What game sequels SHOULD NOT have been made?

I'm just wondering what game series you guys think should have stayed solo and dazzled on its own without a second or third worse sequel to ruin the name? For me its Bioshock. I LOVEDthe first one, everything about it was mysterious and fantastic,.. but the second one just wrecked everything, and I hated it.

Silent hill. While 2 and 3 where good, pretty much everything after was total crap.

All mario bros. games.

Just trollin!

Probably all of the monster hunter games that were made after the first one.

Albeit improvements, I just hated them. It didn't feel like old monster hunter no more :(.

honestly I think GTA IV is the worst sequel i can think of. GTA III was a HUGE step from GTA2. but I really feel that GTA IV was overhyped and overrated by ALL the game sites. They made a decent game, but only if the name Grand Theft Auto wasnt in the title. It's FAR from a 10/10.....They took away some great things from San Andreas (large expansive environment, airplanes, boats, skydiving, customizing cars, buying houses, etc) and didnt add as much to make the game feel like a sequel. Rockstar shouldnt have gone back to Liberty City either. a NEW location would have made a huge difference. It felt like a re-boot. they should have just called it Grand Theft Auto HD or something.......

but other than that, I'm a big fan of sequels. Some great sequels are Skate 2 and 3, Project Gotham Racing 3 and 4, Just Cause 2, Left 4 Dead 2, etc.

oh and another sequel that was pretty bad was Tony Hawk Ride. What a flop! Skate is the only skateboarding game series worth buying now.

Fable II, Bioshock 2, Farcry 2, and GRAW 2. All were far from the first games.

I have to disaggree with everyone most of those games that everyone has mentioned I kinda like:oops:

Cod MW2!!!!!

bioshock didnt need a sequel, i totally agree with you TC, i hated the second one

Resident Evil ;) I never liked any of them.

Bioshock 2 was good, the dissapointment was COD: MW2

FarCry 2 had absolutley NOTHING to do with the first game (which wasn't that great to begin with)

merc's shouldnt have one

BFBC shouldn't have had one, and like Farcry, it had nothing to do with the first

BFBC shouldn't have had one, and like Farcry, it had nothing to do with the first

laliberte11

[QUOTE="laliberte11"]

BFBC shouldn't have had one, and like Farcry, it had nothing to do with the first

RAMRODtheMASTER

[QUOTE="RAMRODtheMASTER"][QUOTE="laliberte11"]

BFBC shouldn't have had one, and like Farcry, it had nothing to do with the first

laliberte11

honestly I think GTA IV is the worst sequel i can think of. GTA III was a HUGE step from GTA2. but I really feel that GTA IV was overhyped and overrated by ALL the game sites. They made a decent game, but only if the name Grand Theft Auto wasnt in the title. It's FAR from a 10/10.....They took away some great things from San Andreas (large expansive environment, airplanes, boats, skydiving, customizing cars, buying houses, etc) and didnt add as much to make the game feel like a sequel. Rockstar shouldnt have gone back to Liberty City either. a NEW location would have made a huge difference. It felt like a re-boot. they should have just called it Grand Theft Auto HD or something.......

but other than that, I'm a big fan of sequels. Some great sequels are Skate 2 and 3, Project Gotham Racing 3 and 4, Just Cause 2, Left 4 Dead 2, etc.

oh and another sequel that was pretty bad was Tony Hawk Ride. What a flop! Skate is the only skateboarding game series worth buying now.

Talldude80

The Godfather 2, everything about that game sucked.Englandfc1966

Bioflop 2, MUA 2, NNN 2 and all the dynasty warriors sequels

metal gear the sequels are so dramatic almost like a chick flick

I'm just wondering what game series you guys think should have stayed solo and dazzled on its own without a second or third worse sequel to ruin the name? For me its Bioshock. I LOVEDthe first one, everything about it was mysterious and fantastic,.. but the second one just wrecked everything, and I hated it.

soufan123

I think Bioshock as well i loved the 1st and the 2nd wasnt horrible i still enjoyed it but it didnt deserve a sequel

Silent hill. While 2 and 3 where good, pretty much everything after was total crap.

TheHighWind

Fable 2. While I think a second Fable should have been made at some time, Fable 2 was so crappyhillelslovak

I'm just wondering what game series you guys think should have stayed solo and dazzled on its own without a second or third worse sequel to ruin the name? For me its Bioshock. I LOVEDthe first one, everything about it was mysterious and fantastic,.. but the second one just wrecked everything, and I hated it.

I agree with Fable II, I didn't like the first one and bought 2 for a very cheap price. Tried to get into it but just couldn't get into it, for a game that promised such immersion you feel very lonely in the game world. The plot also left something to be desired.

Gears of War 2 had a good campaign and Horde was fun for a while, but the online play is so terrible that it saddened me because I loved the first game.

I also feel inclined to say BioShock 2 but I loved it. It's just that... the original BioShock was so brilliant that it didn't really need a sequel.

IMO the mario franchise should have been layed to rest long ago,

and instead of making banjo kazooie nuts and bolts they should have re-made the original 64 game with some new visuals etc.

I'm sick of sequels, I would much rather some older games re-envisioned, I know some people say that they dont need changing, but I'd love to see clankers cavern in full HD with modern water technology.

The Godfather 2, everything about that game sucked.Englandfc1966

bioshock didnt need a sequel, i totally agree with you TC, i hated the second one

tomrocks666

agreed. i bought it for the pc, played about an hour of it and havent been back since. its not that its bad its just it wasnt warranted or required and it felt like a chore from the first min

FarCry 2 had absolutley NOTHING to do with the first game (which wasn't that great to begin with)

laliberte11

agree with the first part of that sentence, it was a travesty of a game. strongly disagree with the second part though!

The more I think about it the more I think the sequal that shouldn't have been made is GTA IV. I know a lot of people liked that game but the map just looked copy and pasted over and over again when driving (doesn't help when the driving sucks) and the combat was so slow paced. I also hated the lack of mission check points. Having to drive ALL the way to the mission point and then drive to where the mission tells you to go and then carry out the mission was just BS it felt slow because every time you died you had to redo the entire process. Little things could get annoying to like the phone calls, walking across the street a car hitting you and not being able to complete the mission because your health was to low and you would just die and then you have the retarded reputation with friends. Now you could make argument and say "you could just take a cab or not walk across the street like a idiot or stop sucking the driving was great" but it's a game not a real life simulator. What's next the moment we cross a red light we have cops after us?

Even if you took all of those reasons out you're still looking at lack of weapons and the lack of side missions and things to do outside of singleplayer and you still got a pretty mediocre game that only got critical acclaim because rockstar paid off the major review sites (there is a lot of evidence on the internet to rockstar paying off reviews) and a lot of evidence to gamespot accepting it (reason jeff got fired)

GTA IV was a downgraded version of GTA SA with upgraded graphics and physics. To me it didn't even feel like a rockstar game at first because you couldn't do many of the fun things you could do in the previous versions.

*I never made any refrences to the DLC packs because I feel that having to pay money for a game you already bought in order for it to have things that a GTA game should have right out of the box outisde the story is wrong"

For me, the biggest disappointment was Spyro: Enter The Dragonfly. I absolutly loved the first three games. They just got better and better. That was back when there was an actual Quality Control on video games. And the Spyro games of late have been just so horrible. Spyro at least deserves an awesome last game if he's going to die with all of the other Video Game Hero's of Old. I miss him so much.

I disagree with every one who said gears 2 and bioshock 2 and fable 2 and mw2

GTA IV, because it sucked all the fun out of the franchise and replaced it with taking your fat cousin out bowling.

Assassin's creed brotherhood or whatever its called. Carry on with the story Ubisoft, dont remake the second with tacky multiplayer.

Definitely MW2. What an awful game

I disagree with those guys that said metal gear. Mgs2 was horrible yeah, but mgs3 is my all time favorite game.

I bought Fable 2 to play co-op with my friends and I was instantly disappointed. The game was a complete waste of my time and money. Short, zero replay value, and dull gameplay.

all snk games after playmore buy snk are really bad

I'll probably end up getting flamed for this, but Resident Evil 4. I absolutely loved the first three games, but 4 put so much of an emphasis on combat and didn't frighten me at all like the previous games did... And then it led to Resident Evil 5, which is basically Gears of War set in Africa._Doomsayer_

call of duty 2,3,4,mw,mw2.

only 1 was good.

also people read carefully the topic.

GTA 4 should have been made. because masses love GTA. whatever you say it is better than most boring overhyped games in the market.

for example HALO ODST, assasins creed,CALL OF DUTY.

Yes, Bioshock didn't need a sequal but I was still happy to play another Bioshock.