What direct sequel to a game has actually been worse than the first?

What direct sequel to a game has actually been worse than the first?

I’m talking the 2^nd game in a series, not any of the other subsequent entries later down the road.

Ex: Street fighter 1 and 2

Mega man 1 and 2

Resident evil 1 and 2

(LOL! I just realized those were all Capcom games, I didn’t intend for that.)

The reason I ask is because it seems (at least from my point of view.) that unlike many other fields videogames seem to be one that is for the most part immune to the “first direct sequel curse”.

Don’t believe me? Look at how pretty much every movie sequel is received compared to the first in the series. It’s true you have successful juggernauts like Terminator 2, The dark knight, or even Star wars: the empire strikes back but for every one of those there is at least 100 other series that were completely panned/destroyed on their second attempt.

The funny thing is that in the videogame medium this seems to be the opposite case.

Games sequels like the aforementioned above, as well as a whole slew of others, seem to be better received than their predecessor.

A part of me reasons this is due to the simple fact that the developers just take what works from the first game and add on it. Something like a movie or a book on the other hand is a much more difficult process than simply copying what was “right” in the first go around and adding a few additions here or there.

It’s not uncommon for some of the great game sequels to just up the boss counts, features, weapons, upgrades, or in some cases the size of levels/worlds all while not really adding much to other elements like the story or characterization (this is especially true of the NES era.).

Essentially it becomes a case of “Hey, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” while adding in other features to give it a new coat of paint so to speak.

So the question stands.

How many/What direct sequels (the 2’s.) were actually worse than the originals that spawned them?

Personally speaking one game off the top of my head that I know for a fact was not as well received as its predecessor was, yup, you guessed it… Super Mario Bros 2. In fact most people I knew growing up never even played it. They just skipped from 1 to 3, arguably two unbelievably industry changing games in their own right.

It didn’t help that at the time it was seen as a huge letdown compared to the first but I often wonder if part of the reason why was the incredible amount of pressure it had placed upon its shoulders. C’mon, how many games have to live up to the expectation of a game that literally changed the entire landscape of gaming?

So Gamespot community, what direct sequel gaming titles in your own opinion failed to live up to the lofty heights set by their predecessor?

-1 & DONE NINJA APPROVED-

All your examples, the second game is much better. Wasnt Dragon Age 2 worst than the first. Or the Devil May Cry.

Exactly! That's my point.

Not sure about dragon age, never played the 2nd. I remember hearing lots of negative things from fans of the first though.

-VIDEOGAME NINJA APPROVED-

Halo 2 from a singleplayer POV: it was a very short campaign and it was nowhere near the greatness of the first Halo.

Yeah sure Halo had it's flaws too, like the levels repeating, but Halo 2's campaign was over before you knew it and ended on a stupid cliffhanger to boot.

Fear 2 sucks ass. One of the most enjoyable, promising series, automatically cast to the shitter, never to recover.

Biowares MDK 2 isn't as good as the first, it's not bad, per se, but Shiny's original is a masterpiece? Hyperbole perhaps, but it's exceptionally good.

• Crysis 2
• FEAR 2
• Shadow warrior 2
• Max payne 2

There's more of those than i can remember.

Deus Ex Invisible War

Unreal 2

Dune 2

Crysis 2

GTA 2

Dark Souls 2

Fable 2

Mafia 2

Serious Sam 2

@videogameninja:

At least to me, Halo 2 was worse than Halo 1. Why? Because of one simple reason..not..enough..Master Chief! I hated playing as the Arbiter and the ending was abrupt as ****!

I however like Halo 2 mainly because it was the gateway for online gaming of it's time and it was the first time I have ever played an online game and Halo 2 was the first for me. Plus, Halo 2 is the only game in the series your able to duel-wield Needlers and those Needlers are a force to be recons with and it causes crazy explosions as well. Sad that feature was never to be seen again.

Dragon Age 2 is infinitely worse than Origins. Fact.

And DMC 2 is worse than 1, but 1 is fantastic.

Zelda/Final Fantasy are generally thrown into this category too.

Fable 2 is great but definitely no Fable 1.

• Super Mario Bros. 2
• Zelda II: The Adventure of Link
• Rad Racer II
• Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the new World
• Perfect Dark Zero (actually a prequel?)
• Snakes Revenge (NA Metal Gear 2)

I personally loved Castlevania II: Simon's Quest even more than its predecessor, but there's a ton of hate for it, so I guess it's worth mentioning.

@itstotallymike: I also immediately thought of Super Mario Brothers 2. But that is not a direct sequel.

@sayyy-gaa: True dat. I kind of thought about that after I posted. It's not really a bad game either. I liked it anyway, just no where near the first. Then of course we got a masterpiece in SMB3 so it was all good.

There are plenty of good sequels I don't think are as good as their predecessor. Doom 2 dope game, bitchin multiplayer, amazing mod scene, but Doom 1 has way better level design thanks to based Romero. Unreal 1 is a better game than Unreal 2. Bayonetta 1 is a better game than Bayonetta 2. Dark Souls is a much better game than Dark Souls 2.

This medium has its fair share of meh sequels, it's usually a by product of something being lost in translation, over done streamlining, or "you tried to sell me the same shit as last time", which is why film sequels are usually bad. Because they just end up recreating the cliff notes version of the previous movie.

You have the point, but I disagree on some of the cases. Doom doesn't have "way" better level design if anything. Only Romero's E1 was pretty to look at at the time but from the gameplay standpoint Doom 2 maps are usually better. Dark Souls 2 did some things differently which led DS1 fanboys to hating on it, but at the same time DS2 had many quaility of life improvements. The only thing lost is the interconnectedness of game world, but almost every other aspect is not worse just different. Fan backlash is the reason for From playing it too safe with DS3, being afraid trying new ideas like they did with DS2.

Speaking of fans, I was a huge Dishonored fan few years back. Even today I play through the game and its expansions from time to time. I started Dishonored 2 playthrough but I noticed that I don't like it that much. I can see that Dishonored 2 is clearly an improvement in gameplay, abilities, graphics, maps, AI, but it just doesn't click with me as much as the first game did.

@davillain-:

That's because two Needlers dual wielded are just too overpowering. One Needler is strong enough but two at the same time is overkill! I think that's why dual wielding was taken off in Halo Reach and onward. It makes the game too easy.

I don't know if it's considered a sequel (more like a reboot), but New Super Mario Brothers on the DS was a big disappointment for me. It was way too easy which made the game too short and had meh level design. I regret paying full price for it.

Which is why I kinda play a lot more Halo 2 on MCC mainly just for Duel-Wielding Needlers. That was soo much fun :)

(MS please bring it back for Halo 6)

Devil May Cry 2 was pretty bad

Alot of people would say MGS2, but other than playing as Raiden the game is actually pretty good

Hmm...I like Resident Evil much more than I do Resident Evil 2, even before the incredible remake version of the former came out for Gamecube.

Super Mario Sunshine was shit.

The sequels took most of the fun away from playing.... PSO.

OMG. Now that's a name that brings me back. Never realized Bioware made it.

-OMG MDK NINJA APPROVED-

Many of people are unaware of this, not surprising given how they practically only make RPG's.

Shiny's games have reoccurring motif of a bizarre juxtaposition of deadly serous, beautifully realized dystopian worlds mixed with fourth wall breaking ridiculousness. Sort of like Hideo Kojima, but without the need to verbally communicate it in a trite manner.

MDK 2 lacks that going firmly into uninspired cartoony-comic book territory. The soundtrack is amazing though, and really helps elevate it.

F.E.A.R 2

Dead Space 2

Bioshock 2

All I listed was worse than the first game of the series. I've heard several more, but I'm just going by what I've played.

"Devil May Cry 2" the thread.

Films and books are almost always about the story. A great one will have a self contained, complete and satisfying story that concludes nicely.

Whereas games are usually about the gameplay.

It's very easy to release improved iterations of the technical and mechanical aspects of games, making graphics shinier, AI smarter, more levels, improved controls, etc. It's very hard to create a brand new story that is related to the original, while still feeling fresh and interesting.

As for examples, Dragon Age II is my most hated one. I adore Origins, II is just a puddle of warm sick.

Crackdown 2

Devil May Cry 2, Bioshock 2, and The Legend of Zelda II immediately spring to mind.

WHAT?!

_____

As others have stated: BioShock 2.

• Season 2 of Telltales Walking Dead was FAR worse than Season 1.
• The New Super Mario Bros series has gotten worse with each installment.
• Final Fantasy X-2 is awful in every way.

@ghosts4ever: Max Payne 2 was great, 3 was even really good.

Devil may Cry 2, Valkyria Chronicles 2, Final Fantasy 2 & Bioshock 2.

Can't think of many usually the third one is when they ruin it.

I've never actually played FF X-2. The trailer just repulsed me.

"Oh cool, Yuna has gone all turbo slut for absolutely no reason and has a singing career. mmkay....."

For sequels I found worse:

• FFX-2
• Bayonetta 2 (still a good game)
• Megaman X2 and up. Megaman X1 is still my favorite X game. X2-4 were still good though.
• Zelda II
• Chrono Cross (still good)

@DJ-Lafleur: what's worse about Bayonetta 2?!

The game just didn't "build up" like the first game did. Whereas the first game got crazier and awesomer the further you got. Bayonetta 2 did the opposite, where it started out all insane and awesome, but past chapter 7 I think it just kind of got less impressive, didn't much care for the last few chapters, and Bayo 2's final boss fight doesn't come close to the Balder fight or Jubileus fight from the first game.

I didn't particularly care for how they handled infinity Climax mode in Bayo 2 either. I really liked how in the first game they actually took your witch time away and forced you to have to get good at dodging and such, whereas in Bayo 2 you kept witch time, but they made some enemies annoyingly spongy (don't recall that being an issue in the first game? Been a while since I've done IC in Bayo 1 though). The human bosses felt like super saiyans on crack.

I will give Bayo 2 credit for lessening some of the more BS parts of the first game, and having a cooler weapon variety.

Devil May Cry 2: I heard from some people that it was meant to be a different game but Capcom decided to turn it into DMC 1 sequel.(but it had the best Dante design)

Max Payne 2: Unfortunately Max Payne 2's story wasn't as great as 1(both Max and Mona Survived from a shot in head which was ridiculous).the level design had too much Copy-Paste parts,The bossfight Battles were disappointing, the game really didn't throw more than 3(or maybe 4) enemies attacking you(even when you had some NPCs for help) and last but not least the New York minute difficulty was a Joke In MP 2 compare to 1.

Silent Hill 2: Silent Hill 2 is a Bad sequel. because Team Ninja just Decided to just Focus on Graphics and Story. They didn't really improved Gameplay at all.Silent Hill 1 had More enemy Types(in 2 you face 2 enemy types in 80 percent of the game),Better Bossfight Battles and much more balanced Hard Difficulty(The Hard difficulty of SH 2 was That bad that I had to restart the game in Normal Difficulty. killing enemies with 10-12 blows is too annoying) Silent Hill 2 also uses most of the animations that were used in SH1(it just had a different Run animation). and they didn't even fixed that awful non responsive controls.(silent hill 1 had bad input Delay but they didn't even bother to fix that in 2)

@R10nu: How do you Hate Dune 2 ? it popularized RTS genre.

Devil may Cry 2.

It's not a visual thing it's layout too mate, and Doom 2 overly relies on its traps and quantity of enemies, those annoying chaingunners, and makes its mazes drawn out. In contrast navigation in Doom 1 is more like a spiral where the levels better fold in on themselves, to make the back tracking more consistently engaging instead of a laborious effort on the player's part. Doom 2 gets way too much credit for how many more tricky jumps it has, and yeah it's skillful, but there is a consistency to Doom 1's levels that just isn't there in Doom 2.

And in Dark Souls 2's case the core combat itself is worse, the minute to minute feedback isn't as satisfying, the hit detection is worse, the adaptability stat adds more inconsistencies than the positives it adds, the world design is ridiculous and lacks any sort of continuity, the game pads itself out with way too many boss fights that are far too similar too each other. The fan backlash was more than justified when it came to Dark Souls 2. Those aren't made up gripes, those are factual things that game does. Dark Souls 2 has its own advantages, sure, but the core moment to moment is noticeably worse.

And Dishonored 2 is an improvement in the technical stuff, the abilities? Eh, they are different to an extent, but a lot of them just do more of the same shit. There are more "stealth" abilities, but the problem still remains that stealth is easy town as **** even if the game has no useful feedback system for when you are hidden or otherwise. It's level design is more imaginative though, sure.

Admittedly I'd probably end up at Dishonored 2 being a better game than the first, but it's so marginal of an improvement it's basically irrelevant.

I don't like incremental improvements, a lot of them are usually as you pointed out "quality of life" stuff or refinement,which

A: isn't an impressive fix. You had the benefit of hindsight, that's shit, that should be fixed.
B: Is marginal, and can easily be offset by other inside baseball changes that have a more noticeable impact on the moment to moment play.

Super Mario Brothers 2 was crap.

I agree with alot of whats been said, all these come to mind- max payne 2, fear 2, smb 2, amnesia: amfp, mass effect 2, Mgs 2... Thats all I can think of.

F.E.A.R 2 is the first game comes to my mind. It's a decent game, just not as fun as the original.

All of these, although is Crysis: Warhead considered more of a sequel? Or maybe just a spin off?

Crysis: Warhead can go both ways. In a way, it's more focused, and you have cool levels such as the train level, but it's definitely more linear as a whole, which can deter some.

Fable 2 was so bad. Bleh.

Also, add in FEAR 2 as others have said.

• Devil May Cry 2
• Dragon Age 2
• Deus Ex Invisible War
• Zelda II: The Adventure of Link
• Super Mario Bros. 2
• Castlevania 2
• Final Fantasy II

Labeled it as such, but it sure as shit was more of a sequel than 2.

Like Fear 2, Crysis 2 was for all intents and purposes a reboot.

Super Mario Galaxy 2 - Not going to go anymore into that controversial opinion.

Wut?

Dune 2 was awesome for the time.

Delta Force 2

It sure was but the first one was more awesome and i'd argue aged better.

While the sequel created an entire genre, the first game just had so much going for it.

It wasn't just a strategy game where you took a role of a nameless general that does missions until the game ends.

You were Paul Atreides himself, fighting an uphill battle against the Harkonnen. The entirety of the planet was open for exploration and the game would end when you kick the Harkonnen the hell out of it, not when you finish some mission.

You had a physical presence in the game world and were able to freely move around and could even die.

Also, killer soundtrack and facial animations better than ME Andromeda. 1992 represent:

So yes, i'd argue that while Dune 2 did one thing extremely well, Dune 1 was much more complex and interesting and that makes it a better game for me.