Hitman series went pretty well though. First one was awesome, second one even better. The third one failed and the last hitman was great.
Yeah, I agree with about hitman.
Bloody money was great.
[QUOTE=edja007;16003671]RA3, fucking asian mecha robots.[/QUOTE]
That's not a good thing.
[QUOTE=FPSDars;16003217]Red Alert 3 was shit. Dumbed down, similar campaigns, and the whole fucking game was tailored specifically for horny 12 year olds.[/QUOTE]
Despite the fact we mainly like oppisite things, i agree, Red alert 2 is the best cnc game ever
[QUOTE=133753P34K;16003387]You left out the shitty sequel fallout 3 because it sucked.[/QUOTE]
Oh, it wasn't that bad. Sure the story wasn't good but it was still a fun game.
[QUOTE=FPSDars;16003217]Red Alert 3 was shit. Dumbed down, similar campaigns, and the whole fucking game was tailored specifically for horny 12 year olds.[/QUOTE]
Thank god. Red Alert 3 was a steaming pile of shit, holy crap I almost cried when I noticed how horrible my favorite series had turned.
People get used to originals I guess.
I really liked Red Alert 3. In fact i am currently playing it. But i found the co-commanding meh, and i hater the fact there is this new "hot chicks" bullshit.
Other than that is a good game. Not excellent, but good enough.
Also, people hate because they are too atached to the originals, but if it's something like, let's say, i really old game that is getting a sequel now, like Red Alert 3, don't put us with your hot chick bullshit. If you have a completely new game, don't just put on the box art a old, loved franschise name, create your own.
The problem is that you can't make a new game by using everything that was in the last one, otherwise it's just going to be stale shit. And if you try to reinvent it, even if you are successful, all the fanboys will go ape shit and cry about how it's not like the other ones, which automatically makes it bad somehow.
Good example: Fallout 3. Great game on it's own, but to the fanboys, it's terrible. Morons.
I swear to god, if I get end-of-page'd one more goddamn time-
[QUOTE=ryandaniels;16006190]The problem is that you can't make a new game by using everything that was in the last one, otherwise it's just going to be stale shit. And if you try to reinvent it, even if you are successful, all the fanboys will go ape shit and cry about how it's not like the other ones, which automatically makes it bad somehow.
Good example: Fallout 3. Great game on it's own, but to the fanboys, it's terrible. Morons.
I swear to god, if I get end-of-page'd one more goddamn time-[/QUOTE]
Completely true.
Of course not always true (Red Alert 3), but in 90% of the cases this is true. I played Fallout 1 and i was like "Hey, this is a really fun game!" then i played Fallout 3 and i was like "This is a excelent, really good game." even through it was completely different except for the setting. Fallout 3 is the only game with a RPG system i never got bored of leveling up. In all other RPGs i was like "Aw, damn boss fight, i better load a earlier save and train some more =/" in Fallout 3 i was like "Level up my picking skill? Awright, let's kill some deathclaws and loot some schools!"
Max Payne 1, done to a great standard.
Max Payne 2, it's up there with the first one.
Max Payne 3, judging by the storyline I have a feeling it's going to be like Stranglehold.
[QUOTE=Gmodpanda;16004112]I really liked Red Alert 3. In fact i am currently playing it. But i found the co-commanding meh, and i hater the fact there is this new "hot chicks" bullshit.
Other than that is a good game. Not excellent, but good enough.
Also, people hate because they are too atached to the originals, but if it's something like, let's say, i really old game that is getting a sequel now, like Red Alert 3, don't put us with your hot chick bullshit. If you have a completely new game, don't just put on the box art a old, loved franschise name, create your own.[/QUOTE]
Well, the downsides of RA3 is the actors, the fact that most female actors came from pornos(maybe), the storyline, the whole ore thing, that's kinda it. And the fact it was helping noobs more. Personally, good, unknown actors that are hired because they are good is better than shitty, famous actors hired because they are famous. Plus, the unknown ones have a chance to be in the sequel.
But, RA3 is indeed the worst of the 3, or 2 that I played. Namely, lets just say why doesn't the radar go out when power is low, and the fact the campaign is basically Soviets using time travel to screw shit up.
Sequels tend to suck, but some are okay. It depends on who created it, if its the same company, chances are the sequel is good. If however, it is a company like EA who has made the sequel, it has a higher chance of failing.
I have no problem with sequels, as long as their good as or better than the original.
I hate how there are so many sequels and so few new games. It seems like developers would rather just milk a franchise for all it's worth than take a risk on a new project.
[QUOTE=Tropicalv3;16003723]Yeah, I agree with about hitman.
Blood money was great.[/QUOTE]
Correct Version.
I really liked Metal gear Solid Series it was a success.
[QUOTE=Ginteru;16003193]Seriously, on almost every thread people moan about how the newest sequels screw up the franchise and stuff,
Like Red Alert 3, I liked it, with all the stuff and shit,
Or Far Cry 2, it's a great game, the only minus is the malaria crap,
Or Red Faction 2, never played it, but people tend to hate it,
And so goes on with the list...
So I came up with this little diagram:
1st game:Awesome to many people
2nd game:Shit or just ok
3rd game:People hate it
And so on,
Also, so what if they try new stuff? sequels are supposed to be sequels with new story, plot and enemies, not just remakes with better graphics
So, why exacly?[/QUOTE]
You're stupid.
Far Cry 2 was a terrible game. It had so much potential.
Your retarded little diagram is invalid.
Half-Life Series:
1st game: Fuckin' awesome
2nd game: Fuckin' awesome
Episodes: Fuckin' awesome (so far)
Halo Series:
1st game: Fuckin' awesome
2nd game: Fuckin' awesome
3rd game: Terrible
Team Fortress
1st game: Fuckin' awesome
2nd game: Fuckin' awesome
3rd game: Fuckin' awesome
(1st game was Team Fortress, second was TFC, third was TF2)
It depends on the developer, the game, the hype, everything. You are just stupid.
Oh durf hurf two games that ppl dont liek i c an obvious pattern guyz
[QUOTE=VvVEliminatorVvV;16008815]I really liked Metal gear Solid Series it was a success.[/QUOTE]
That's because Kojima knows what he's doing.
EA doesn't..
[QUOTE=Eskill;16009185]That's because Kojima knows what he's doing.
EA doesn't..[/QUOTE]
EA never knows what they are doing.
[QUOTE=K1ngo64;16009215]EA never knows what they are doing.[/QUOTE]
Hence why people hate their sequels.
[QUOTE=Ginteru;16003193]
Or Far Cry 2, [B]it's a great game[/B], the only minus is the malaria crap,
[/QUOTE]
Hahaha. Lol'd.
Thanks bro.
I think game sequels are better just as often as they're worse than their predecessors.
Mortal Kombat 3 > MK2 > MK1 (others are debatable)
Super Mario World > Super Mario Bros.
Half-life 2 > Half-life 1 (I think MOST people believe this)
God of War 2 > God of War 1
The GTA games have gotten better with each new game (portable installments may vary)
You run into trouble when a sequel takes too long to come out though. It gives time for the fans to develop nostalgia for the original game(s) and it also makes their expectations even higher for the sequels. For example, the Doom series. First two games, great, but the third one had mixed feelings from the fans since it was so different, and came close to 10 years later. Same case with the Fallout games. Fallout 3 came much later and was very different, so fans of the old games prefer the original games' style and didn't universally praise it.
The problem with most sequels is that they normally add or remove something that makes the game feel loose and unconnected.
For example, Red Faction's major selling point was that it was the first fully destructible FPS, which helped in both singleplayer AND multiplayer as an advancement tactic. New Red Faction games seem to take less advantage of this. Red Faction: Guerrilla completely ignores the fact that geomod wasn't made just to look awesome, and wastes it completely on buildings instead of making a fully-functional tactic out of digging through materials.
Tribes: Vengeance killed a series because it essentially dropped the learning curve, coding usability, and the "infinite map" system.
The Sims 3 and Left 4 Dead 2....well....are the same fucking game as their predecessors.
That's the basic reason for most games. However, there is always the possibility that people have high expectations which prominently drop once they view the game itself.
[QUOTE=s0m3_guy;16006995]Max Payne 1, done to a great standard.
Max Payne 2, it's up there with the first one.
Max Payne 3, judging by the storyline I have a feeling it's going to be like Stranglehold.[/QUOTE]
Come to think of it I really liked Stranglehold...
Dawn of War 2 sucked
Empire Earth 3 sucked
Starcraft 2 is going to suck (because of no LAN)
[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;16011115]Dawn of War 2 sucked
Empire Earth 3 sucked
Starcraft 2 is going so suck (because of no LAN)[/QUOTE]
Who the fuck uses lan these days anyway?
[QUOTE=OutOfExile;16003290]1st game: Great, new concept and wonderfully done.
2nd game: Gets a bit stale
3rd game: Either they try something new and totally fail or it's just terribly stale.
[i]Mostly[/i] this.[/QUOTE]
you're stale
[QUOTE=Kylel999;16008919]
Team Fortress
1st game: Fuckin' awesome
2nd game: Fuckin' [B]grenades everywhere I go.[/B]
3rd game: Fuckin' awesome
(1st game was Team Fortress, second was TFC, third was TF2)[/QUOTE]
One reason I don't play it as much.
[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;16011115]Dawn of War 2 sucked
Empire Earth 3 sucked
Starcraft 2 is going so suck (because of no LAN)[/QUOTE]
Yeah just because the game doesn't have a LAN feature it will totally suck when you play it online.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
