Printable View
The only comparable ones that I can think of at the moment are:
Super Mario Bros
Son Son II
Tengai Makyou II
Shining Force -if it counts as a sequel to either Shining in the Darkness or Fire Emblem
AD&D Treasure of Tarmin
Monster World II -Western name = WBIII Dragon's Trap
Thunder Force II
I'd have to say the leap from Herzog, to Herzog Zwei was huge. It was only 3 years apart as well.
By my own standards, a great sequel should leave the original (if it was a good game) intact while creating a new enough and more advanced game. These games should take a similar idea and improve on it, or take an entirely different direction on the same theme while making another good to great game. Sequels should not look or feel like expansion packs, they should simultaneously look, feel, sound and play similarly and totally different than any predecessors. They should be new games even if they share familiar elements. So, these are the kinds of games that I consider great sequels.
NES:
Castlevania II Simon's Quest
Double Dragon II (NES)
Super Mario Bros 2
Zelda II
Master System:
The Alex Kidd series
The Wonderboy Series
Zillion II: Triformation
Genesis:
Phantasy Star II
Phantasy Star III
Revenge of Shinobi
Shadow Dancer
Shinobi III
Streets of Rage 2
Rolling Thunder II
ToeJam & Earl Panic on Funkatron
Saturn:
Daytona CCE
Fighter's Megamix
Panzer Dragoon Zwei
Panzer Dragoon Saga
Dreamcast:
Sonic Adventure 2
Virtual On Oratario Tangram
Xbox:
Legacy of Kain Defiance
Gamecube:
Resident Evil 4
Super Mario Bros. 2 (North America) is actually a game called Doki Doki Panic, that was converted to become SMB2.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
^^
I agree that Double Dragon II was a huge improvement over the first one, but unfortunately, I can't agree with Resident Evil 4, as I thought that game was horrible, and ruined the Resident Evil series.
I know, that is really just another example of what I think a true "good" sequel should be, an entirely different game with similarities.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
Resident Evil 4 was the only game in the series that I could play for extended periods, I still got bored and quit.
Sure, I prefer the classic Resident Evil games more, but RE4 was more of a spin-off that started it's own series. How you can call the game horrible, I have no idea. Even viewed on it's own, separate from the rest of the RE series, it's still a damn fine game.Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiespruce
I just don't like how your character is stuck in front, close to the camera. It feels like an FPS, except you can see the character in front of you, and I didn't like that, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jackal
I liked the older RE games more because of it's unique style. It was like there was a camera on a tripod in the corner of a room, and you could see and wander all around, which was unique at the time, and I enjoyed it.
To each their own, I guess.
The only problem I have with early Resident Evil games, the camera makes it so you end up running into zombies that are right in front of your face.
Resident Evil 4 is kind of a godsend in this regard, such a good game.
These are quite possibly among the worst sequels of all time. Surely you could've picked better examples in the NES category? Or is it just about the games being "different"? In that case I can agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
I don't know about others, but I'd play System Shock 2 over the first one any day,
mainly because the huge leap in graphics, added audio quality, better mooding and WAY improved controls :)
We ain't friends no more.Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiespruce
You're my boy, Olls, but you need to read Sheath's post a bit mo bettah. He was pretty clear about what his criteria was: a "great" sequel should basically take familiar elements from previous games and re-invent them as a new experience, rather than a simple expansion pack. I'm not entirely sure I agree (which is why I love the Mega Man games so much), but I understand his point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olls
And besides, those all are fine sequels. In retrospect, none of them represent my favorite games from the series they were a part of, but they were all fun games in their own right and still stand up pretty well today. Also remember that at the time, there was only other game in each game series, so a formula hadn't been established yet. None of us dumb kids knew any different.
They aren't bad games per se, just worse than what came before. I know that he is going to reply to this with the usual "there is no way to measure a game's quality, there is no standard", but everybody else knows they're worse.
I did read the fine print, but I was going by the thread's topic name, which is about sequels being better than the originals in the most basic sense of the word.
Eventually it got ported to PS2 & Xbox. That's the only version I own (PS2). I do recall playing the PC game back in the day, but was very unimpressed with it. I couldn't believe SF2 was the same series as SF. I would like to see Capcom do a HD remix of Street Fighter and make all the characters playable and fix the gameplay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
Well, then you can combine your logic with Sheath's, as well as following the OP's criteria, by listing Mario 3, Castlevania III, and Link to the Past as the three best [direct] sequels of all time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olls
See? I made lemonade.