Can a sequel be better than an original?

I don't think a sequel necessarily has to be better, just different. Being better is arbitrary and hard to pick out which aspects of a franchise needs improvements and where whole new features should be added.

Story driven games are even trickier to development, because of continuity problems. The developers have to weigh new features to a game versus maintaining a plausible and emotionally driven story. It's pretty difficult.

For other genres it's not too bad. Like Guitar Hero or Need for Speed. They don't have to maintain set characters or story so they have more freedom to drop or add features.

Personally, I like heavy narrative driven games, like Halo, to be one game unless developers planned on there being sequels.

Basically, don't tack on titles if you make a hit.

 

Mother 2 was infinitely better than Mother 1

 

Make a sequel if you have a reason to continue it, other than "It's a hit" or 'More money". Sequels should be made because there is a story arc that needs to be finished or completed, or in Final Fantasy's case, if there is numerous stories that occur in one universe.

Call of Duty is the biggest example of a failure to realize what Sequels are. Nothing's changed from Call of Duty 4, because to them, it's a winning formula. Going back to Final Fantasy for the example, FF has different characters, style of gameplay, locations, etc. in every game and they attempt different things, and even if it's not the winning formula, it still makes millions of dollars.

 

That happens with movies, videogames, books, even with some music.
About Halo, I´m considering that Halo 3 was better about gameplay, but Reach is better looking and the armor abilities is a really good idea, but they could keep some things so this game could be better.
About Gears of War for example, everybody is happy about the beta, but as seen till this point, we will be buying GoW 2 with some new weapons, executions and characters.
About movies, some sagas are so good that you just can´t choose one like Star Wars for some people, The Evil Dead, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on the Elm Street (The movie that just came out some time ago doesn´t counts!), but sometimes sequels just kills the saga, like that second Titanic movie (is not an official sequel) with a zombie guy, what I mean is that, A sequel doesn´t needs to be better or worst, it can, but is not a law.

 

I'm going to point out CoD, and that it only gets put out each year because of the multiplayer.

 

-Yes.

 

Of course they can, but since focus groups only pick up on the shallowest aspects of gameplay, those are often the aspects that get turned up to 11 in a sequel at the expense of the deeper stuff.

 

No...it gets put out each year because it makes millions of dollars in profit for Activation, regardless of why people are buying it.

Like rusty said, "better" is a pretty subjective arbitrary term when it comes to sequel. The initial novelty or satisfaction that comes a new unique gaming experience can rarely be created from a sequel. This is that factor that people are really saying when they say the sequel wasn't as good as the original. The graphics could be way better, the story larger and more complex, there could be more modes, but it all doesn't matter because the novelty is gone with a sequel. So if that is how you define better than yes, no sequel can be better than the original but that is not how I would define better.

There are two perspectives here, the publishers and the consumers or fans. From the publisher's point of view if they released a new unique game, they probably didn't spend a lot on advertising or development for an unheard of game. If that game is a hit, their is a lot of pressure on the publisher to put out another to recoup any potential losses in profit margin. That sequel gets much better backing in marketing and development. Maybe its that extra attention and hype that makes people hate sequels more idk. The sequel then can't change the mold too much of the original because then it could flop costing the publisher MUCH more money. So to the publisher a better game is a game that sells more copies.

The consumer should find that a game that improves on all areas that were bad in the original which, is the case with a lot of sequels, is better. Games like Mass Effect 2, Halo2, Red Dead Redemption, Grand Theft Auto IV, Portal 2, Street Fighter4, Call of Duty 4, Little big Planet 2, Rockband2, bioshock 2 any many more showed that sequel can be great and possibly better than the original.

 

dedicated. servers.

also the gameplay of the beta is actually a lot different from gears 2. mainly in that it is much faster, more like gears 1, faster than gears 1 actually. also respawns change it a lot.

 

Yes and no. Better is completely subjective. The basic fact is that people don't like things they enjoy to change. So the fans of an IP don't want the developer to change things too much. However, if they don't change the formula enough, they'll be accused of rehashing the same product simply as a cash grab. Supposedly there's a magic sweet spot of just enough familiarity and just enough differentiating it from its predecessor, but honestly I don't think such a happy medium exists.

Developers will continue to either piss off die hard fans and bring in newcomers or vice versa in every type of entertainment. There's no winning because those who are upset are often the most outspoken, and those who are happy with the product are content enough to shut up and play the game, save the few who rise to protect the game they seem to have taken a personal stake in.

Portal 2 is a really great example. I loved the original portal and thought it was a great game. But, if anyone were to ask me if I thought Portal 2 was better, I wouldn't hesitate to say yes. However, if you visit Valve forums or any place with fans of the original, it seems like Portal 2 was a major disappointment due to it being too mainstream, simple, and commercialized.

For the most part, I'd say that sequels tend to be of better quality due to being more polished and introducing new features to an already fun formula, but that's just me. Sure, there's a disappointment or a flop every once in a while due to completely alienating their original audience by making it too different while still not providing a fun, inviting atmosphere to newcomers. The new Devil May Cry seems to fit that bill, as I've heard nobody express anything but disdain or complete disinterest in it.

The key to enjoying games is keeping your expectations in check. I always hope, sometimes so dearly hope, that a game will be good, but I almost never simply assume it will be. I stay informed about upcoming games enough to where I know what to expect, and so I tend not to be mislead. I know not everybody has the time to keep up with every game, but everyone should follow their most anticipated games so that they can ask themselves "Will I like this game?"

I find that most of the time, just from a few gameplay videos, I can decide if I will enjoy a game or not. If I think I will, I'll keep researching to see if I should rent or buy it. If I don't think I will, then I move on and try not to dwell on it.

 

Gameplay wise? Of course. Look at something like Mass Effect. Mass effect 2 was miles better than 1 gameplay wise.

However, a sequel shouldn't be altogether a different game either. Adding new things to the formula to make a game great is a fantastic thing when done right (And a terror when not done at all), but making a sequel so different from the original that it doesn't even feel the same..

That's when something's gone wrong.

 

You can't really argue that. I liked ME2's combat much more than ME1's and so did most people, but there were thousands of people who didn't like it because it was too much like that of Gears or Uncharted, which they found boring. They didn't like the universal cooldown of powers, and thought the original's assortment of mods and more detailed leveling mechanic made combat more diverse and exciting.

Improvement, in terms of a piece of entertainment's quality, isn't just impossible, it's nonexistent. You simply cannot improve upon something based on nothing more than opinion.

 

I agree with this massive wall of text. Well said sir, the lot of it.

 

IMO:

Mass Effect 2 was superior to Mass Effect 1.
Pokemon Emerald was superior to Pokemon Red/Blue.
Halo 2 was superior to Halo CE.

 

TeS III > TeS II and Arena, by leaps and bounds.

 

Gears of War 3 > Gears of war 2.

So the answer is yes. It can be better than the previous.

 

in my humble opinion, Halo CE < Halo 2

 

Hmm. A lot of people I know said that the Gears 3 beta was terrible.

 

mount and blade warband > mount and blade