Game sequels that are better than the first game

[John Clark]

'Cannon Fodder 2' on the Commodore Amiga was widely ridiculed at the time for being a blatant level pack rather than a game in itself. Most people have forgotten it exists, while the original was widely ported to a variety of formats.

Strangely, in some cases a game sequel gets criticized for changing everything, whereas other game sequels are criticised for not changing enough. Gamers are fickle.

Looking at the shelf, I know I've got the Amiga version of Cannon Fodder 2 but I just don't remember it at all. (CF1 on the other hand I remember having fun with).

I'll have to give it a try. (There's probably a few amiga games I want to retry thinking about it)

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Expensive to make and even pricier to market. Freespace 2 was Interplay's big release for fall 1999 and it had the marketing and promotional budget to back it up ... and then it went over about as well as a wet fart in church, sales-wise. The game's face-plant led to panic across the industry -- EA freaked out and canceled Wing Commander 6 and Privateer 3, LucasArts went to the more Rogue Squadron-esque arcade shooters, Interplay itself stopped supporting the development of Klingon Academy, and so on.

This is very interesting, I had no idea FS2 was such a disaster. I thought it was regarded as the greatest of the space-sims. (Or at least, of the more action-oriented ones). But I guess that would help explain why the genre went so quiet in the 2000s.

I wonder what went wrong? Since it seemed to have that "world war 2 in outer space" style of gameplay, as seen in X-wing, Wing Commander etc, down to such a fine art.

You know, Timby mentions a big marketing push, and I know that's been the story of FS2 for as long as I can remember, but the information I can find seems to indicate it wasn't marketed worth a damn. Interplay did very little to promote it, especially compared to the first game--they didn't do anything to tap the fan base, didn't secure prominent shelf locations with retailers, and put up a very barebones promotional website. And this is for a game that was finished a month early, not something that went over budget or over time.

I don't think there was anything wrong with the game itself, and by all accounts it's a very good game with what was a stunning graphics engine for its time. It had the makings of a hit, but whether it was due to poor marketing, bad timing, or something else, it just didn't find a big enough audience in its launch window. There were a lot of space sims vying for consumer attention back then, so there was bound to be a high-profile failure. FS2 just ended up being it, for reasons that probably had little to do with its merits as a game.

 

[Timby]

Expensive to make and even pricier to market. Freespace 2 was Interplay's big release for fall 1999 and it had the marketing and promotional budget to back it up ... and then it went over about as well as a wet fart in church, sales-wise. The game's face-plant led to panic across the industry -- EA freaked out and canceled Wing Commander 6 and Privateer 3, LucasArts went to the more Rogue Squadron-esque arcade shooters, Interplay itself stopped supporting the development of Klingon Academy, and so on.

This is very interesting, I had no idea FS2 was such a disaster. I thought it was regarded as the greatest of the space-sims. (Or at least, of the more action-oriented ones). But I guess that would help explain why the genre went so quiet in the 2000s.

I wonder what went wrong? Since it seemed to have that "world war 2 in outer space" style of gameplay, as seen in X-wing, Wing Commander etc, down to such a fine art.

You know, Timby mentions a big marketing push, and I know that's been the story of FS2 for as long as I can remember, but the information I can find seems to indicate it wasn't marketed worth a damn. Interplay did very little to promote it, especially compared to the first game--they didn't do anything to tap the fan base, didn't secure prominent shelf locations with retailers, and put up a very barebones promotional website. And this is for a game that was finished a month early, not something that went over budget or over time.

I don't think there was anything wrong with the game itself, and by all accounts it's a very good game with what was a stunning graphics engine for its time. It had the makings of a hit, but whether it was due to poor marketing, bad timing, or something else, it just didn't find a big enough audience in its launch window. There were a lot of space sims vying for consumer attention back then, so there was bound to be a high-profile failure. FS2 just ended up being it, for reasons that probably had little to do with its merits as a game.

The big spend was on buying reviews (which Interplay didn't need to do, since the game was great, but then again Interplay wasn't being run by the smartest folks at that point in time). But there was also a bubble that was going to burst at some point; this was the time that specialized graphics cards had become part of the mainstream, and that was contributing to a decline in additional peripheral sales -- people just weren't buying joysticks and throttles in bulk anymore, and as a result they weren't buying really complex space or flight sims. Wing Commander Prophecy, which had a significantly reduced budget from Wing Commander IV, sold in the neighborhood of 700,000 copies, and that was seen as a massive disappointment by EA. For comparison's sake, Freespace 2 didn't even break 30,000 copies in its first six months. (A part of me wonders how much dropping the Descent name really affected things.)

 

[The Doctor]

Freespace 2 was so good, they remade the game from the ground campaign perspective and called it Mass Effect.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

This is very interesting, I had no idea FS2 was such a disaster. I thought it was regarded as the greatest of the space-sims. (Or at least, of the more action-oriented ones). But I guess that would help explain why the genre went so quiet in the 2000s.

I wonder what went wrong? Since it seemed to have that "world war 2 in outer space" style of gameplay, as seen in X-wing, Wing Commander etc, down to such a fine art.

You know, Timby mentions a big marketing push, and I know that's been the story of FS2 for as long as I can remember, but the information I can find seems to indicate it wasn't marketed worth a damn. Interplay did very little to promote it, especially compared to the first game--they didn't do anything to tap the fan base, didn't secure prominent shelf locations with retailers, and put up a very barebones promotional website. And this is for a game that was finished a month early, not something that went over budget or over time.

I don't think there was anything wrong with the game itself, and by all accounts it's a very good game with what was a stunning graphics engine for its time. It had the makings of a hit, but whether it was due to poor marketing, bad timing, or something else, it just didn't find a big enough audience in its launch window. There were a lot of space sims vying for consumer attention back then, so there was bound to be a high-profile failure. FS2 just ended up being it, for reasons that probably had little to do with its merits as a game.

The big spend was on buying reviews (which Interplay didn't need to do, since the game was great, but then again Interplay wasn't being run by the smartest folks at that point in time). But there was also a bubble that was going to burst at some point; this was the time that specialized graphics cards had become part of the mainstream, and that was contributing to a decline in additional peripheral sales -- people just weren't buying joysticks and throttles in bulk anymore, and as a result they weren't buying really complex space or flight sims. Wing Commander Prophecy, which had a significantly reduced budget from Wing Commander IV, sold in the neighborhood of 700,000 copies, and that was seen as a massive disappointment by EA. For comparison's sake, Freespace 2 didn't even break 30,000 copies in its first six months. (A part of me wonders how much dropping the Descent name really affected things.)

For what it's worth, Descent 3 came out about the same time, and it did pretty poorly despite good reviews, too.

I didn't know that about the review-buying. That's pretty sad.

 

[The Doctor]

I'm still mad at Interplay for never releasing Secret of Vulcan Fury.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Strangely, in some cases a game sequel gets criticized for changing everything, whereas other game sequels are criticised for not changing enough. Gamers are fickle.

I think it's more gamers want the core mechanics left intact but the experience to provide something interesting that the original didn't. That's why gamers responded negatively to Zelda 2 and positively to 3.

 

[Kelthaz]

It's because gamers aren't a monolithic entity. Some gamers don't like that the hypothetical sequel changed things, others liked the idea of changes but disliked the execution, and others were happy with the changes.

I for one think that Zelda 2 is a masterpiece. Sure, it's different from the other games in the franchise, but it's one of the best 2D action platformers on the NES.

 

[CorporalClegg]

How many series are there out there where the original actually is the best game in the series?

There are a few out there. You mentioned Contra and it was the first one I thought of. While Super C, Contra III, and Hard Corps are all fantastic games in their own right--adding new dimensions to the game play to keep things fresh--they just don't have that put-in-and-play simplicity of the original. It's just a fantastic way to kill 45 minutes.

I feel the same way about the original Castlevania. Speaking of, if we count the "Metroidvania" games as their own thing, then SOTN was heads and shoulders above all that followed.

Another original I think has that put-in-and-play charm is the fist Dragon Quest. Certainly each subsequent game added new ideas and the stories became more involved and all that, but there's just something about the sheer simplicity of it.

Now that I think of it, "the first is best" seems more common with RPGs. I've already noted up-thread that I've always preferred Chrono Cross to the original, but it's hard to deny it's probably one of the ten (if not five) best videogames of all time. It's a bona-fide masterpiece.

I think the first Xenosaga game was the best. The latter two, while still maintaining a high-level of story telling and music, they were underwhelming experiences overall. (The gameplay was just really terrible in both cases.) And if we can include Xenogears, then it's definitely the best.

I think Tales of Phantasia is still the best Tales games. The whole franchise has become so derivative and generic--especially with the current generation.

As much as Suikoden II & V are hailed, I still like the original the best. It, too, has that whole simplicity and charm thing working for it.

The Final Fantasy Tactics Advance games are pretty terrible. Some don't even considered them (or want to consider them) as part of the same series as the original.

Sqeenix's other TRPG series Front Mission also peaked with the first one. Though I hear the last one (actual game, not that silly spin-off) was quite good. But by the time that came out, I'd stopped importing, so I've never played it.

KOTOR is the definite winner there. I prefer the second's story, but overall the game is a mess--even with the "fixes." And despite the fact I spend most of my gaming time playing SWTOR these days, it's just not in the same league.

Neverwinter is another Bioware RPG game that spawned and awful sequel. And for what it's worth, I actually like the first Baldur's best (including IWD). I know I'm in the huge minority though.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I agree the recent Tales have become more generic but I think the PSX/PS2 era games are way better than Phantasia. Eternia, Symphonia, Rebirth. I haven't played the Destiny remake but I hear it's excellent. And Hearts R which I'm playing through now is the best Tales games I've played since Rebirth.

I suppose for RPGs 'The first is the best' is common in shorter series, but I find most RPG series peak in the late PSX/early PS2 era.

To me Growlansers 2-4 are much better than 1, 5, 6. I've only played Wild Arms 1 but everybody seems to point to 2 and 3 as the best. Star Oceans 2 and 3 are leagues better than 1. I haven't played SMT 1 and 2 but from word of mouth Nocturne is much better. I think Shadow Hearts: Covenant edges out the original. Later Ys games easily beat out the very early ones.

I haven't played many of the Paper Mario games but I suppose that's another case where consensus says the original is the best.

I do think Zelda 2 is a really good game, but it got pushback just for not being the same as the original whereas Link To The Past and Ocarina of Time were generally embraced by all the fans of the series.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

It's because gamers aren't a monolithic entity. Some gamers don't like that the hypothetical sequel changed things, others liked the idea of changes but disliked the execution, and others were happy with the changes.

I for one think that Zelda 2 is a masterpiece. Sure, it's different from the other games in the franchise, but it's one of the best 2D action platformers on the NES.

Over the years I've learned that Majora's Mask seems to be the most divisive Zelda title. People either love it or hate it, and it's certainly very different from the other Zelda games (including OOT, with which it shares an engine and not much else in terms of story and gameplay.)

 

[Kelthaz]

It's because gamers aren't a monolithic entity. Some gamers don't like that the hypothetical sequel changed things, others liked the idea of changes but disliked the execution, and others were happy with the changes.

I for one think that Zelda 2 is a masterpiece. Sure, it's different from the other games in the franchise, but it's one of the best 2D action platformers on the NES.

Over the years I've learned that Majora's Mask seems to be the most divisive Zelda title. People either love it or hate it, and it's certainly very different from the other Zelda games (including OOT, with which it shares an engine and not much else in terms of story and gameplay.)

It's either Majora's Mask or Zelda II. At the very least Majora's Mask plays like a Zelda game, but Zelda II goes one step further and switches genres to a brutally hard action platformer. I for one love both games, but there's many who disagree with that.

 

[Lance]

I'm a big fan of Zelda II, mainly because it was the game through which I was originally introduced to the franchise (I owned it on NES, and I never played the first game until many, many years later). When I played A Link To The Past on SNES, the 'normal' Zelda gameplay took a lot of getting used to!