Games you are glad got a sequel

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
What games do you think most needed a sequel, and got one you're glad they made?

I came up with this considering games for the 'what games need a sequel' thread, with many names that did get one.

I'm looking for game not where the original was great - maybe it was - but where the sequel was a lot better and a great game.

For example, I'm not listing Fallout or Portal, because the originals were great enough that while I'm glad they made (better?) sequels, they aren't that much better to be on the list.

FWIW no MMO's are on the list.

I'll list a top ten I think fit this:

- Diablo (Diablo II one of the all-time greats and generally much better)

- Heroes of Might and Magic (no explanation needed, hugely improved)

- Baldur's Gate (nothing wrong with Baldur's Gate, but)

- WarCraft: Orcs and Humans (the RTS)

- MOO (not really familiar with it much but based on universal acclaim for MOO 2)

- Maniac Mansion (Day of the Tentacle, Maniac Mansion 2)

- Civilization

- Command & Conquer

- Elder Scrolls

- Dragon's Age (I'm kidding, clean off your monitor)

I'll save a couple spots for titles I'm sure I'm forgetting.
 
Last edited:

maniacalpha1-1

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2010
3,562
14
81
I was thinking of asking this a different way, what are games that you have bought at full price AND immediately played (unlike games you buy on Steam sales and never play) based on the previous game in the series.

I bought Dragon Age 2 because DA Origins, it was OK, but definitely got EA-itized. I'm sure I will think of others later.
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,625
5
81
Thief, in part 2 they listened to fans and lowered the monster count.
Just Cause
Age of Empires
Trine
Sniper Elite
Rainbow Six
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Thief, in part 2 they listened to fans and lowered the monster count.
Just Cause
Age of Empires
Trine
Sniper Elite
Rainbow Six

Just Cause is a good call.

AoE is a bit debatable because the original was so good, but a case can be made.

But Trine? Sure, the sequel was very good, but the original was good enough that I don't see it as really advancing that much. There are plenty like that.

When you bring up the Trine franchise, you're going to hear 'ya, Trine was great', not 'ya, Trine 2 was great' ignoring Trine.

For comparison, you're always going to hear 'HoMM 2/3/whatever' and pretty much never 'the first HoMM' (much less King's Bounty).
 

mmntech

Lifer
Sep 20, 2007
17,504
12
0
Assassin's Creed. The original was terrible and it didn't deserve a second run, but it got one hell of a sequel.
 

jiffylube1024

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
7,430
0
71
Diablo and Warcraft are good calls. WC2 and D2 are two of the best PC games ever.

I'd include To that list: Starcraft, Max Payne, Half-Life. Very glad those got sequels.

So far I'm underwhelmed with DOTA2. I think the original, on the WC3 engine plays better.
 

PhatoseAlpha

Platinum Member
Apr 10, 2005
2,131
21
81
Diablo 2. A quick run in Torchlight 2 reminded me just how many of the things I hated about D3 that the sequel improved.

Aliens vs. Predator, because the second had awesome multiplayer and was one of the few really good Aliens games.
 

Clixxer

Junior Member
Mar 8, 2013
11
0
0
Far cry and Assassin's Creed.

Fry Cry 1 was amazing but I thought Far cry 2 sucked and was glad when I picked up Far Cry 3 it went back to being pretty good. Assassin's Creed the first was alright but they had a good concept and all the sequels have been better and better.
 

OSULugan

Senior member
Feb 22, 2003
289
0
76
- MOO (not really familiar with it much but based on universal acclaim for MOO 2)
I personally thought that MOO was better than MOO2. It kept things a bit more sipmle and quicker in battles.

- Command & Conquer

You really can't have an RTS listed without listing Dune. Without Dune II modern RTS games would be much different, if existing at all.

Also good choices:

Mechwarrior
Battlehawks: 1942 which was followed up by Their Finest Hour and then finally Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe which was the defining WW2 combat flight simulator for quite some time, in my opinion. And lead directly to the next games (which utilized the same flight engine)
X-Wing which was great, but did not compare to TIE Fighter
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
Street Fighter

Can I get an "amen"?

For PCs, Half-Life, Civilization, Team Fortress, Mass Effect
 

Childs

Lifer
Jul 9, 2000
11,450
7
81
I know you exclude Portal, but in many ways Portal 2 was way better. The only complain was the amount of portalable (can this be a word? lol) tiles.
 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,190
185
106
The list could be very big for this, even if the original isn't necessarily "great", ground breaking, or revolutionary within the industry (and for its time). There's still so many sequels that are better than the original (or the "previous" title, not necessarily being the first, for example in a trilogy when the third is better than the second, while the second is also better than the first). I could easily start from the 8-bit era all the way to the PC platform with nowadays games, and even passing by Arcade exclusives (even if I try to keep the list for "PC" games it'd still end up quite a large list).

I'll name a few though for the heck of it, and in no particular order. The following is quite subjective as you can imagine. Just a side note though, just to show how subjective this will be, Craig234 mentions the following: " For example, I'm not listing Fallout or Portal, because the originals were great enough that while I'm glad they made (better?) sequels, they aren't that much better to be on the list. ".

Well I for one think that both Portal 2 and Fallout 2 are significantly (much) better than the originals (in fact I got bored of the original Portal very soon and "forced" myself to complete it, when for the second I couldn't stop playing until the end), and I would gladly put them on the list (well pretty much just did by saying this). So of course it's very subjective.

Most of the games I'm listing are older games, since I know that most people will concentrate on much more recent (and probably mostly PC or ported to PC) games, so here goes...

º Super Mario Bros. 3

I don't think that any such (or similar) lists should go without it. It is one of the various quintessential exemplary games showing what "a sequel" has the potential to be, or even "should" be, in comparison to the original or its previous installment. Not necessarily in terms of "story" aspects but also (and can be isolated to) mere game-play mechanics and features addition and/or improvements.

Yes, of course the original set new industry standards, and probably single-handedly rejuvenated the whole video gaming market, but in terms of game-play mechanics evolution in comparison to the rather unoriginal second title (namely the "it was a dream!" sequel) SMB3 "did everything right, and some more". It was without a doubt not only the best of the then-trilogy of SMB games but was also the best on the NES and any competing consoles for the following year+, arguably only dethroned by Super Mario World two years later.

º Mega Man 2

I do not think that it is even arguable that had it not been for that very sequel alone the whole Mega Man franchise would have never been anywhere close to a sequel at all. In other words... the original - while appreciated enough - was nothing so spectacular even at the time. But when MM2 was released it sent a shockwave that even Mario felt pretty good. It was a great "competitor" to other platforming games and franchises and Capcom understood then that they had a jewel in their hands.

There is a lot of nice story bits about MM2 but its Wikipedia page does a pretty nice job detailing the most important parts of what made it the great sequel that it was then and still is today (when you look at it in retrospect if anything, or you can still respect its superiority in every single way to the original regardless of the titles that followed it).

º Mortal Kombat II

Again, known history for the original (very violent, broke taboo of what was acceptable in a video game, responsible in part for the creation of ESRB and its finishing moves a dream come true for anti-violence and anti-video games activists). Also, of course, known for its overall amazing game-play at the time and the first true competitor to the Street Fighter franchise.

But Mortal Kombat II - while inevitable as a sequel per se - is where the "true" MK game-play began, that is in my opinion. Yes of course the original "was the true beginning", on paper. But I'm pretty sure that Nintendo were happy to see sales of the sequel on their SNES compared to how the original ended up being a gold mine on the Genesis for obvious reasons. And, ESRB? Who cares, let's make MKII even more violent, oh and of course more fun, too!

It has more, better moves, the combat pace and recovery time after each moves was faster, even allowing "unofficial combos" to be made (improvised first, then later became known combos). It had more, better levels, more graphical details, better colors palette (even on the Genesis and SNES versions), more voice acting, better "story", is generally grittier of a game (excluding Babalities) and is - overall- simply more... let's say... toasty then the original. It was the accumulation of the original's success which gave birth to one of the "greatest sequels of all time" (in my opinion).

º Sonic the Hedgehog 2

Simply put, it was to its original what Super Mario Bros. 3 was to the first. Now yes I know many would argue that Sonic the Hedgehog 3 was better. Well yes it was great, I would probably say just "as good as" the second. But in comparison to the original (even if the thread does not restrict comparisons to the very first in a trilogy for example) then I believe that, definitely, STH2 was a significant leap (for the best) and that, overall, STH3 was not that much of a leap when compared to the second and itself.

º Turok 2: Seeds of Evil

Cerebral Bore, enough said?

Nah ok I'm kidding (well the Cerebral Bore was disturbingly gory and fun to use, and watch in action). But yeah, the original, Dinosaur Hunter, was very popular. It sold very well and was a general critical success. I agree with all that, and to this day still love Dinosaur Hunter (and I got my PC version installed right now).

But despite the undeniable fun that the original was (and still is today) I still consider that its sequel, Seeds of Evil, is amongst one of the very best sequel of all time. And, no, the checkpoint saves system did not get on my nerves and no the frames-rate slowdowns were far, far from being anywhere near a problem or even a "distraction" for me generally speaking, with the only few exceptions to that in parts of the Hive of the Mantids (fifth level).

I think that Turok 2 did everything better, added upon it, was even grittier, more violent, had more and better weapons, superb animations (that still hold their ground to this day) and one of the best soundtracks ever made in any FPS games I can remember (if not one of the best soundtracks on the N64, period).

º Resident Evil 2

At least at the time, it was one of the best exploration, puzzle-solving and survival horror games I had played (not that there were many such games at the time to start with). The original was fun but I have to admit I played the first RE a couple of months after I had completed the sequel.

So my first "experience" with a survivor horror game was RE2 and probably developed bias for it due to that. But I have completed the original two times (and the sequel probably a dozen times, and on all four scenarios with both characters) and I'm convinced that RE2 simply did everything better, especially the overall atmosphere (I.E. level design, game's setting, enemy placement to scare you, or passing by creatures on the outdoor side of a window from a freshly-loaded corridor, etc... it was all hand-crafted level of quality areas). I must say though, I never got to buy it at the time but I later played the N64 version and that one just cemented my thoughts even more on how brilliant the game was (and the N64 version being even better than the PS1's).

º DOOM II: Hell on Earth

Well, sure Ultimate DOOM was awesome, but I don't think I really need to describe why or "how" was DOOM II "much better" on pretty much every aspects.

º Grand Theft Auto III

It was an important enough sequel on its own that many gamers were not even aware of the GTA franchise at all before GTAIII was released. I won't write a novel about it but I think that its success and what we now know of (of what the franchise is about) the GTA franchise today explains itself. Now I admit I got bored real fast of GTAIV and probably won't get anywhere near the fifth one but at the time and along with San Andreas (and Vice City as well but to a lesser extent for me) it was quite the bomb in the video gaming world.

So why GTAIII specifically? Well because as mentioned (and I was part of those gamers) prior to it I had no idea whatsoever about what GTA was at all or that two previous games of it even existed. But I did get to play them both much later and perhaps that was the problem. They did not have much "impact" at all on me and wondered even why they bothered with GTAIII in the first place since I thought that GTA and GTA2 had never been really popular.

Now while I think that (when thinking about it now) GTA2 was quite better than the original on its own was still clearly pushed aside by GTAIII almost as if both previous games indeed never existed anyway. It was as though GTAIII came out and the devs said "ok finally, technology allows it, THIS is what we wanted from the start, forget the other two please" (that's my impression anyway). And am I "glad" that they made GTAIII? Hell yeah! I loved that game at the time, but today... not my stuff anymore, but sure looking at it in retrospect I can't exactly deny the dozens (literally) of sleepless nights I was "forcing" myself through to play this game especially on week-ends with my cousin.

º Half-Life 2

I tried not to mention it since obviously the original represents so much for the PC gaming industry that it pretty much became (and still is) an icon on its own. Was Half-Life 2 even better than the original? Well, yes. It was (well that is, of course and I like to repeat that one, in my opinion). I absolutely adore (and praise) the original, but I think that it was more of a technical revolution - overall - than a true leap in "mere" game-play features and mechanics. That part, I believe, truly belongs to Half-Life 2.

There's enough history on Half-Life 2's contributions for the gaming industry as well (along with its Source engine on its own, regardless of Half-Life 2 itself). But the game-play of the sequel, compared to the original, is light-years ahead, a quantum leap (especially when you consider Episode One, and mostly Two, in the bigger picture).

The animations, the music, the masterfully-scripted scenes (without CGIs) to tell the unfolding story dynamically (again, without damn cut-scene "interruptions" like it is the case nowadays in almost any games that tries to be a movie instead). The facial animations portraying emotions like no other games ever came even close to manage (lest being in a CGI movie) along with the physics used as an actual game-play mechanic, not to mention the very quantum leap in general game-play mechanics evolutions on its own that it represented in the industry...

I don't think that I can keep giving that game more hugs and praise even after all that time, Half-Life 2 is one of those "timeless" contributing (to the gaming industry), distinguished and evolutionary (and revolutionary) FPS (and PC) games that we'll be talking about for the next decade (and beyond). It was also simply put a much better game, as a sequel, to its original counterpart, even if the first was as important during its time as the sequel was in its own period as well. They were both great games, but to this day Half-Life 2 stands proud on the podium of FPS gaming, PC games in general, and just being one heck of a great sequel.

-----

If I keep participating in threads like this like I've done recently then I think I'll end up on a serious buying spree for older games and platforms (consoles), and my wallet will come haunting me in my nightmares for doing it (and I suspect it'll have my stepmother's voice to make matters worse, also I don't have a stepmother, but the wallet will pretend I do just to piss me off).

And I need to go sleep now (good thread by the way).
 
Last edited:

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
HL2
Serious Sam 3 (after Serious Sam 2 almost killed the series)
 

Arg Clin

Senior member
Oct 24, 2010
416
0
76
The Witcher

(both TW1+2 are great. Hard to decide which is better, besides graphics and control improvements, TW2 had a more focused and well executed story but it was kinda short)

Mass Effect

Though sligtly poorer than ME1 I think both ME2 and ME3EC were worthy sequeals.

GTA

In particular San Andreas was epic. So I'm glad they made that sequel to GTA3.
 

Sho'Nuff

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2007
6,211
121
106
Freespace. the first one was great, the second one was epic ^ 2

Agreed. And if I recall correctly FS2 sold well and STILL has a huge following. So why oh why have we not seen FS3 yet? It would seem that there is a market, and lord knows there is no competition for space combat games right now.
 

Bricked

Member
Mar 8, 2013
27
0
0
Mount & Blade.

It's a great game, but Mount & Blade: Warband totally blows it out of the water. The only thing is that it's more of an overhaul than a true sequel so you are essentially paying for an improved version of the first game. Still, Warband is great. It easily makes my top 10.
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,641
58
91
Medieval: Total War.
I never played the original Medieval (started on the Total War games with Rome) but I played countless hours of Medieval II. Other than the often hilariously bad battle AI the game was great, numerous ways to advance to victory and not all of them involved simply crushing your foes in battle, though that usually worked as well.
 

OSULugan

Senior member
Feb 22, 2003
289
0
76
So why GTAIII specifically? Well because as mentioned (and I was part of those gamers) prior to it I had no idea whatsoever about what GTA was at all or that two previous games of it even existed. But I did get to play them both much later and perhaps that was the problem. They did not have much "impact" at all on me and wondered even why they bothered with GTAIII in the first place since I thought that GTA and GTA2 had never been really popular.

If you didn't play GTA or GTA2 until "much later" after GTA3 came out, it is quite obvious why they didn't have an impact on you. When the first two came out, they were quite fun in their own right. Being able to get a bonus for running over an entire line of nuns walking down the sidewalk was good "popcorn" gaming. We got a good taste of playing the game over the network, etc. But, viewed in a lense after the evolution of the game to 3D in GTA3, sure these 2 don't hold up quite as well.

Medieval: Total War.
I never played the original Medieval (started on the Total War games with Rome) but I played countless hours of Medieval II.

I still prefer the original Medieval: Total War's campaign interface. THe battle interface improvements to Medieval: TW 2 of course were phenomenal, but micro-managing army movements all over the world, as well as the agents, royal family, etc., became much more tedious for little gain, in my opinion.