sequels

[greenblur7]

the dreded 2nd sequel it strikes terror into my heart horrible horrible. the 2nd sequel is the worst thing in all of gaming. but there is a up side belive it or not.............. the 3rd. the 3rd sequel to just about any game, is a game made for the gods all ways. the second sequels remove fetures like in starwars battlefront they had squad commands. but in the 2nd they took away 2 of them. they have yet to make a 3 for a plausable system, (such as ps3 xbox wiii ps2) but they mad one for a ds (i have one but i never get any game that you can get on the ds and also on a plausable system)

sorry if there are any spelling errors i didn't really double check

[xscoot]

Not always true. The sequel to MGS was a gift from God, except for the naked Raiden scene, unless you are a girl or a guy that just happens to swing that way...

[iMini]

3rd: Milking it dry. Innovation stops, rehash of the previous games, hyped to an extent not yet seen for the franchise, people get caught up in it. Fanboys hail it as the holy grail, people with heads on their shoulders see it for what it is.

Might I just add to this... GTA III... RE 3... CoD 3... DoA 3... Burnout 3... Etc...

[dajudge]

Example from Devil may cry:

1st-Absolute God-send
2nd-No series should have a sequel this bad.
3rd:MAJOR improvement.
4th: apparantly a downgrade but probably playable (I only played the first 2 Nero levels at a friends house)

MGS follows this pattern to a certain extent.

[greenblur7]

has any one here accually read the entire thing. can some one give me an example of a 2nd sequel taking away fetures and then the third giving it back and more
sorry again if i spelled rong

[greenblur7]

any one listening hello aghhghghghghghghggh *choking on anger*

[TheJamoke]

At 5/30/08 12:28 PM, greenblur7 wrote:

I'm really not sure how you arrived at such a conclusion in your op (and simply slapping the smilely with shades on it makes it no more true,) but there are pleanty of games that beat your reasonig, many have been mentioned in this thread.

In terms of games where the second(technically the first sequal) took things away that the thir...

oh, wait a minute...

greenblur7
Age/Gender: n/a, male

userpic: Super Smash Bros. Brawl Wii cover

blog: about Runescape

Dammit, why do I always get suckered in to wasting my time trying to have a rational conversation with an 11 year-old?!

[greenblur7]

At 5/31/08 04:48 PM, THEJamoke wrote:
greenblur7
Age/Gender: n/a, male

userpic: Super Smash Bros. Brawl Wii cover

blog: about Runescape

Dammit, why do I always get suckered in to wasting my time trying to have a rational conversation with an 11 year-old?!

man why am i always dissed by 48 year olds that live in their mothers basement i think its just bad luck :-p

[Lockout]

Well nintendo, the king of sequels, have shown us that at random intervals sequels are great.

[giantpanda]

At 5/28/08 04:21 PM, H-A-X-O-R-Z wrote:

Might I just add to this... GTA III... RE 3... CoD 3... DoA 3... Burnout 3... Etc...

Jak 3, There are always exceptions to general rules.....

[Gustavos]

Wrong, Spiderman 2 the game kicked ass, and was God in comparison to the third game. Paper Mario 2 was ever so slightly better than the first, but the third was bullshit in so many ways.

That's all that comes to my mind right now.

[greenblur7]

can some one TRY to prove me right i just want 1 example please just one

[Jerkapotamus]

At 5/28/08 03:53 PM, xscoot wrote: Not always true. The sequel to MGS was a gift from God, except for the naked Raiden scene, unless you are a girl or a guy that just happens to swing that way...

No, MGS2 was a god send except for the dialogue between Raiden and Rose. The naked scene was one of the most epicly amazing hilarious sequences in gaming ever.

[Dr-Worm]

How come I'm only the second person who's noticed this: "2nd sequel" technically means third game. "3rd sequel" means fourth game. C'mon, Newgrounds, I expect better grammar Nazism from you.

Anyway, I think that when it comes to sequels in games, there's really no true pattern. It's not like the film industry, where each consecutive sequel is almost guaranteed to be worse than the last. Some franchises only get better with each successive installment (GTA, Prince of Persia, etc.). Some start out with high quality in the first installment or two and then take a massive, nonstop nosedive (Sonic, Mario Party, the 007 license). Others have a sort of mountain range effect caused by Activision trying to trick you into buying fake franchise installments (seriously people: buy even-numbered CoDs only. Nobody can stop this evil practice but us).

Many franchises have pretty stable levels of quality from installment to installment (and "stable" can be either good or bad), often at the expense of significant innovation (classic Nintendo franchises, licensed sports games, Halo, God of War, MGS, the list goes on and on). Others still are just completely unpredictable roller-coaster spikes and dips in quality (such as Devil May Cry, the only example I can think of that actually fits the OP's "rule").

[aquaticmole]

At 5/28/08 03:53 PM, xscoot wrote: the naked Raiden scene,

Theres a naked raiden scene? Now I want to play the game.

[SniperWolf1564]

At 5/31/08 07:40 PM, greenblur7 wrote: man why am i always dissed by 48 year olds that live in their mothers basement i think its just bad luck :-p

Because you are 11, and you should not be here.

[7794]

MGS follows this pattern to a certain extent.

No, first of all in 4 there is all this new shit in the game which blows up your explanation.

I Win, and you just somehow don't lose or win.