Most Improved Sequel - TTLG Forums

Shadowcat on 22/5/2009 at 00:06

Quote Posted by Al_B

How did this thread get to page 4 before [Underworld 2] was mentioned?

In my case it's because I actually liked the original more :) My initial thought patterns when seeing this thread were along the lines of:

"System Shock 2? No. Thief 2? No. Underworld 2? No. Flight Unlimited 2? Yes for graphics, but everything else was just plain 'different', so I'll skip it."

Flight Unlimited 3 on the other hand... that might actually have been worth a mention? It's a proper sequel to its immediate predecessor, and (IIRC) its dynamic weather systems kicked every other flight sim's arse for years after release.

In general, Looking Glass's sequels were totally solid, and stood head and shoulders above most of the other games around, but they didn't change things up enough to have a chance of outshining the incredible brightness of the original games.

System Shock 2 certainly could have qualified if only it was better, and I would have included FU2 if it had incorporated the physics and aerobatics features of FU, but it didn't. For me, that's about it. Awesome games, every one. Just not "most improved". Although, to return to UUW2, I can at least see how someone could disagree about that one :)

Matthew on 22/5/2009 at 10:27

Quote Posted by raph

I'm a first-person fanatic myself but I found that the exception to the rule is actually the JK series. Wielding a lightsaber in third-person is just the only way to clearly see what you're doing.

IMO and all that :)

I honestly don't think I'd like a Jedi Knight game played in first-person for lightsaber combat.

steo on 23/5/2009 at 23:04

Far Cry 2 could be a contender. I know it was severely lacking in variation, but it was still a massive step up from FC1. Then again, it's classification as a sequel is pretty borderline.

ZymeAddict on 24/5/2009 at 05:27

Am I the only one who thought that Call of Duty 2 sucked balls compared to the original? Yeah, the graphics were somewhat better, but with the new wuss-heal setup and generic, boring levels, I couldn't understand why it was getting as good reviews as it did.

Call of Duty 4, on the other hand, resolved most of the COD2 issues and was an all-round awesome game.

EvaUnit02 on 24/5/2009 at 05:49

Fuck health kits and having to quicksave every few feet to avoid death.

Some of these old school PC FPSes with ridiculously unfair/unbalanced difficulty like Far Cry 1, CoD: United Offensive and MoH:AA would greatly benefited from regen health. When one is having to constantly mash quicksave/quickload (or forced to repeat the same checkpoints over and over again in the case of FC1), it quickly stops being fun.

These are arcadey spamfests, not realistic tactical shooters, they shouldn't be like fucking NES games.

ZylonBane on 24/5/2009 at 06:20

Quote Posted by EvaUnit02

Fuck health kits and having to quicksave every few feet to avoid death.

Maybe you should try sucking less.

june gloom on 24/5/2009 at 06:48

Maybe you should try finishing the final Soviet level in United Offensive on the hardest difficulty.

Good luck with that, thunderfuck.

Pyrian on 24/5/2009 at 07:08

Quote Posted by EvaUnit02

Some of these old school PC FPSes with ridiculously unfair/unbalanced difficulty like Far Cry 1...

Wait, what? Far Cry 1 had a few tough situations - two, really - only one of which was truly over the top, and that was basically the final battle. On regular difficulty I never quicksaved. (...I actually played the entire game before quicksave was even implemented in it.)

If it's too hard for you, there's a difficulty setting for a reason.

ZymeAddict on 24/5/2009 at 07:20

Quote Posted by EvaUnit02

Fuck health kits and having to quicksave every few feet to avoid death.

To each his own, I guess.

Actually, the regen system was one of lesser issues I had with that game. Mostly I just found it had extremely derivative and boring levels and objectives (assault, defend, assault, defend, ad nauseum). I know the original COD had those levels too, but they seemed fresher and more varied than in COD2.

I also didn't like the fact that took out the quicksave system. I'm not one to quickload every five seconds, but in some of the more difficult levels it got extremely annoying dying and having to replay the same damn section over and over again.

Oh yeah, and I couldn't stand that it seemed like you had a friggin grenade magnet attached to your ass. I swear, I was killed by grenades more than bullets in that damn game.

Shadowcat on 24/5/2009 at 09:02

Quote Posted by Pyrian

If it's too hard for you, there's a difficulty setting for a reason.

Yeah, I think that some people set difficulty higher from the outset (because they just know that they're the sort of bad-ass who can handle it), and then bitch about it being too hard. Personally, Serious Sam well and truly knocked the "I'll start out on Hard" habit out of me.

I would say that in general games should enable you to switch difficulty in mid-game (I'm looking at you again, Sam), as difficulty settings obviously aren't going to be consistent between games.