Do you mean Dino Crisis 3? Dino Crisis 2 is to Dino Crisis, what Resident Evil 2 is to Resident Evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkDragon
Dino Crisis 3, however, is fucking retarded. Dinosaurs in space with jet packs and lasers.
Printable View
Do you mean Dino Crisis 3? Dino Crisis 2 is to Dino Crisis, what Resident Evil 2 is to Resident Evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkDragon
Dino Crisis 3, however, is fucking retarded. Dinosaurs in space with jet packs and lasers.
When I saw the title, my first thought was of sequels that are too different from their predecessors to feel like true sequels (like Zelda II), but you went the opposite: games that are too similar to the originals to be "true" sequels.
With both of those cases in mind, I think it's good to point out that line between too similar and too different compared to the ideal balance of sticking to a games' roots while also evolving beyond the original. (and in some cases, it's more realistic to stay conservative and risk being "too similar" when the market is wide open for expansion of that genre -and marketing a game as a sequel is more attractive than doing so as an expansion pack -or perhaps it really is a legitimate sequel with a huge set of new levels, a new story, and perhaps new cast of characters, added features, etc, while still using very similar quality graphics and the same base game engine)
Mass Effect 2 is one of the biggest offenders.Almost everything the first game did right 2 screwed up.The stripped most of the RPG elements, they changed the graphics for the worst, and they muddled the story.The only thing they did right is the soundtrack.
That sounds a bit like how Game Sack described ActRaiser2. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by kokujin
Act Raiser 2 most definitely did NOT change the graphics for the worst :p.
I actually like it more than 1 (since I didn't really enjoy the city building aspect of the first), but I can totally see how fans would be pissed off.
ON TOPIC:
For the copy cats:
The Megaman's are the worst offenders. Just "expansion pack" after "expansion pack". Only Megaman 2, & Bass, and X would I call sequels. I just pretend the others don't exist.
For the 180šs:
Zelda 2.
Why MM2?MM3 actually added something big and the game design reflects it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
2 perfected 1, it was everything that was great about 1 polished to the maximum. 3 was ok I guess, but it started the "expansion pack" syndrome. A stupid dog and a slide. The dog made the game more annoying, the slide didn't change anything really. And remember, 3 came after 2. Regardless of it being a better game or not, the point still stands that it's a freaking expansion pack.Quote:
Originally Posted by kokujin
EDIT: Proto Man was damn cool though, but still...
EDIT2: You could say Megaman 3 is what 2 should have been in the first place.
Were any of you around when SMB2 and Zelda 2 were released? I got both shortly after release, and though different, never did I think: This just doesn't seem like the sequel. Both great games in their own right.
More too similar games:
Adventures of Lolo II and III on NES
Dragon Warrior II-IV (One block grinding, whoo!)
Ninja Gaiden II-III (Difficulty adjustments aside)
Donkey Kong Country 2 & 3
Vectorman 2
Shining Force II
If we're doing 180 sequels as well I have a list of games that were nothing like their predecessors.
Master System:
Alex Kidd The Lost Stars
Alex Kidd in Shinobi World
Alex Kidd in High Tech World
Fantasy Zone: The Maze
Golden Axe Warrior
Wonderboy in Monster Land
Wonderboy III: The Dragon's Trap
Zillion 2: Triformation
Zelda II
NES:
Super Mario Bros. 2
Super Mario Bros. 3
Castlevania II: Simon's Quest
Castlevania III: Dracula's Curse
TMNT: The Arcade Game
Double Dragon II
Iron Sword: Wizards & Warriors II
Genesis:
Phantasy Star II (No 3D Dungeons)
Phantasy Star III
Revenge of Shinobi
Shadow Dancer
Streets of Rage II (Less like Double Dragon, More like Final Fight)
Thunder Force III
Toejam & Earl: Panic on Funkatron
Yeah, back then it was common for sequels to take different paths. I didn't think of them as not true sequels. I had no problem with it; I just cared if the games were good.Quote:
Originally Posted by tz101
Ok, I guess you're right, this is not about disappointing sequels, sequels to games that are completely different.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSonicRetard
I got nothin'
Despite what sheath said, I never really felt like the sequels weren't really sequels. When I was a kid, I wanted two things: a sequel that was as awesome as the previous game but better (like Mega Man, Donkey Kong Country, Sonic, Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter) or a sequel that was different but still awesome, like SMB2 or FFVI (compared to FFIV).
Yeah, I wasn't saying these were bad games or bad sequels, they're just totally different than the precursors. I consider that a very good thing. What I have never liked is the level-editor sequel like the Tomb Raider games, or Doom II, or the Mega Man series. Where as far as I can tell I'm playing a game running on the exact same engine and somebody just went in and created a bunch of new levels and maybe a new weapon or two. Doom II was actually kind of fun thanks to the new weapons, but it was still just a WAD pack.
I think Twisted Metal 2 would be close enough to the first to disappoint the series revolutionists round here.
Yes and both put me off. Mario 2 wound up being fun, Zelda 2 wound up being traded in.Quote:
Originally Posted by tz101
@ Madden = lots of these games have considerable alterations from year to year, or at least one considerable alteration every 3 years that has not been led up to by its predecessors; not that they're anything novel, they tend to cycle. In some special teams will be important and dynamic, and then next year the player will find punting and field goal kicking basically automated whilst returning a punt or kickoff for a touchdown next to impossible. Or in some years returning kickoffs all the way might be too easy (I want to say `05 here, one of them in that range was just broken, TD returns over 20% of the time). These are examples; something is always being tinkered with other than that a mobile quarterback absolutely ruins the game, one can just run about like a headless chicken till the coverage breaks down then heave a 50 yard pass. In a game that boasts to realistically represent a sport where everything ties in to everything else each such aberration affects the total play comparably to changing Mega Man's total HP, rate of fire, or the value to a couple of his suits.
3 gives the main character his party w/o any adventure to meet them; not only that, they're built by him AD&D style, meaning there are more complex classes as well. It also introduces some day and night elements. And the encounter rate in 2 is nowhere near so high. Despite all this they do feel too similar but in my case that's because 3 (and 4 which I consequently didn't play much) jumps into play with so little fanfare which robbed it of its own personality.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
? You mean 3 following 2, or also 2 following 1? I thought Dixie's gliding technique and the ridable spider made considerable differences along with the much more involved and multidirectional stage designs.Quote:
Donkey Kong Country 2 & 3
At the time I thought the first Twisted Metal had way too generic level designs, but Twisted Metal 2's famous land mark levels was a lot better. Graphically they're both the same though (poor).Quote:
Originally Posted by StarMist
I played through both repeatedly, they ended up being my favorites in the series.Quote:
Originally Posted by StarMist
My comment on Dragon Warrior 2 was that the start of the game forces you to stay one block away from the first castle until you level up, then you can walk two blocks away until you level up. The first game let you grind in a small area around the first castle at least, Dragon Warrior 2 has enemy classes way too powerful at the start just two steps away from the castle. I really haven't played DW 3&4 at all, my comment was mostly about the graphics and layout being so similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by StarMist
They're all the same to me, I couldn't tell which was being played without seeing the title screen. Whereas the Sonic games all have very distinct graphics engines from one another above and beyond the gameplay tweaks and new items, the DKC games just look like the same game with emphasis placed on the younger Kongs as the series progressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by StarMist