Why are sequels almost universally worse than the original game...

*blocks your path*

Attached: thief2fallout2.jpg (401x220, 37K)

Sonic 2, 3&K
SUPER MARIO BROTHERS TWO
Mega Man 2ff (how long the series was good is debatable, but at least 2 and 3 are undisputable masterpieces)
Doom II
Ms. Pac-Man
Half-Life 2
Team Fortress 2
Civilization IV
Puyo Puyo 2
Street Fighter II

Most of these are pretty much off the top of my head.

Exceptions to the rule.

>yeah, sequels are almost universally worse than the original game
>except for this game and this game and this game and this game and this game and this game and this game and this game and this game and this game and this game and this game and this game and this game and this game and this game and this game and this game and...
At what point does it stop being a "rule"?

List at least another 2 dozen.

Monster World 2, 3, 4 and Boy
Need for Speed Hot Pursuit II
Tony Hawk Pro Skater series
Super Metroid
PuyoPuyo 2
Streets of Rage 2
Thunder Force IV
Contra Hard Corps and Alien Wars
Castlevania series in general
Mega Man Battle Network 2, 3, and 6
Mega Man Star Force 3
Mega Man Zero 3 and 4
Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake
Crash Bandicoot 2
Star Fox 64
Resident Evil 2
Spider-Man 2 (Movie Tie In, Console version)
Grand Theft Auto 2
Odd World: Abe's Exodus
Silent Hill 2
Duke Nukem 3D
Gran Turismo 2
Super Smash Bros. Melee
Desert Strike

Attached: ajuIZ06.jpg (579x329, 25K)

You already listed Puyo Puyo 2 but ok, you win.

Current year sequels are riding on brand and so don't need to try.
If you bought the first one they count on you to buy the second because you bought the first.
This is why series get milked dry instead of companies making things that are new.
The worst part is that it works because the consumerbase is literally braindead and incapable of thinking for themselves.

You're right. Time to list another 2 dozen to make up for the mistake

Kirby's Adventure
Halo 2
Left 4 Dead 2
Spyro 2: Ripto's Rage
Ninja Gaiden II (360)
InFamous 2
Ratchet and Clank 2: Going Commando
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and San Andreas
Ultimate Ghouls'n'Goblins
Metal Slug X and Metal Slug 3
Double Dragon II
Twisted Metal 2
Driver 2
Aero the Acrobat 2
Dungeons and Dragons: Shadow Over Mystara
Time Splitters 2
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles IV: Turtles in Time
Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest
Diablo II
Marvel vs Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes
Toy Story 2
Street Fighter Alpha 2 Gold and Street Fighter Alpha 3
Killzone 2 and Killzone Liberation
Splatterhouse 2

Attached: images (4).jpg (224x225, 5K)

Left 4 Dead 1 is better than 2, also you could add Yakuza 2 to your list.

Left 4 Dead 1 is practically included for free in 2 on a far better engine. Get over it already and make a list of your own fucking 2 dozen sequels.

generally speaking it's really hard to deliver on the first game's novelty in a unique or fun way that isn't just retreading the same ground twice. Yea Forums gives Naughty Dog alot of shit but Jak 2 and Uncharted 2 are alot better than their first iterations and they're the only studio who i can think of who only makes good sequels and no good original IP.

Attached: 1564112145725.jpg (901x933, 295K)

gen v would like a word with you

Maybe, I haven't played L4D2 since it came out and just remember that the maps and characters were crap compared to L4D1 and the only better part was the gore.
>Get over it already and make a list of your own fucking 2 dozen sequels.
Settle down there, cowboy.

>generally speaking it's really hard to deliver on the first game's novelty in a unique or fun way that isn't just retreading the same ground twice.
Yeah but what about the sequels that literally REMOVE the good parts of the first games and then add stupid shit instead? I don't understand the difficulty of "hey let's just take what made the first game good and then add more cool stuff on top of it."

I feel like im the only person who hated Going Commando compared to the first game.

Up Your Arsenal is arguably better.

Artists have a complicated relationship with their own creations. On one hand they have the most intimate knowledge of the creation and inner workings of the game, on the other they're the only person on the planet who isn't qualified to have an opinion on their own work. The things that you liked that were removed in the sequel were probably things the developer didn't like at all.

Halo 2 is debatable

I walk away thinking this thread is dead and I have more whiners. Time to list another 2 dozen then

Seiken Densetsu 3
Revenge of Shinobi and Shinobi 3
Ninja Warriors Again
Breath of Fire 2, 3 and 4
Devil May Cry 3
Mortal Kombat II
Um Jammer Lammy and Parappa 2
Bust a Groove 2
Soul Calibur II
Gex: Enter the Gecko
Rayman 2
Mario Kart 64
Jet Moto 2
Snowboard Kids 2
SSX Tricky
Resident Evil 4
Batman: Revenge of the Joker (NES)
Batman: Arkham Asylum
Super Tempo
Space Channel 5: Part 2
F-Zero GX
Dynamite Cop
Vampire Savior
Bust a Groove 2

how butthurt can one user be?

Sae is so cool

Sequels in general are a bad idea. A brand new game has no baggage. They can do whatever they want, and it'll feel more fresh. Sequels have expectations on them. Faggots like are the reason devs are so afraid of change and instead just make the same game 30 times

It's funny, I've found gaming is the only medium where sequels as a rule almost always ARE better

based sae poster

Attached: hiro phone.jpg (1280x720, 116K)

Banjo-Tooie, DKC2, Crash 2, Sonic 2, Megaman 2, Silent Hill 2, Resident Evil 2, Timesplitters 2. Just offhand some random games I could think of that were better than the original.

Its a case by case basis. Some sequels are good, some are bad.

>literally every second game in every series on the NES was completely fucking different for no reason
>SNES shit rarely had direct sequels on the same console
>any cross console sequel needed to rebuild everything from the ground up by definition
>PCs were advancing at such a breakneck pace that most PC game sequels needed to completely reworked the games as well
Honestly the only context where what you said was true at all was franchises on the PS1 where they just shat out cloned sequels because they could.

>Halo 2
>Left 4 Dead 2
>counting sub-versions of streetfigher games
You're right in general but come on.

The first game in a series generally has a somewhat unique vision and design philosophy the developers are aiming for when trying to create their game. Since it is going to be original in terms of story and gameplay mechanics outside of following trends and using commonly accepted quality of life features from the genre its going to fit in there is more that is going to set this game apart from the rest of the market. Even if the game itself doesn't add anything particularly new or innovative over other games in its genre simply putting together a working balance of its core gameplay mechanics and the fact that as an original title the players have no background knowledge or expectations of exactly how things ought to be, the game can be taken at face value for how it is presented. Sometimes being new and not having any prior formula to adhere to is enough to get players interested in a new game as the core of what makes games interesting is thinking through their unique sets of rules and situations to progress which will lead people that find video games to be one of their main hobbies to seek out new games for new experiences even after they establish their own tastes and favorites.

When a sequel is made, assuming the first game was a success, the project is generally given a higher budget under the assumption that what they have to base their work on was profitable so the same team should be able to make it again and improve upon it using their experiences with the first game in order to do better this time around. There is pressure on the developers now to create a product that can meet the demands of their investors now that there is something for them to base their expectations for success on. What often happens nowadays is that over the time between the development and release of the first game to the development and release of the sequel the team working on the game has received new members and perhaps replaced original ones.

Who cares. It's someone actually listing off good games on Yea Forums. He's based as fuck.

It’s the same with movies oroginal typically has soul sequels are cash ins. Take Disney for example shrek 1? Pretty good, I hate movies but it’s watchable. Shrek 2,3, and 4? Fuck that shit.

Shrek was Dreamworks

(cont)
The less presence of the original vision of the first game is present in the sequels mean its more likely that the sequels will miss key pieces of what made the originals special. Over a long enough period of time or with enough meddling from the developer's unrelated higher ups and other departments the sequels can end up highly divergent from the original. These days especially many changes introduced in sequels are aimed at widening the possible audience of the game to make back the initial investment, fish for more customers that might come back for other products they put out, and to turn a higher profit. What ends up happening to the franchise is that with enough iterations and higher and higher budgets the sequels end up being related to the original in name only where the playerbase of the original game is sometimes completely separate from the playerbase of the newer games.

The clearest example of this process I can think of from the top of my head is the progression of the Dawn of War series. The original is regarded as one of the best rts games of its time that still holds up quite well today, the second is a large change of style but still very well made so that there could only be so much shit thrown at Relic for it, and the third is almost completely unrecognizable outside of its name and setting while butchering the mechanics of both of its predecessors which is why the developers abandoned almost immediately after realizing how much they fucked up.

You're thinking movies, user.
Most sequels actively improve on the originals.

It's only after a series outstays its welcome does it become bad, after which it does a hard or soft reboot and gets better again.

Take that back, Shrek 2 was fucking great.

It’s all the same shit to me

Second game is usually the sweetspot. It's when they learn from the mistakes of the first one, refine it and get rid of the jankiness, but before they go full retard and fuck everything up with often extremely casualized third game. Look at, for example, Warcraft, Red Alert, Age of Empires. First game good, second game great, third game trash. Of course thos rule doesn't always apply, there's plenty of series that have gone to shit with the second game (Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Starcraft). Still despite second game often being mechnically the best in the series, I am still usually fond more of the first game, as it's the original game they took the risk of making, while the second game despite all the good things about it is still in the end merely just a sequel.

>This thread still isn't dead

Here's 2 dozen more. Pick any of them to fill the spots you hate from the previous list.

Phantasy Star IV
Mickey Mouse In: The Great Circus Mystery
World of Illusion
Star Ocean: The Second Story
Ecco: The Tides of Time
SonSon II
The Last Blade II
Battletoads & Double Dragon
Tomb Raider II
Gunbird 2
System Shock 2
Super Fantasy Zone
Noitu Love 2: Devolution
Herzog Zwei
Battlemania Daiginjou
House of the Dead 2
Demon's Crest
El Viento
MDK 2
Punch Out Wii
Final Fight 3
Dead or Alive 2
Tomba 2: The Evil Swine Return
Shantae and the Pirate's Curse

Attached: DieBitch.png (119x177, 34K)