Game sequels that don't feel like true sequels.

Doom II (PC):--I can't take ID seriously with this one. Sure it's called Doom II, but the game seems like a thrown together expansion pack (it was released 1 year after Doom). Many levels seem uninspired in terms of theme and design (especially the first 4-5 levels). Everything from textures, weapons, sounds to enemies is reused from Doom. The only new additions are handful of new baddies, super shotgun, new soundtrack and a couple of new wall textures. I believe ID software wanted to milk their fans so they were in a hurry to release a sequel, and done "just enough" with the sequel to make profit. Despite sounding negative, I still like the game very much. But, It just don't feel like a sequel, they could have done more with this. There are no advancements in terms of game play. Still a very good game.

Ah, the level editor sequel. I'd toss in Tomb Raider II-IV in that lot, all of the EA sports games, and the Mega Man series for starters.

Good point about Doom 2. Doom 64 feels more like a true sequel than Doom 2.

Um... Fist of all, pretty much all the Final Fantasy games. Also Zelda II doesn't seem like a sequel to Zelda I, its an entirely different style of game.

On the ID tip, Quake 2. Sure it's a bit more of a technological advancement ahead of Quake 1, but it doesn't have anything that makes Quake, Quake. Still a good game though.

I think that most sequels qualify. It would be much easier to narrow down games that DO feel like true sequels.

SMB2, although I think it's a great game and superior to the Lost Levels.
Pitfall 2, far more difficult than the original. Also it's far more similar to Keystone Kapers in gameplay.
I suppose MGS2 is similar to the first one, but playing as Raiden nearly ruined that game for me when I first got it.

@sheath, I don't understand how the EA Sports sequels or Mega Man sequels don't feel like true sequels. Do you mean because they're too similar? Care to elaborate?

I agree. Super Mario Bros 2 (Jap) reuses everything from the first game. The graphics especially show slight improvement, with few new tiles. But I like the challenge of Super Mario Bros 2 with a save feature (like in all stars). Playing this bitch on Famicom is torture. I have beaten this once.

Strider Returns: Is downright ridiculous (but playable, nonetheless), while Strider 2 on the PS1 is quite the catch.

Sonic Adventure 2: Wasn't a true sequel to Sonic Adventure 1 (as in, there's no adventure to be had), but it was still a great game.

Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode 1: Not exactly a true sequel, gameplay-wise, but still very playable and a good game overall. (It still is as diarrheic as ever by being download only, though :?)

Phantasy Star Online :)

Act Raiser II is almost nothing like the original.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by profholt82

@sheath, I don't understand how the EA Sports sequels or Mega Man sequels don't feel like true sequels. Do you mean because they're too similar? Care to elaborate?

---

Too similar to be true sequels is what I thought the OP was aiming for with his analysis of Doom II, so yeah, EA sports sequels and the Mega Man games are basically the same game, graphics engine, gameplay, AI, etc, with few differences.

Mass Effect 3, DEAR GOD.

Even though the ending patch is supposed to clear things up, it's not enough to fix the vast majority of everything that's wrong currently with the damn game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 16-bit

Mass Effect 3, DEAR GOD.

Even though the ending patch is supposed to clear things up, it's not enough to fix the vast majority of everything that's wrong currently with the damn game.

---

That doesn't really fit. In no way can you say ME3 doesn't feel like a sequel to ME2.

Parasite Eve 2 and Dino Crisis 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkDragon

Parasite Eve 2 and Dino Crisis 2.

---

Do you mean Dino Crisis 3? Dino Crisis 2 is to Dino Crisis, what Resident Evil 2 is to Resident Evil.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kokujin

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. ;)

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 180ºs:
Zelda 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kamahl

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 180ºs:
Zelda 2.

---

Why MM2?MM3 actually added something big and the game design reflects it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kokujin

Why MM2?MM3 actually added something and the game design reflects it.

---

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.
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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tz101

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.

---

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 TheSonicRetard

That doesn't really fit. In no way can you say ME3 doesn't feel like a sequel to ME2.

---

Ok, I guess you're right, this is not about disappointing sequels, sequels to games that are completely different.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tz101

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.

---

Yes and both put me off. Mario 2 wound up being fun, Zelda 2 wound up being traded in.

@ 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheath

More too similar games:

Dragon Warrior II-IV (One block grinding, whoo!)

---

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:

---

Donkey Kong Country 2 & 3

---

? 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:

---

Originally Posted by StarMist

I think Twisted Metal 2 would be close enough to the first to disappoint the series revolutionists round here.

---

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

Yes and both put me off. Mario 2 wound up being fun, Zelda 2 wound up being traded in.

---

I played through both repeatedly, they ended up being my favorites in the series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StarMist

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.

---

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

? 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.

---

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 sheath

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.

---

By "block grinding" I misinferred you meant 1-pace encounters, which they can really seem like in DW3. I don't recall having so much trouble in 2 but then I always try to play RPGs at minimum power, pushing as early as possible. 3 has more sophisticated towns and within them better graphics, 2 has towns very similar to 1's but less appealing I think due to certain palette changes, notably the brick's going from madder to purple.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I'd say the DKCs are more distinct than Sonic 3 from S&K. They grow progressively kiddier and 3 has muddy graphics. 2 also has a different tonality with lots of darker areas and a surprising usage of purple, whilst the hedge mazes are unmistakable sheerly as backgrounds or layouts or one's flying holding onto Squawks let alone with all 3 aspects together. But the DKCs are in the same graphical boat as the DWs, there just wasn't any further they could be pushed on the system in their given style, there'd have to be a radical change. Of course in DW's case they could have put combat backgrounds back in, but that's about it short of entirely changing the enemy look or going for a wholly different world feeling--say, a wasteland with bare encampments in place of towns (something they rather did with 7th Saga on SNES). DKC changed the environments and characters (and added mechanics) within reason each game, there wasn't a whole lot else to do short of going crazy with the series's defining characteristics----Donkey Kong 2XXX, Adventures in the Meth Lab? ...