Gaming's Worst Ever Sequals

[Danqazmlp]

Its obvious sometimes when a sequal is just jumping on the 'bandwargon' of a successful first game and is just there for the money, but in your opinion which games have made the biggest mess of a game which had so much promise in its first outing?

 

 

 

I have a few:

 

Halo 2+3: Probably a bit controvercial but i never thought the second and third were as fun as the first, they just seemed a bit boring compared to the first for me.

 

 

 

Serious sam 2: I've mentioned it once, i'll mention it again, messing up the respawning system absolutely ruined the fun of the game and made it more frantically frustrating than frantically fun.

 

 

 

Age of empires 3: How to turn a genre-defining game into a bucket of s***. The only thing it had going for it were the graphics which still werent great, i leant the game to a friend and after a week he said if i wanted it back and i told him he could keep it, even after it cost me about £34

[mrpez]

no way halo 2 was a bad sequel, it was the best of the three.

 

 

 

any mario party past the third one is just ridiculous. are they on 8 now?

 

 

 

oh and pokemon also. when i used to play it, there was only red, blue, and yellow. now there is like emerald i think? lol too many

[sephiroth_king]

no way halo 2 was a bad sequel, it was the best of the three.

 

 

 

any mario party past the third one is just ridiculous. are they on 8 now?

 

 

 

oh and pokemon also. when i used to play it, there was only red, blue, and yellow. now there is like emerald i think? lol too many

 

 

 

Gotta agree with the Halo comment, and the Mario comment, and the...Ah hell, I agree with everything you said lol. :)

 

 

 

I think Final Fantasy X-2 was the worst ever sequal ever. It really wasn't good in terms of storylines, but the girls costumes... :thumbup: :P

[ReapMe]

devil may cry 2

[InkofDeath]

Soul Calibur(sp...?) 2, was just a copy with a few more characters than the first.

 

 

 

Zelda Twilight - Why? The simplified, far easier dungeons, that were shorter, and more irritating to do. Dungeons are the core of the Zelda games, actually puzzles are. And they were easier, and even less-skill demanding than the previous Zelda games. Sorry but the graphics, and the Wii Remote as a sword were just hiding these. Wasn't saying the game wasn't fun, but if you compare it to Orcarina, or even Majora's Mask, it's basically just 'another game'.

[Solidus_77]

Halo 2+3: Probably a bit controvercial but i never thought the second and third were as fun as the first, they just seemed a bit boring compared to the first for me.

 

 

 

I'm compelled to agree here. There was a certain "feel" for Halo 1 that I didn't get in Halo 2 or 3. They were each decent games but a huge letdown from Halo 1.

 

 

 

Serious sam 2: I've mentioned it once, i'll mention it again, messing up the respawning system absolutely ruined the fun of the game and made it more frantically frustrating than frantically fun.

 

 

 

You're going to condemn a game that had more enemies, more boss fights, and FAR more levels than both previous games combined just because of a freakin respawn issue? I don't even understand what's making such a bad impression anyways? You fight on waves of enemies in the first two games and once again you fight waves of enemies. Both times enemies would spawn out of nowhere so I really have no idea what the big deal is - especially if this so called "problem" ruined the game.

 

 

 

Now I agree, First Encounter and Second Encounter were better and serious sam 2 didn't feel quite the same but it had some aspects that the two previous games didn't (like that god-awesome level were everything is giant!)

 

 

 

Age of empires 3: How to turn a genre-defining game into a bucket of s***. The only thing it had going for it were the graphics which still werent great, i leant the game to a friend and after a week he said if i wanted it back and i told him he could keep it, even after it cost me about £34

 

 

 

Now this is something I'm more willing to agree with, but once again it still had some standing points that AOE2 (a much better game IMO) didn't. Frankly I loved the amount of options they gave you to do stuff in, canons gunning down people are awesome, massive warships firing a cannonade at each other is awesome awesomeness. It didn't live up to AOE2 but, once again, had a few admirable features of it's own (I take it you don't like that kind of stuff).

 

 

 

I am starting to see a pattern with your selections. Each one is a sequel of a major successful game which didn't have the same "feel" (vague, but I can't describe it, you have to play the games) that the first game did. Am I right?

 

 

 

I think Final Fantasy X-2 was the worst ever sequal ever. It really wasn't good in terms of storylines, but the girls costumes...

 

 

 

Yeah there were some pretty bad parts but it had Rikku in it. Nuff said :P

[foolgool]

Good lord.. Every Mario Party after 2 sucks, in my opinion.

[WutangFlu]

Quake 4, and Perfect Dark Zero

[Nadril]

Good lord.. Every Mario Party after 2 sucks, in my opinion.

 

 

 

Yeah.

 

 

 

 

 

Halo 2+3: Probably a bit controvercial but i never thought the second and third were as fun as the first, they just seemed a bit boring compared to the first for me.

 

 

 

Don't think I agree, but that's just because all of them were pretty much all mediocre.

 

 

 

Age of empires 3: How to turn a genre-defining game into a bucket of s***. The only thing it had going for it were the graphics which still werent great, i leant the game to a friend and after a week he said if i wanted it back and i told him he could keep it, even after it cost me about £34

 

 

 

While it doesn't compare to AoE2 it's not bad. I've had some fun moments in it, only issue is lag.

[Giordano]

Havfta agree with AoE3...AoE2 kicked arse! \

 

 

 

I also hated Star Wars Battlefront 2...had a completely different feeling to it than the first...although most of you probably disagree with me.... :shame:

[Dracion1]

Black and White 2. The original was a great game, but Microsoft just had to take over Lionhead and rush the release of the next one before it was ready.

[Star_Fox]

no way halo 2 was a bad sequel, it was the best of the three.

 

 

 

any mario party past the third one is just ridiculous. are they on 8 now?

 

 

 

oh and pokemon also. when i used to play it, there was only red, blue, and yellow. now there is like emerald i think? lol too many

 

 

 

i agree with the mario party. the first 3 was great, and original. after the gc was released, it completely hit the nail on the coffin.

 

 

 

i have to vote on legend of zelda for n64. ocarina was great. majoras mask however wasn't. the same characters from the first game was used, no new races introduced, and theres a time limit which resets all your items to 0.

[Nenga]

Chrono cross. How they can take suck a good game and make it suck so much is beyond me.

 

 

 

Derge of cerberus: FF7. Square-enix's horrible attempt at a fps. Bad storyline and bad gameplay IMO.

[Solidus_77]

i have to vote on legend of zelda for n64. ocarina was great. majoras mask however wasn't. the same characters from the first game was used, no new races introduced, and theres a time limit which resets all your items to 0.

 

 

 

It's pretty hard to top a game considered by many to be among the best games of all time and frankly Majora's Mask did a pretty good job. Why would they use new characters when the ones from OoT are so popular? Why introduce new races for no apparent reason? Time limit was good, it added some difficulty and made all sorts of stuff change around you. Tons of new stuff was added, and the whole story had a somewhat freaky tone to it. Oh yeah and it's possible to clear each dungeon in the time given even on a first run, and if not just slow down time and the timer becomes a non-issue. And if that's not enough, you keep the bow or whatever you got, meaning that you could get the bow, run out of time, and still have a large portion of the dungeon cleared. There is no problem with the time limit on dungeon, it's only a mental effect.

 

 

 

Like it or not, it's a damn good game. Just not as insanely good as OoT. I thought we were going to see the worst sequel made, not "very good/decent game that succeeds an insanely popular game".

 

 

 

PS: The second boss of Majora's Mask was incredibly fun! Thanks to Majora's Mask's ability to replay dungeons as many times as you like, I think I beat that boss at least 10 times.

[monkeyboo2]

Halo 2+3: Probably a bit controvercial but i never thought the second and third were as fun as the first, they just seemed a bit boring compared to the first for me.

 

 

 

Don't think I agree, but that's just because all of them were pretty much all mediocre.

 

 

 

Halo 1 in my opinion was not a good game; simply for the fact of the lack of online multiplayer. Halo 2 was a good online shooter (but nothing anmazing); and Halo 3 was slightly better... The whole overhyped campaign player mode is irrelevant to me.

 

 

 

 

Age of empires 3: How to turn a genre-defining game into a bucket of s***. The only thing it had going for it were the graphics which still werent great, i leant the game to a friend and after a week he said if i wanted it back and i told him he could keep it, even after it cost me about £34

 

 

 

While it doesn't compare to AoE2 it's not bad. I've had some fun moments in it, only issue is lag.

 

 

 

AoE 3 was a huge let down from the previous Ensemble Studio games. Age of Mythology and its expansion was awesome, along with AoE1,2, and their expansions. AoE3 was over complicated, and made more difficult because yuo had to select each individual unit and tell it which special attack to use and select a target for it. It was boring having to go through every unit doing that.

 

If it had kept to Age of Mythology automatic special attacks, we would all be better off.

 

 

 

I'll tell you what I think is the worst sequel:

 

Rainbow Six Vegas 2.

 

 

 

It degraded its great multiplayer which it had on the first game nto simplify it for the oncoming swarm of casual players. It made several balance mistakes which were only corrected about 6 months after its release (way too late for any patience to last).

 

Its storyline was weak.

 

Its only upside was the Terrorist hunt was still as good as the last game, but that doesn't make up for its bad multiplayer.

[VjuliusT]

Chrono cross. How they can take suck a good game and make it suck so much is beyond me.

 

 

 

Derge of cerberus: FF7. Square-enix's horrible attempt at a fps. Bad storyline and bad gameplay IMO.

For some reason I liked Dirge of cerberus, so I can't agree with you on that point. Something I can agree with is the Chrono Cross part :(.

 

 

 

devil may cry 2

Indeed the worst one in the DMC series but still not "Horrible".

 

 

 

I also hated Star Wars Battlefront 2...had a completely different feeling to it than the first...although most of you probably disagree with me.... :shame:

Oh yes it had a completely different feeling to it but it also had many improvements that the first one needed.

[BlueLancer]

Kind of hard to judge a game by a few screens and a 20 min gameplay video of a pre-alpha build.. But I hope Diablo 3 isn't going further in the direction of "WoW" or the Warcraft series in general. The menu texts and some graphics look pretty childish, not something you'd expect from a gritty game like Diablo.

 

 

 

I found this image, ok maybe the bottom one's text is a bit dramatic but it has a good point, compare these two:

 

[hide=]

 

[/hide]

 

 

 

The below one is maybe "slightly" too dark, but it looks much more like an updated Diablo. The above (an actual D3 pre-alpha screen) looks exactly like the Warcraft games I've played. -.- Too much of that bright-neon green and cyan blue lighting for such a dark game..

 

 

 

Gameplay itself seems great and they added new classes+spell effects. Plus the music of various cities which you can preview on Diablo3.com fits the atmosphere perfectly. But I'd be lying if I said the graphics are perfect for this kind of dark fantasy/gothic game..

 

 

 

Anyone remember Diablo 1? It was literally sick, but it also improved the games' overall feeling. Like the room of Butcher that was full of the slain townfolk's blood, limbs and bodies. Or Lazarus performing some ritual for Diablo in his lair by running blood from an infant and killing it. That kind of stuff gave you motivation to think "what a sick guy" and kill him, at current, I can't see this kind of stuff entering D3.

 

 

 

Would hate to see it turn into just another hack'n'slash game with the name D3 attached to it, because frankly D1 and D2 had much more than that. So far Diablo is a very unique game series with a genuinely dark atmosphere.

[limpbizkit]

^I pref how it looks now .. Aimmed at a larger group and playable on a heck of alot more pcs.

[Danqazmlp]

 

Serious sam 2: I've mentioned it once, i'll mention it again, messing up the respawning system absolutely ruined the fun of the game and made it more frantically frustrating than frantically fun.

 

 

 

You're going to condemn a game that had more enemies, more boss fights, and FAR more levels than both previous games combined just because of a freakin respawn issue? I don't even understand what's making such a bad impression anyways? You fight on waves of enemies in the first two games and once again you fight waves of enemies. Both times enemies would spawn out of nowhere so I really have no idea what the big deal is - especially if this so called "problem" ruined the game.

 

 

 

Now I agree, First Encounter and Second Encounter were better and serious sam 2 didn't feel quite the same but it had some aspects that the two previous games didn't (like that god-awesome level were everything is giant!)

 

 

 

 

 

 

The reason the respawning killed the game for me is that it interupted and re-set the fun. On the first outing's when you died, it would just stand you back up where you fell, so you could carry on killing armies of freaky and funny creatures running at you, it was great and hectic fun where worrying about your hp wasn't an issue, it was just kill kill kill, fun fun fun. But on the second, when you died it would re-set you to the begining of the level or section, which on hard sections just meant replaying the same part 10 times, which is something i hate in games, it ruined all of the fun of just killing thousands of enemies in a level in one go without worrying about the conciquences, and made the game so frustrating for me i never even completed it, i got 2/3 of the way through and ended up watching the ending on youtube #-o .

[Solidus_77]

 

Serious sam 2: I've mentioned it once, i'll mention it again, messing up the respawning system absolutely ruined the fun of the game and made it more frantically frustrating than frantically fun.

 

 

 

You're going to condemn a game that had more enemies, more boss fights, and FAR more levels than both previous games combined just because of a freakin respawn issue? I don't even understand what's making such a bad impression anyways? You fight on waves of enemies in the first two games and once again you fight waves of enemies. Both times enemies would spawn out of nowhere so I really have no idea what the big deal is - especially if this so called "problem" ruined the game.

 

 

 

Now I agree, First Encounter and Second Encounter were better and serious sam 2 didn't feel quite the same but it had some aspects that the two previous games didn't (like that god-awesome level were everything is giant!)

 

 

 

 

 

 

The reason the respawning killed the game for me is that it interupted and re-set the fun. On the first outing's when you died, it would just stand you back up where you fell, so you could carry on killing armies of freaky and funny creatures running at you, it was great and hectic fun where worrying about your hp wasn't an issue, it was just kill kill kill, fun fun fun. But on the second, when you died it would re-set you to the begining of the level or section, which on hard sections just meant replaying the same part 10 times, which is something i hate in games, it ruined all of the fun of just killing thousands of enemies in a level in one go without worrying about the conciquences, and made the game so frustrating for me i never even completed it, i got 2/3 of the way through and ended up watching the ending on youtube #-o .

 

 

 

Oh the player respawn I thought you meant the enemy respawn. Ok that makes more sense. Yeah that was noticeable but still didn't really make the game horrible. I played on "easy" setting and was able to blast through most opponents without worrying or if I screwed up, I'd just get it right the next time. It was only the final boss that I had to replay for a couple of HOURS before I could kill him (The insane amount of bombers is just ridiculous).

[Derek_Zoolander]

AOE definately isn't a horrible sequal.

[Swordhand20]

Zoo Tycoon 2. Loved the first one and its expansions, hated the new camera and tools in the second. It concentrated too much on first person veiws of the aimals and felt nothing like the first one.

[Nero]

H3 was a pretty big let-down for me. I clocked in somewhere around 4000+games on H2 and I've only hit around 400 on H3.

[Uldric]

Sim City Societies. While not a direct sequel to 4 (Societies wasn't made by Will Wright), it pretty much dumbed downed all the aspects that made the Sim City series enjoyable. Sure, it was probably dumbed down to give it a greater audience, but missing everything that made it complex is stupid.

[Who]

Super Paper Mario, liked Thousand Door much better, but not really fair comparing a platformer to an RPG. :|