Sequels that could be...

Melbosa · January 17, 2007, 07:58:44 AM

VE3D has a nice little put together of games that should have sequels. Some classics in the list for sure:

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/755/755782p1.html

Lazybones · January 17, 2007, 09:22:44 AM

Honestly, I prefer when NEW games come out all together.. In most cases a version 2 is all I want at most, once you get into 3 + things start to get old hat.

Shayne · January 17, 2007, 09:36:57 AM

Oh their list, I really only have a desire to see "Fallout 3" & "Half Life 3" (doent need to be a 3, just keep doing episodes and make the engine better as they go). Starcraft 2 potentially, but as pure RTS goes Company of Heroes set the bar pretty high.

I will agree with Lazy on the NEW franchises. Their are a few that I would give exceptions too of course. Like...Halo

Lazybones · January 17, 2007, 09:53:20 AM

Just to clarify, I would rather have Gears of War than Unreal 3. It is just more interesting.. Let the Engine demo (Unreal / Quake) be what it is, and then enjoy a real new experience built with the engine.

Never understood how the Quake series remained so popular. Nor the draw to the new doom.

Shayne · January 17, 2007, 10:35:21 AM

Yet here you are playing Zelda #7 (or larger im sure). If its a franchise that you enjoy and they keep it feeling fresh with a new engine, continued story, enhanced gameplay, etc, why not have it keep going.

I would love to see a Freespace 3, KotOR 3

Shayne · January 17, 2007, 10:36:33 AM

Wiki says that the Wii Zelda is #14

Lazybones · January 17, 2007, 10:46:03 AM

Quote from: Shayne on January 17, 2007, 10:36:33 AM
Wiki says that the Wii Zelda is #14

You got me there.

Tom · January 18, 2007, 03:46:19 AM

Though it seems the Zelda story continues through all of the games. how many games to date have had a 14+ game long plot that has kept people interested over 20+ years? I'd say Zelda is pretty uniqe in that respect.

Shayne · January 18, 2007, 08:43:35 AM

I guess it "sort of does", doing some quick research on the Wind Waker game and it says "Set hundreds of years after the events of Ocarina of Time". Also with a "continued plot" the way Tom says it is, does this mean that a person who plays the latests Zelda is lost? Is previous plot information important? Is story elements from previous moved forward and continued? If I recall he basically has the same enemy but each adventure is new. Its like Mario and Bowser (shall we discuss how unoriginal and massive sequeled this game is too?)

Lazybones · January 18, 2007, 09:21:49 AM

Quote from: Shayne on January 18, 2007, 08:43:35 AM
I guess it "sort of does", doing some quick research on the Wind Waker game and it says "Set hundreds of years after the events of Ocarina of Time". Also with a "continued plot" the way Tom says it is, does this mean that a person who plays the latests Zelda is lost? Is previous plot information important? Is story elements from previous moved forward and continued? If I recall he basically has the same enemy but each adventure is new. Its like Mario and Bowser (shall we discuss how unoriginal and massive sequeled this game is too?)

Although there is a time line (or two that jumps back and forth) each Zelda game stands on its own, you don't need to know the rest to enjoy the game.

As for the sequels issue maybe there are several exceptions.. but when ever I think about it there seem to be more bad sequels than good.

Mr. Analog · January 18, 2007, 09:34:58 AM

It's a mixed issue to be sure, some sequels keep improving the quality of some games.

Fighting Street (aka Street Fighter I) was really quite terrible, but most of the Street Fighter sequels (up to SFA: 3) always improved on the game and made it more challenging and more fun to play.

Lazybones · January 18, 2007, 10:13:32 AM

Quote from: Mr. Analog on January 18, 2007, 09:34:58 AM
It's a mixed issue to be sure, some sequels keep improving the quality of some games.

Fighting Street (aka Street Fighter I) was really quite terrible, but most of the Street Fighter sequels (up to SFA: 3) always improved on the game and made it more challenging and more fun to play.

OK, well that is a case of the first game being so so, and the sequel fixing the issues.

Shayne · January 18, 2007, 10:25:31 AM

Quote from: Lazybones on January 18, 2007, 09:21:49 AMAlthough there is a time line (or two that jumps back and forth) each Zelda game stands on its own, you don't need to know the rest to enjoy the game.

Thats what I figured.

I don't really have any examples of games that got better as they go along. Sure you can say PGR or Grand Turismo, but to pick sports games is cheating (no competition in NFL has allowed Madden to get progressively worse). You could argue Half-Life 2, but the story in HL1 was better, Halo 2 was probably better but again the story in Halo 1 was better. FPS probably buck the trend as the technology advancement helps them a lot more so then say an RPG

As I type this though, more I think about more. Civilization 4 was probably the best Civ to date. HOMM4 was probably the best (6 could be great if they advance on what 5 was). I could go on I'm sure if I stretch my mind (Jagged Alliance 2 was better then the first).

Tom · January 18, 2007, 10:32:40 AM

QuoteAlthough there is a time line (or two that jumps back and forth)

Watch that Zelda "Retrospective" thing for a more in depth explanation