 8 years ago | (#16579110)

At least the new one is a decent game again. First one I've managed to actually play through since the first and I quite enjoyed it.

I like sequals...sometimes (3, Insightful)

miyako (632510) | about 8 years ago | (#16566760)

People like to complain about sequals for video games, and I admit that a lot of times it becomes ridiculous, but I think that there are a lot of instances where sequals are really welcome and add to the overall series. The fact is that most often when I think of games, I think "what is my favorite series".
Mario, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Tony Hawk, Metroid, Tekken, Zelda, how many people are really doing to go "damn, not ANOTHER Zelda game, try something original nintendo!".
The problem really is when a company runs out of ideas (or at least out of good ideas) and tries to use the name of a great game or series to sell crap. It's bad for gamers who are tricked into buying crap, and it's bad for publishers who ruin the name of a great series.

Re:I like sequels...sometimes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16572136)

I wholly agree with the series statement; I'd add that any imaginable series WILL produce junk sequels at some point, especially given multiple existing iterations on a similar theme. At some point, someone will get overambitious, throw away a definitive characteristic, attempt to change/incorporate an incompatible platform, add multiplayer options where they didn't belong, REMOVE critical aspects of multiplayer functionality, or otherwise botch the sequel. All of the big console series have their failed experiments; the same is true of PC games. To name a few series currently unmentioned, consider Fallout, Tribes, and Simfoo (anyone remember SimAnt/SimTower fondly?). Each of these series contain Top-10 listworthy games; they also contain titles not worth a full playthrough. Two of the series seem to have been tanked by their failures; on the other hand, the Sim series is moving on towards some sort of all-inclusive magnum opus. Scientific estimations predict that Spore is going to sell approximately a jillion copies; in point of fact, it's got broader appeal and more potential than any Sim game to date, but a big part of its sales rest on the series's established quality. On the other hand, a new Fallout game might be a harder sell, since many "newfound" gamers never encountered the series, but I for one would slap down $60-70 on opening day for a copy. Branding lives on and DEFINITELY has powerful effects...

Re:I like sequels...sometimes (1)

Dev59 (953144) | about 8 years ago | (#16579186)

Anything with the Fallout name other than Fallout and Fallout 2 is not an actual Fallout game. It's just some crap made by Interplay with the Fallout name slapped on it to sell copies. They are not sequels and not actually part of the series in any way.

Re:I like sequels...sometimes (1)

Udderdude (257795) | about 8 years ago | (#16580272)

>> SimAnt

Awesome game.

Doom (4, Insightful)

VGR (467274) | about 8 years ago | (#16567290)

From the article:

... Doom 2 - which was really just a set of new levels ...

Yeah, just new levels.

Except for the pain elemental. And the arachnotron. And the mancubus. And the revenant. And the arch-vile.

And the super shotgun.

The additions are a masterpiece orchestration of game balance. I guess Kurt Kalata never actually played it.

Re:Doom (1)

discoalucardx (840212) | about 8 years ago | (#16568038)

Believe it or not, I have! Quite a lot of it, too.

And yeah, it was pretty much just a level pack. A handle of new enemies, a minor new weapon and a few new textures don't qualify as it much more. Not compared to other sequels which actually have more than just minor tweaks.

I personally wasn't a big fan of most of the level design compared to the original either. Plus the final "boss" was nonsense.

Re:Doom (1)

jackbird (721605) | about 8 years ago | (#16569092)

It was all about the multiplayer balance. The Super Shotgun, the super health/armor refill, and Dead Simple made the game perfect. One on one, you could have a ten-minute fight in that level where nobody died, both players were firing almost continuously, and you knew exactly who had the upper hand at any moment.

Of course, Heretic blew both Dooms out of the water in multiplayer - I maintian that it's still the best-balanced FPS ever created.

Re:Doom (1)

snuf23 (182335) | about 8 years ago | (#16570088)

And speaking of sequels, Heretic II's multiplayer was a blast as well. They had some really inventive weapons and power ups. I loved the giant bouncing spiked balls and the acid rain clouds. Turning enemies into chickens was great fun and occasionally they turned into a giant chicken and stepped on you.
Whacking players limbs off was also a blast. Nothing like seeing someone running crazily with blood spurting out where their arms used to be.

Re:Doom (1)

ultranova (717540) | about 8 years ago | (#16585396)

Whacking players limbs off was also a blast. Nothing like seeing someone running crazily with blood spurting out where their arms used to be.

And nothing like comments like yours to dispell the myth that games desentisize people to violence. You should spend less time playing with your computer and more on wholesome, gentling activities, like watching Sailor Moon slaughter armies in the name of love and justice. Now that is a children's show that teaches proper values :).

Re:Doom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16570708)

"I maintian that it's still the best-balanced FPS ever created."

Nope, that's instagib - only 1 weapon, no powerups = totally perfect balance.

Re:Doom (1)

MMaestro (585010) | about 8 years ago | (#16572082)

Instagib typically favors campers and people who memorize the maps. UT and UT2k4 were the biggest abusers of instagib. (CTF-Face is completely and utter one-sided if one team can spawn kill/pin down the opposing team long enough.)

Re:Doom (1)

mgblst (80109) | about 8 years ago | (#16575612)

Sure, it was just mainly levels, but that is what we wanted, more levels. And the levels were better designed. I am sure there were probably tweaks to the engine, nothing much, but it was still a great game.

Re:Doom (1)

Udderdude (257795) | about 8 years ago | (#16579968)

People still make single player levels for Doom/Doom II. That's how good the gameplay is. To this day, I still haven't played a FPS with the game balance of Doom II. It's just perfect.

Poor list. (1)

kinglink (195330) | about 8 years ago | (#16567722)

MGS 2. Zelda 2 Adventure of Link. Doom 3.

Insteresting that they named those three. With Metal Gear Solid 2, I've heard nothing but praise for it, except for the fact there's a great deal of cutscenes, but fans of the series don't mind. Raiden might not be loved (I like his animations) but he didn't kill that game, in fact I'd rank Metal Gear Solid 2 higher then Metal gear solid 1 just because there was so much interaction in the world. I've heard far worse things said about Metal Gear Solid 3 (in fact many fans just didn't finish much of it).

Adventure of Link isn't exactly a sequal unless you mean a game where everything is completely different except the story. top down vs. Side scrolling. RPG style vs adventure. The only similarities tend to be the main character and it's a story sequal. Imagine if the next Metal Gear solid is a RPG. Is that a sequal or an offshoot? I don't love the game, but at the same time I don't know many people who call it a sequal unless it's the same way Yoshi's island is a "sequal".

Doom 3 is a retelling of the original. The only real complaint I ever heard is it's not too scary and it's dark. Not exactly bashing but then again is it a sequal? Not exactly or at least a sequal that came over 10 years later. Who expected it to be as good now there's competition.

Why not take stuff like Devil May Cry. Xenosaga (which never reached Xenogears' levels of popularity) or Final Fantasy X2, Might and Magic 9, Dynasty Warriors 4, Tony Hawk Under Ground (or the sequal or the American wasteland), or Tomb raider. They did nail some egregious errors (deus ex 2, Final Fantasy 8) but it seems they could only think of a handle full and just looked for games that grew some hatred, but wasn't exactly "bad" games.

Re:Poor list. (1)

discoalucardx (840212) | about 8 years ago | (#16568102)

"just looked for games that grew some hatred, but wasn't exactly "bad" games." That was the point of the article, it was to take games that had good response from critics and were pretty decent games but get a lot of hatred from fans. These, I felt, were the most controversial. (I originally planned to do Devil May Cry 2, but I couldn't find much to defend the game, since it was pretty mediocre overall.) Final Fantasy X-2 receives a lot of hate, but FFVII more so. I'm of the opinion that all of the Dynasty Warriors are practically the same, so it's hard for me to believe that 4 is any worse than the rest (it's my relative favorite, if one could call it that.) I don't here much complaints about the Tony Hawks, and none of the Tomb Raiders outside of the original have (arguably) been any good.

Re:Poor list. (1)

Dev59 (953144) | about 8 years ago | (#16579296)

Tomb Raider Legend (the new one) is actually quite good and you'll find plenty of people who will back that game up. Actually, one of the best things about it (besides putting Lara back in the wild) was that it copied many of the mechanics from the PoP: The Sands of Time.

Re:Poor list. (1)

discoalucardx (840212) | about 8 years ago | (#16580732)

Speak of the devil, I just bought this like 15 minutes ago. I played the demo, and yeah, it was pretty decent. But ppractically much every prior one was...not so great, so it's hard to pinpoint exactly where it went downhill. Plus it's not like there was anything that was really bad about its sequels, they just never bothered to fix the problems that were there in the first place. The same issue, I think, applies to Mega Man. They've (mostly) been getting worse, but where exactly is a bit more difficult. A lot of people say X5...I'd say X7. The ones I picked where the ones I felt people were the most vocal about, at least the forums where I tend to browse.

Re:Poor list. (1)

justchris (802302) | about 8 years ago | (#16569870)

I liked Zelda 2. It's not my favorite Zelda, I mean, Ocarina of Time and Link to the Past are hard to beat, but it's the next best after those 2. I don't understand why people have a problem with Zelda 2, it's a good game, it's just nothing like any other Zelda game.

"I am Error."

Re:Poor list. (1)

mgblst (80109) | about 8 years ago | (#16575644)

You can argue about the definition of sequel as much as you want, and you make some good points, but if the produces of the game names it as a sequel, then I think we can complain about the fact that it is not much of a sequel.

Re:Poor list. (1)

Carnildo (712617) | about 8 years ago | (#16583672)

They did nail some egregious errors (deus ex 2, Final Fantasy 8) but it seems they could only think of a handle full and just looked for games that grew some hatred, but wasn't exactly "bad" games.

Final Fantasy 8 isn't a bad game, it just isn't a Final Fantasy game. If they'd stuck a different name on it, it would have been just fine.

Just to add to the list, (1)

B5_geek (638928) | about 8 years ago | (#16568116)

Tribes 3

Tribes 3... (1)

Sage Gaspar (688563) | about 8 years ago | (#16569838)


Re:Tribes 3... (1)

British (51765) | about 8 years ago | (#16570856)

I played a demo of Tribes 3, and was amazed how slow & sluggish it was. Try driving a vehicle. It doesn't move, as moreso teleports every few feet. It made you almost sick to watch with the choppy motion.

Re:Tribes 3... (1)

Sage Gaspar (688563) | about 8 years ago | (#16572780)

No kidding. Plus they completely deemphasized building structures, base defense, weapon kits... they added in a little hoverbike thing, and those weird caves with the flying rocket vehicles. I actually did really like the idea of the grappling hook and had a little fun playing around with that. Of course the number one has to be WTF did they do to skiing?!

I still launch Tribes 2 every once in a while, but my desire to dig up Vengeance is just about zero.

Yet more for the list (1)

Paladinian (1002473) | about 8 years ago | (#16577754)

Syndicate Wars
X-COM: Terror from the Deep
Wing Commander: Privateer 2
Ultima 8 (9 is just a given, of course)

Re:Just to add to the list, (1)

discoalucardx (840212) | about 8 years ago | (#16580794)

1up is more of a console-centric site, so I chose (primarily) console games. In regards to PC games, I probably would've put in Star Control 3. That was just a sad, sad game (some decent writing aside), and I really hope the original guys get ahold of the copyrights to do a proper sequel. I had thought about Master of Orion 3, but honestly I'm only familiar with the first one, so I would've been way out of my league on that.

Rehashed discussion (1)

Hahnsoo (976162) | about 8 years ago | (#16568686)

Most of the points were already discussed in this recent thread. [] Still, I think it bears worth mentioning that a lot of times, sequels represent a refinement of the original idea. Sure, a lot of times, they suck. But sometimes they extend or even surpass the original idea that spawned in the first game.

But... (1)

brkello (642429) | about 8 years ago | (#16568964)

Game sequels still stand an infinitely better chance of being better than their predecessors compared to movies.

Every XBOX Game is the same (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16570320)

They just put it in different boxes.

And slaverling button bashers buy it and think they're cool.


Real Gamers have PCs.

target renegade (1)

stevencbrown (238995) | about 8 years ago | (#16574024)

was the best of the renegade series.

co-op multiplayer where you could hold an assailant by the shoulders while your team mate beat him up.

Ladies of the night who would hold you by the shoulders and knee you in the groin. Then you could do it back to them! Great fun.

Renegade 1 and 3 were poor by comparison. I always thought this series was superior to the more famous double dragon as well.

Probability (1)

Daetrin (576516) | about 8 years ago | (#16578132)

I think it's really a matter of probability. There are a lot of factors that go into whether a game will be "good" or not. Some of those factors aren't even under the control of the people who made the game, and the sum of all the different factors makes it practically impossible to predict how well a game will do. (How many of you can think of a game you loved that for some reason never recieved the widespread financial succees it "deserved"?) About the only sure thing is that _usually_ a sequel will sell more than an identical game that doesn't have a franchise name behind it, which is why companies are always so eager to make sequels.

However when they start work on a new game in the series they have a bit of a dilema. If they stick with the same forumla and mechanics as the previous game they're going to be acused of just milking the franchise, so they usually try to change at least a few things. However when they change things around the risk alienating the fans. Add on top of this that the new game is frequently made by a different team, sometimes an entirely new team, sometimes even at a different company, but even if it's with the "same" team there's usually been some turnover in terms of individual employees. So a different group of people is trying to make a game that's at least somewhat different from the previous one and in effect they are rolling the dice on the percieved quality of the final product.

This makes it similar to the "curse" that follows sports stars who are featured on various magazines and products that the Straight Dope analyzed awhile back (you can look up the exact column yourself if you wish.) They pointed out that such acolades are given to atheletes that have just experienced an exceptional year, just as sequels are usually financed for games that did exceptionally well or were exceptionally well recieved. Statistically speaking it is unlikely that the next game/season will be just as exceptional as the previous one. So it may seem like a "curse" or a tendency to "ruin" sequels, but a lot of it is really just probability and statistics.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?