This got me thinking about all the hype sorrounding Killzone 2. The first one got a 6.9..which to me means its a very boring game (I played it). Now how can the sequel possibly become a AAA title? This goes for other games.
It has happened before, but most of the time it doesn't. Killzone 2 will probably suck because the only thing the people behind it have proven they are good at is having their game look cool and have good marketing.
One example of a bad game with a great sequel is Hitman. The first game just wasn't very good at all, while Hitman 2 was fantastic by keeping all the cool ideas from the first game and actually making them work. However, Killzone had no innovative ideas besides being fun to look at.
I just read your last post and thought of the exact same scenario... I can't think of a single game thatwent from poor to great game in a single generation leap..
Yes, there are isolated cases, but usually the primier game in the franchise had some innovative feature of some sort that made it different from the majority of games, and the sequel is where the developers were able to execute and improve on the concept, thus making a good game. So in other words, in order to have a good sequel one needs a decent base to work on, otherwise what's the point of making a sequel (other then making money ofc).
I have always believed developers should be judged by their current game and not thier last game. Refusing to buy a quality game for past disappointments meant that many people stayed away from MGS3, RE4, ZOE2 and DMC3 which were all incredible games. I'm not saying one should completely ignore a developer's record, but the quality of what's currently on offer should count more than anything. Also, I've never been hung up on review scores, but that's another discussion.
Street Fighter was bloody awful. SFII was amazing. Totally agree about GTA. PGR was mediocre, PGR2 was top-shelf stuff. King's Bounty was mediocre. Heroes of Might & Magic was superb.
I thought of Burnout and Burnout 2 at first, but a quickl google revealed it was only about a letter grade difference between the two. Perhaps a little kind, however, for the former.
"While it's not the Zelda for the PlayStation 2 everyone was hoping for, Dark Cloud (Score 8.1)puts its own significant stamp on the adventure-RPG genre."-GameSpot Jun 4, 2001
"Dark Cloud 2 (Score 9.0)could very well be the PlayStation 2's Zelda, and it will appeal to fans of the action RPG genre for a long time to come. "-Gamespot Feb 18, 2003
Crash Bandicoot 1 to Crash 2 and Crash 3. The first part scored around 6.8 on gamespot while the next parts where 8-9. Thought I don't think that it was a improvement of the series. The first part was seriously underrated. The first part of Tekken isn't rated here but if it was, it would score about 4 or 5 out of 10. The 2nd part was a huge step forward and it scored a well earned AAA.
Street Fighter was bloody awful. SFII was amazing. Totally agree about GTA. PGR was mediocre, PGR2 was top-shelf stuff. King's Bounty was mediocre. Heroes of Might & Magic was superb.nopalversion
Im with you on this one, ididnt really like PGR too much at all and 2was amazing and 3 was almost as amazing as 2.
Log in to comment