Printable View
Opposite of the sequels thread, which game series got it perfect the first time and never recaptured that glory with further installments?
I hear Bioshock tossed around on this one but I've never played it. Same with Dragon Age.
I honestly can't think of a game series I played where I didn't find ANY of the sequels better than the original.
Dragon Age by far. The story was so much better and the gameplay too. Although I know there's some that'll disagree with me on gameplay.
Mario 1 was definitely better than 2.
Ghost Recon and all it's expansions are better than the Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter series. Haven't played the most recent game in the series so I'm not sure about that.
I'd say that Valkyria Chronicles 1 is better than 2 simply because it was on a console instead of handheld. :x Never actually played 2 so no idea how it is story/gameplay-wise.
Kingdom Hearts 1
Dino Crisis 1
Portal
Deus Ex
You should play Dragon Age: Origins. The ultimate edition's like twenty bucks now. I think you'll like it.
Off the top of my head:
Portal
Chrono Trigger
Valkyrie Profile
Perfect Dark
Katamari Damacy
God of War
???????
NiGHTS. Definitely.
Chrono Trigger! That's a good one. I also forget Perfect Dark had a sequel and that's a good example too.
I'm playing God of War III and so far I think it's better than the first two. I also think Portal 2 pretty much blew Portal 1 out of the water in terms of gameplay. Maybe story of Portal 2 isn't as good and the innovation isn't as profound since it is a sequel, but I thought it was an overall better game.
Not really the same. What I am is asking is for games where the original was better than all sequels, not just the immediate sequel. So if you want to say Mario 1 was the best Mario then you are saying it is also better than Mario 3, Mario World, Mario 64, etc. which I hope no one actually thinks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cim
I just came up with another great one. Tetris. No matter how many times Nintendo tries to improve it they cannot beat the original game.
wow. really? poor subject matter.
Honestly, what game hasn't there been where the sequels were not considered better. If the original game was so good it warranted a sequel, what are the odds honestly that the sequel would live up? The most common sequels to outrate the originals are those made of games that weren't originally all that good but decided to make the sequel anyway for whatever reason. Those were good days. They don't really do that much anymore.
Metal Gear Solid came to mind but then I realized this wasn't the first Metal Gear at all. This is a tough question!
Edit: Oh wait, Driver of course.
Attachment 38025
Dragon Age: Origins, of course. While I think Mass Effect 2 was technically better, I very much preferred the first. Halo: CE. Perfect Dark.
There was a 2nd Perfect Dark? I kid I kid.
I can't actually speak on that because I never played the sequel. Out of all the franchises I've played I can't think of a single one where the original was the best.
I have fonder memories of Super Mario Kart than I do of Double Dash and the Wii version, but Double Dash was a good game and I had spent way less time with it than Super Mario Kart because I was playing it on someone else's console. Double Dash might've been better.
I completely forgot Perfect Dark had a sequel. Yeah, I'd say the game which was better than Goldeneye and set the bar for console multiplayer in terms of options qualifies with such a mediocre sequel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
I would actually fall in the God of War was better than the sequels camp I think. The gameplay definitely became more polished in 2 and 3, but I think the pacing and story of the first more than make up for it. In the first game, while Kratos was still an ultra-violent dick, he was more sympathetic than in the later games, and the plot and his development, in particular the twist at the end, felt much more in line with the feel of greek mythology and being something of a tragedy. The later games really never captured that for me.Quote:
I'm playing God of War III and so far I think it's better than the first two.
I liked the new game mechanics Portal 2 introduced, and I actually did like the story as well, but I do think Portal was slightly better. And not because it innovated as much as it did. I mean, that was impressive, but even ignoring that, it was a game which gave you a few simple game mechanics, mixed them as perfectly as I could imagine any game doing, and topped it off with the closest thing to perfect pacing I've ever seen in a game. The game never feels like it's dragging on, never feels like it's repeating itself, or getting you to perform tedious and obvious tasks for the sake of it, even when it's simply teaching you the basics. The entire journey is one of discovery and the careful and thoughtful application of the players explorations of the mechanics.Quote:
I also think Portal 2 pretty much blew Portal 1 out of the water in terms of gameplay. Maybe story of Portal 2 isn't as good and the innovation isn't as profound since it is a sequel, but I thought it was an overall better game.
And, perhaps the biggest thing for me, I think Portal 2 occasionally devolved into a case of find the one white patch where you need to throw a Portal to advance. Granted, the original sometimes had puzzles with one solution that works (or one solution that 99% of people will find and some game breaking thing most people never see), but they usually did a better job of letting the player experiment to find it. Now, it's not all of Portal 2 that's like that by any stretch, just a moment here and there, but it plays a big part in why I felt that every moment in Portal just felt so much better. It just seemed to do a lot more to push the player to experiment. Something I don't think was as much the case. And maybe it's just me, but being made to basically undergo another tutorial of sorts for the various gels midway through the game is a bit weird after being basically cut loose in the facility part way through. It's almost like starting a new game half way through. I know why it has to happen that way of course, and I'm not saying it's not still fun of course. It just means that this brilliant structure that Portal had where it constantly builds on what came before from the moment you step out of the bed chamber doesn't happen as smoothly in Portal 2 if I've made any sense.
Now for the really weird part, I think I would say I like Portal 2 more overall because I love the new mechanics and I'm a bit of a gameplay whore, but if we're talking which is the better experience overall from start to finish, I think I have to admit that Portal wins by simply being as close to perfect as I think I'll ever see a game come.
Anyway, as for some others, I think I'll have to agree with Crop about Kingdom Hearts and Dino Crisis. Couldn't stand Dino Crisis 2, and granted, I've only played Kingdom Hearts 1 & 2, but KH2 was a pretty terrible sequel in a lot of ways. Developers would do well to not assume all of their players to have knowledge of events that occurred in spin-off title on a handheld console that takes place between two numbered entries on the same home console. I have never been as confused trying to figure out what the hell I was going on in a game simply because I didn't own a GBA at the time.
EDIT: I post and then see while I was typing that Depression Moon brings up Mario Kart. I'll admit that I'm a bit torn between deciding whether or not Mario Kart is better than MK64, so I'll go the cop out route and call them a tie. Aside from those, I've played every console iteration and the DS version, and I don't think I'd call any of them better than the original. MKDS comes closest to being as good, but Double Dash and MKWii are both terrible games.
Mass Effect.
Mario Kart 64 was the best Mario Kart. I'm surprised people prefer the original to it!
One word: Feather.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
Two words: Suck it.
Definitely agree with everyone who has said Perfect Dark. Far and away one of my favourite FPS games the sequel felt so run of the mill.
BioShock and Mass Effect I preferred the originals, but can appreciate the changes made in the sequels.
The 64 Mario Kart was the only one I never played.
I liked Maximo: Ghosts to Glory better than Maximo vs. The Army of Zin. Both were great but something about the original captivated me more.
I can't think of many games where I loved the original and the sequel sucked, but here are some that could be seen that way...
1. Duke Nukem. Sure, Duke 3D was nice and all, but I still believe none of the games are as good as the first one.
2. Excelsior. Oh, forget it, if you aren't Levian then you won't understand. ;_;
3. Mass Effect. I don't think the sequels sucked, but outside of inventory management I don't feel they really added much and I really miss roaming around random worlds on the buggy thing. That was always fun for me and a great source of extra cash.
Also, while not exactly originals...
1. Morrowind was better than Oblivion
2. Final Fantasy VII is better than Crisis Core and I'm told Crisis Core is the best of the prequel/sequels in the VII compilation.
3. Uncharted 2 is better than Uncharted 3... although not by much. ;)
If it's so common maybe you could share a couple? Cause I really can't think of many.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercen-X
God of War is interesting. GoWIII has the best gameplay and maybe the best art design I've seen in any game, but I think GoWII had the best story. Still, the first game is probably the best paced, by the virtue of David Jaffe being a better game designer than his proteges.
This technically isn't "the first," but EA's 2006 The Godfather was a lot better than the follow-up. The second one was a competent open world mafia game with a lot of cool mechanics, but it just doesn't live up to the perfect capturing of Coppola's 1940s New York, putting you in the story in subtle, ingenious ways and even including things from the book that the movie didn't have. It's like we have this great book, a timeless film, and a very solid video game all representing the same wonderful story and you just can't top that.
This is a huge mistake and you really owe it to yourself to remedy it. Valkyria Chronicles 2 is so good. It's been a few years since I beat the first, but when I beat the second game I really had to question whether or not it was better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Futan
Act Raiser
Mystical Ninja (but Mystical Ninja: Starring Goemon was a really good game, too)
Medievil (but Medievil 2 was a really good game, too)
Civilization
I'm tempted to mention Silent Hill, but Silent Hill 2 is pretty damn good. Can't make up a favorite.
Star Wars Battlefront
Deus Ex
(SPOILER)The Sims
Deus Ex and Valkyria Chronicles are seconded.
Final Fantasy Tactics.
Eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by BolivarIf it's so common maybe you could share a couple? Cause I really can't think of many.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercen-X
Is there a single title on this list for which the original was not that good and yet the sequel was somehow worse? That was the point I was trying to make, FYI.
But have you played both?Quote:
Originally Posted by Laddy
Yeah, I like my PSP. :colbert:Quote:
Originally Posted by BolivarBut have you played both?Quote:
Originally Posted by Laddy
Wild ARMS comes to mind, largely cause they balanced the characters out really well whereas the sequels always made it so one character was a crutch character and the rest of the party was backup. While Wild ARMS 2nd Ignition brought in some cool ideas and has better writing, I still feel WA1 had a better story cast, and overall design.
I would probably second Final Fantasy Tactics, while I did have fun with the TA series, I have issues with both games pacing and gameplay, and while Tactics isn't exactly perfect in these departments either, I can live with how they did it whereas I find TA1 and 2 to be very grating. TA1 has a great story but I don't feel it hits as many points as Tactics and I felt Tactics had a more profound ending. TA2's main story is the game's main weakness.
Beyond that, this is pretty tough, I'm sure I could think of a few if I thought of lesser titles where the sequels were quick cash-ins and largely just felt like extensions of the first game, but actual legitimate sequels is a bit harder. I can think of a few games where the second or third entry in a series that goes into double digit sequels often is the best entry and beats every thing after it.
I think this may be easier to find in modern games than classics. It's very common these days for sequels to be dumbed down once the original is successful.
In story only, I'd say the original Mass Effect is the best. And there are people out there that would say the original is overall best.
Never played the second but some people say the original Crysis is best.
I found the entire party in Wild ARMs 3 to be very useful and integral to things. Granted, Gallows was a bit trout the further you got into the game, but unless you're just nailing Clive with Valiant, his damage output isn't that much better than Jet's and Jet has the advantage of being much faster. Though I will say that Lock On is far better than Accelerator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
Clive does hit harder than Jet and his gun has better accuracy than Jet's (main weakness) meaning he's still largely the bruiser whereas Jet misses a lot unless you spend precious resources to raise his accuracy whereas Clive can ignore it with Lock On and just raise his damage far more than all the other party members. Hell he can eventually do so much damage that you don't even need to raise his ammo either so it all goes to damage. So yeah, I'm going to disagree that Clive isn't the main fighter in your party due to his Force ability kind of being bulltrout. The other issue here is that Guardians are not as balanced as they should be so I often felt that whoever had certain Guardians equipped were largely more useful than the others.Quote:
Originally Posted by JiroI found the entire party in Wild ARMs 3 to be very useful and integral to things. Granted, Gallows was a bit trout the further you got into the game, but unless you're just nailing Clive with Valiant, his damage output isn't that much better than Jet's and Jet has the advantage of being much faster. Though I will say that Lock On is far better than Accelerator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
COMMANDER KEEN. Although Keen 6 wasn't too bad.
Oh man, that game was awesome. Pogostick away!
>>> Whaat?! so KH doesnt get any better than that?.. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crop
I was right when I decided to never touch those games anymore..
>>> Surpassing the original Valkyrie Profile seems unlikely to me..:luca:
The Legend of Zelda is the most perfect example that I can think of.
Ugh yeah, that's right. I forgot Jet's surprisingly poor HIT. I usually have him being pretty useful but those times when he straight up misses just piss me off xDQuote:
Originally Posted by Wolf KannoClive does hit harder than Jet and his gun has better accuracy than Jet's (main weakness) meaning he's still largely the bruiser whereas Jet misses a lot unless you spend precious resources to raise his accuracy whereas Clive can ignore it with Lock On and just raise his damage far more than all the other party members. Hell he can eventually do so much damage that you don't even need to raise his ammo either so it all goes to damage. So yeah, I'm going to disagree that Clive isn't the main fighter in your party due to his Force ability kind of being bulltrout. The other issue here is that Guardians are not as balanced as they should be so I often felt that whoever had certain Guardians equipped were largely more useful than the others.Quote:
Originally Posted by JiroI found the entire party in Wild ARMs 3 to be very useful and integral to things. Granted, Gallows was a bit trout the further you got into the game, but unless you're just nailing Clive with Valiant, his damage output isn't that much better than Jet's and Jet has the advantage of being much faster. Though I will say that Lock On is far better than Accelerator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
Final Fantasy
The original WO was the best WO.
Ok, the first two tie, but the third one sucks balls and then tries to make out with you.
Bioshock 1 was better than 2.
I don't think it counts, but the first good Dynasty warriors game (4) was the best dynasty warriors game.
The original Jak and Daxter was the best one.
I think it's really hard to even compare J&D to Jak 2/3. They're so incredibly different. J&D is definitely one of my fave platformers ever though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypoallergenic Cactuar
I agree with Vivi on the Mario Kart issue. Mario Kart 64 was an excellent game as was Double Dash. A couple of the handheld games are also excellent.
Super Mario Kart still has the edge though in terms of fun, control and playability. It will not be surpassed! The blue shell is the worst thing to ever happen to the series.
Sticking with old school games... the original Pilotwings was never bettered.
Yes. Dragon Age 2 could use some work. A lot of work. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Futan
I will second this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
I would almost agree too.... but Mass Effect 2 & 3 were so dang good! I find it really hard to decide which one I like of the 3 and it sort of alternates depending on my mood (Hot take, but I even enjoyed Andromeda almost as much too). The first one is probably objectively the best as it acts as a standalone story without any ties but a case can be made for all three for different reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf KannoI will second this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
My vote is for the original Tomb Raider of the Core series (1 through to Angel of Darkness). TR1 is unmatched by the rest of the Core entries for me. TR2 comes close but nothing beats out how good the original is.
The original is the best game in the vast majority of game series. There are not many exceptions really.
Been thinking about this and among the games I play I find it to be exceedingly rare for the original to be the best in the series.
To be fair, there's a lot of games where I simply never played/experienced the original, even if I'm fairly confindent they wouldn't end up topping their successors; Warcraft 3, Starcraft 2, Diablo 2, SMT 3: Nocturne, Persona 3, Touhou 7, Dynasty Warriors 4, Civilization 4, Metal Gear Solid 3, Zone of the Enders 2, NieR:Automata, .hack://G.U., and even Final Fantasy X all fall under that.
Meanwhile some other series where I did play the originals and sequels that surpass them: Crash Bandicoot 2, Tekken 4, Valkyria Chronicles 4, Ys VIII, Trails of Cold Steel 2, Umineko When They Cry, Super Mario World, The Great Ace Attorney 2, Danganronpa V3, Zero Escape: Zero Time Dilemma.
I guess if you squint, Fate/Stay Night is the best in the Fate franchise although it's mostly a franchise of spin-offs rather than sequels. Really this question has made me realize just how rare it is I follow a series through entirely if I jump late on what is generally considered to be their better games.
Thought of another one. Lunar Silver Star Story. Now don't get me wrong. Eternal Blue is a good game but it just feels like it's lacking something from the first game.
Controversial choice, but Mega Man X comes to mind. The sequels are strong, but I don't think another entry had such a good selection of bosses and stages overall. You can tell the development team were going out of their way to make it special. The later titles may have some aspects that are better than MMX1, but I feel you would be hard pressed to find an entry that is strong in every category that MMX1 was.
Xenosaga is another where I feel the first game in the series is probably the best entry. The sequels always have some issue with them and most of the spin-off stuff never got official releases.