The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I have played many games and i was wondering what u lot think, r the sequeals better than the original i mean in movies it is normally not the case but we are here to talk about games and i think most RPG's get better like Zelda and possible FF in some ways but others like MGS, is MGS2 better? i think yes after playing the demo and i fink everyone will agree GTA and GT have got alot better! does ne1 disagree as in my mind i think sequeals are normally a whole lot better not graphics wise but gameplay!
I have played many games and i was wondering what u lot think, r the sequeals better than the original i mean in movies it is normally not the case but we are here to talk about games and i think most RPG's get better like Zelda and possible FF in some ways but others like MGS, is MGS2 better? i think yes after playing the demo and i fink everyone will agree GTA and GT have got alot better! does ne1 disagree as in my mind i think sequeals are normally a whole lot better not graphics wise but gameplay!
hmmmmm i dunno on a whole sequels are better but you got t remember as the games are developing the consoles are too so its all depends on the years if it is like a release with the first 1 and the second one of the game it ma not be all that good b/c of the console MGS AND MGS2 are on differeent consoles
It depends whether the game is an actual improvement on the first one (MGS2) or just a graphical update (FIFA)
It varies - Wipeout to Wipeout 2097 yes then to Wip3out no to Fusion - dont know, only played the demo so far. This might be controversial but GT2 to GT3 - Graphically yes - gameplay not at all. Tomb raider ? Crash Bandicoot - probably would have got better as each new one came out but then naughty dog sold out and the latest is no improvement but has them awful loading times. Had naughty dog continued then Jak and Daxter would be Crash 5 and it would be a big improvement over Crash 3. Fifa ? a few name changes and slightly improved graphics - same gameplay.
GTA2 - GTA3 - now thats the way sequels should be done - keep the core elements that are good and change it radically somehow.
Army men - great - new game issued - new game for the bargain bin - total waste of time issuing them.
Basically I think developers should use the example of games like GTA3 and give the gamers something new with sequels if they want us to keep going back to them.
GTA2 - GTA3 - now thats the way sequels should be done - keep the core elements that are good and change it radically somehow.
Army men - great - new game issued - new game for the bargain bin - total waste of time issuing them.
Basically I think developers should use the example of games like GTA3 and give the gamers something new with sequels if they want us to keep going back to them.
Sequels. What are they? In some cases in the computer games industry, it means a game based on its predecessor and offers an extension to a plot, or in sports games updated stats and the odd new feature. And in other cases, it’s a second game to a series which offers more to the plot, or updated stats, but contains lots of extra features, new ideas within the game (often sometimes a whole new engine, completely changing what is capable) and often better graphics. These games also iron out any little problems the games before had. Every week a new sequel is released. The thing is, do we mind?
It’s a game series such a Tomb Raider that give sequels a bad name. Here, the first game was very good indeed, an offered a whole new gaming experience which instantly got every one hooked with Lara Croft. A year after release, the second game came out in the series, again, the game was good and sold millions of copies. By this time, Eidos knew they were on to something big that brought in lots of money. And so there we had it, three more games followed which were equally as boring as each other. Very little was added into each instalment other than a plot change and a new viechle here and there. However, those Lara freaks out there, only interested in one thing…well two actually, flocked in there numbers and bought the games. This has been the case for many games, such as the Fifa series. Here, every year all that was bettered were the graphics, updated stats and the odd new power bar. There are also many other games series than these examples.
But not all sequels are like this. Yes it may be a typical example, but the ISS series has always been improved with every new release, with the exception of the ISS 2000 on PS2. Here the game play was always improved, it was always made more realistic with extra features added. The graphics were always improved and stats updated. Not just on PS1, N64 also had a decent ISS over there. The Mario games too always offer something different, and come across many genres from platform games to carting games. But this too had a bad effect. Mario spawned off many games all along the same line, such as Banjo and other Mario games. These were all good, enjoyable games, but were all on the same line, and it was felt, by me anyway, there were too many games along this genre.
Many have critised Sony for being too un-original, and that the console had too many sequels and not enough original games. However, in my opinion, the majority of these games are ones following previous quality games from either PS1, or successful games already released on PS2. Such as the ISS series, known as Pro Evo Soccer, Resident Evil, GTA3,GT 3 Silent Hill 2, MGS 2, Tekken 4, SSX tricky, and more. But looking at these games you can see there is a lot being put into these to make them good, and better than previous games. Being a PS2 owner, I like new, original games, as any one does with there console. But that does not mean I don’t want the sequels. I love being able to play a game genre such as GTA improved, and now the new one is in full 3D. Do we really mind having a large number of sequels when they look and play as good as they do? I certainly don’t.
But then remember, there are too a lot of original games coming to PS2, DMC, Jack and Dax, Herdy Gerdy, Burnout and many more. We are getting our fair share of originals, as we are sequels, but when the games are this good, does that matter.?
Thats what i thought anyway.
It’s a game series such a Tomb Raider that give sequels a bad name. Here, the first game was very good indeed, an offered a whole new gaming experience which instantly got every one hooked with Lara Croft. A year after release, the second game came out in the series, again, the game was good and sold millions of copies. By this time, Eidos knew they were on to something big that brought in lots of money. And so there we had it, three more games followed which were equally as boring as each other. Very little was added into each instalment other than a plot change and a new viechle here and there. However, those Lara freaks out there, only interested in one thing…well two actually, flocked in there numbers and bought the games. This has been the case for many games, such as the Fifa series. Here, every year all that was bettered were the graphics, updated stats and the odd new power bar. There are also many other games series than these examples.
But not all sequels are like this. Yes it may be a typical example, but the ISS series has always been improved with every new release, with the exception of the ISS 2000 on PS2. Here the game play was always improved, it was always made more realistic with extra features added. The graphics were always improved and stats updated. Not just on PS1, N64 also had a decent ISS over there. The Mario games too always offer something different, and come across many genres from platform games to carting games. But this too had a bad effect. Mario spawned off many games all along the same line, such as Banjo and other Mario games. These were all good, enjoyable games, but were all on the same line, and it was felt, by me anyway, there were too many games along this genre.
Many have critised Sony for being too un-original, and that the console had too many sequels and not enough original games. However, in my opinion, the majority of these games are ones following previous quality games from either PS1, or successful games already released on PS2. Such as the ISS series, known as Pro Evo Soccer, Resident Evil, GTA3,GT 3 Silent Hill 2, MGS 2, Tekken 4, SSX tricky, and more. But looking at these games you can see there is a lot being put into these to make them good, and better than previous games. Being a PS2 owner, I like new, original games, as any one does with there console. But that does not mean I don’t want the sequels. I love being able to play a game genre such as GTA improved, and now the new one is in full 3D. Do we really mind having a large number of sequels when they look and play as good as they do? I certainly don’t.
But then remember, there are too a lot of original games coming to PS2, DMC, Jack and Dax, Herdy Gerdy, Burnout and many more. We are getting our fair share of originals, as we are sequels, but when the games are this good, does that matter.?
Thats what i thought anyway.
Thing is, if the license of the game is good and thr first game brought the developers loads of cash, they are hardly going to change the formula and make the gameplay different for example. So developers dont realkly bother to change anything for the sequel and that goes on. Look at FIFA. At first it seemed like the only footie game you ever needed. It had everything-great ganeplay, a proper license, loads of competitions etc. But the novelty wore off after a few instalments. And it always will with sequels, unless they are made different to its predecessors.
Think GTA3. Everyone knew that GTA series had a rather niche audience and the developers wanted it to appeal to a wider range of gamers. And boy they did that brillaintly.#
SO as long as sequels are innovative and offer a lot of incentive to come back to them, the gaming world should prosper
Think GTA3. Everyone knew that GTA series had a rather niche audience and the developers wanted it to appeal to a wider range of gamers. And boy they did that brillaintly.#
SO as long as sequels are innovative and offer a lot of incentive to come back to them, the gaming world should prosper
That would be because the FF games are always different. The fighting system is always enhanced, the magic/materia thing is different, you have a different story, characters etc.
Thats what makes a great game
Thats what makes a great game
The thing with sequels is that you must have a very new idea each time you make one before you start or it is already buggered. For example. Turok...1 = Great!....2 = Ok...3 = Balls. Evolution? Dunno. But on the other hand, the completely different FF series, some consider them not to even be sequels (previous post). Personally, its what the developer makes of makes of a sequel that i find defines its. So far, Square has succeeded evey time. Some would say Insomniac has suceeded. Nintendo has succeeded every time. As I said, Iguana have not. And if the sequel seems to be good, u still cant be sure until its played
The verdict? - sequels = good
The verdict? - sequels = good