Forums > Game Talk > Worst sequel you've ever played...
Indra was here (20755) on 7/11/2009 11:26 PM · Permalink · Report
Underline sequel (and expansions). Which means that what you would subjectively expect as the continuation of its predecessor is far from satisfactory. On the top of my hat that I'm not wearing:
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 7/12/2009 4:15 AM · Permalink · Report
Indra was here (20755) on 7/12/2009 7:54 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn B. Lynx wrote--]
[/Q --end Unicorn B. Lynx wrote--] How odd. Too cartoonish?
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 7/13/2009 9:34 AM · Permalink · Report
Escape From Monkey Island. How odd. Too cartoonish?
No, in fact Curse was a real cartoon and was way better than Escape. My problem with Escape is that it failed to capture the magical atmosphere of the series. Instead of a romantic pirate tale it turned into an annoying parody on commercialism. The magic of the series was gone.
And it wasn't funny anymore. Almost all the jokes were recycled from previous games.
No, for me, the series ended with Curse. The Secret was still the greatest of all, but LeChuck's Revenge and Curse were great too. Escape was, for me, the weakest adventure LucasArts has ever done. "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" is still head and shoulders above this.
And to think that they made it only shortly after the amazing, incomparable "Grim Fandango"...
Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 7/12/2009 9:26 AM · Permalink · Report
Metroid Prime 2: Echoes - The gameworld is larger than in Metroid Prime, but split into small areas, and it's pretty boring for the most part (especially the dark world). It tries to incorporate more items and abilities than it can handle: additionally to different types of beams to open different types of doors, you also get two different types of keys. Then there's the light- and dark-beam mechanic which adds nothing but tedium, and I haven't even mentioned all the abilities that Samus learns throughout the game. Throw in an underdeveloped and uninspired light/dark world mechanic and overpowered mid-bosses and you have one convoluted game that is a total chore to play.
Every Sequel to Soul Calibur. They're not bad in themself, but also don't improve anything and just introduce more useless extras, crappier character design and moves.
The Cliffe (1552) on 7/12/2009 10:12 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
vedder (70796) on 7/12/2009 6:13 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start The Cliffe wrote--]EDIT: Indra, I just noticed that you have Civ 4 on your list. I've played all four of the original Civ games, and I found the third one to be the weakest...I thought 4 was a big step back in the right direction. What miffed you about Civ 4? [/Q --end The Cliffe wrote--]
That's what I was wondering. I found Civ IV to be on par with Civ II again.
- Deus Ex: Invisible War - Not a bad game, but infinitely far removed from the original
- Neverwinter Nights II - Ok, I actually liked this one better than the first, but I never bought the first because I hated it so. And with the second I gambled for the worst. What a buggy piece of crap!
- Tomb Raider III, IV, V, VI, Legend, Underworld - O.k. to be fair I only played V, VI and Legend of these, but I'm pretty sure that they were all either horrible, degenerate crap or both.
- Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion - I do like this game, but it feels like the bastard child of Morrowind and a console game. (Sounds like DX:IW actually....)
- Worms 3D - What the hell Team 17? What the hell? I'd rather have ANOTHER revamp of Worms 2 than this 3D crap. How the hell am I going to lob a bazooka projectile over four mountainpeaks into a womp-rat sized tunnel on the other island which is upwind, if I'm ALSO have to account for a THIRD FRICKIN DIMENSION! (Sorry, got carried away a little there :)
St. Martyne (3648) on 7/12/2009 7:43 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start stvedder wrote--] Tomb Raider III, IV, V, VI, Legend, Underworld - O.k. to be fair I only played V, VI and Legend of these, but I'm pretty sure that they were all either horrible, degenerate crap or both. [/Q --end stvedder wrote--]
V, VI - definitely worst games in the series. III and IV can be very enjoyable, if you're willing to overlook the dated engine.
GAMEBOY COLOR! (1990) on 7/13/2009 2:02 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start St_Martyne wrote--] [Q2 --start stvedder wrote--] Tomb Raider III, IV, V, VI, Legend, Underworld - O.k. to be fair I only played V, VI and Legend of these, but I'm pretty sure that they were all either horrible, degenerate crap or both. [/Q2 --end stvedder wrote--]
V, VI - definitely worst games in the series. III and IV can be very enjoyable, if you're willing to overlook the dated engine. [/Q --end St_Martyne wrote--]
Agreed on Chronicles and AoD. Although I have to say, that what I've played of Underworld so far has been dissapointing. Twitchy camera, touchy controls, and awful menu design have dampened my will to play. I'll finish it sometime this year, but for now I'll leave it be.
Indra was here (20755) on 7/12/2009 8:18 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start The Cliffe wrote--]EDIT: Indra, I just noticed that you have Civ 4 on your list. I've played all four of the original Civ games, and I found the third one to be the weakest...I thought 4 was a big step back in the right direction. What miffed you about Civ 4? [/Q --end The Cliffe wrote--] Kinda skipped the third (got over-run by barbarians :p) so I'm comparing it with the 1st and 2nd.
The fourth? Well, graphically it's no contest. To make a summary in comparison of previous Civilization experiences:
- Educational value drop. Little gameplay and historical information compared to its predessesors, civilopedia demoted to pressing big buttons;
- Removal of the "area of control" strategem. Probably one of the worst errors made. Having an enemy chariot unit pass by a tile consisting of 10 tanks without penality makes defense quite annoying;
- Horse (etc.) resources fumble. Many civilizations require horses for special units. Now what happens when you don't have access to nice ponies? :p
- Invisible resource fumble. Just got (for example) the iron smelting tech, which shows iron resources not previously viewable. Irritation occurs when: [1] Resource is on the same tile of the city. You do not get the same bonuses if it were mined. [2] Resource shows up between 2 cities and out of its resource area of control. So much for town placement planning. Wasn't a problem in Alpha Centauri though.;
- Town Development eye-candy removal. If its built, its notification is only with text. Can't view your town up close anymore;
- Unbalanced resource management. Just build cottages. Ignore (when applicable) other forms of resources. At least the computer AI does that with amazing results;
- Still not quite sure how longbowmen can actually defeat a rifle squad. :p
- Palace achievements/upgrades removed. Other stuff they haven't fixed since Civ 1:
- Having all civilizations meet each other during the stone age. :p
- Creating units during the stone age takes hundreds of years. :p
- Creating cities by the sea is slower than in the middle of a forest.
The Cliffe (1552) on 7/13/2009 12:11 AM · Permalink · Report
That longbowmen gripe is hilarious. Here's to 1's and 0's in their ongoing quest to simulate reality. Keep at it boys, you'll get there someday...
Indra was here (20755) on 7/13/2009 7:00 PM · Permalink · Report
I greatly preferred Alpha Centauri or Colonization over Civilization. They don't make 4x games like they used to. Look at Sins of a Solar Empire. :p
Xoleras (66141) on 7/13/2009 9:47 PM · Permalink · Report
As it's a common practise in Civ to shoot down a stealth bomber with a Roman phalanx, throwing their spears in the sky, I don't see problems with riflemen getting shot by longbowmen. ;)
And with the removal of the stupid "area of control", an airplane can now fly over a ground unit without issuing a declaration of war.
vedder (70796) on 7/13/2009 10:06 PM · Permalink · Report
I really hated that area of control in Civ I and II. Specially on smaller maps where your cities are close to your enemies and neutrals, they'd always put units just outside your city borders so your settlers couldn't build any roads or anything. So annoying. I'm glad they got rid of it.
Indra was here (20755) on 7/14/2009 8:10 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start stvedder wrote--]Specially on smaller maps where your cities are close to your enemies and neutrals, they'd always put units just outside your city borders so your settlers couldn't build any roads or anything. [/Q --end stvedder wrote--] That's what I did to the enemy AI. :)
Now since its removed, any unit can move anywhere on the map, disregarding borders and adjacent units. Not exactly "realistic." (remembers a time when the Chinese government shot down a Boeing for entering Chinese territory without permission).
Xoleras (66141) on 7/14/2009 10:28 PM · Permalink · Report
This does not work in Civ4.
In Civ3, you could cross into enemy territory, but if managed to go out of their territory before the end of the turn, all is fine. If you stayed in, the enemy got annoyed with you.
Now you cannot enter the territory of another nation, unless you have an "open border" contract or you do directly declare war.
â- (1623) on 7/14/2009 10:51 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Xoleras wrote--] Now you cannot enter the territory of another nation, unless you have an "open border" contract or you do directly declare war. [/Q --end Xoleras wrote--]
...you mean there was a time when countries declared war before attacking other nations?! That's Al Quaeda talk, sir!!!
Indra was here (20755) on 7/15/2009 7:18 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Ash Ligast II wrote--] ...you mean there was a time when countries declared war before attacking other nations?! That's Al Quaeda talk, sir!!! [/Q --end Ash Ligast II wrote--] I wonder how World War III will happen? I'm siding with the faction that makes better hamburger rations.
â- (1623) on 7/14/2009 9:38 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Still not quite sure how longbowmen can actually defeat a rifle squad. :p
Not as unrealistic as you might think. Early incarnations of gun powder-based firearms were notorious for backfiring, crazy long reload times and even if they did work correctly, it was hard to hit a tree from 50 yards distance. Trying to hit something over a great distance with these things was the equivalent of playing the lottery. So, depending on the distance in-between the units and some other factors, I might actually put my money on the bows.
As for worst sequels, yeah, gotta second Gothic 3 here.
The Cliffe (1552) on 7/15/2009 10:00 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Ash Ligast II wrote--]Still not quite sure how longbowmen can actually defeat a rifle squad. :p
Not as unrealistic as you might think. Early incarnations of gun powder-based firearms were notorious for backfiring, crazy long reload times and even if they did work correctly, it was hard to hit a tree from 50 yards distance. Trying to hit something over a great distance with these things was the equivalent of playing the lottery. So, depending on the distance in-between the units and some other factors, I might actually put my money on the bows.
As for worst sequels, yeah, gotta second Gothic 3 here. [/Q --end Ash Ligast II wrote--]
Good point on the rifles, I hadn't thought of that.
As for Gothic 3, I dunno. I mean, the Gothic games were always in a class of 'average, but not bad enough to truly hate' RPGs. In that sense, I don't think Gothic 3 could even be defined as worse than its predecessors. If we're comparing Gothic 3 to other RPGs of its time, than yeah, I can totally see why you would hate it, but strictly speaking as a sequel, I'm not so sure that it warrants mention in this category.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 7/16/2009 4:49 AM · Permalink · Report
I mean, the Gothic games were always in a class of 'average, but not bad enough to truly hate' RPGs.
Well, for me, Gothic games were always in a class of 'awesome, good enough to passionately love" RPGs.
The Cliffe (1552) on 7/16/2009 9:28 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn B. Lynx wrote--]Well, for me, Gothic games were always in a class of 'awesome, good enough to passionately love" RPGs. [/Q --end Unicorn B. Lynx wrote--]
All power to you. I completely forgot the all important "IMO" when I was describing the Gothic series, sorry about that.
â- (1623) on 7/17/2009 9:08 PM · Permalink · Report
I picked it mostly due to its unheard-of bugginess. The original retail version that I played can hardly even be called a game (and I'm not getting more into that, there's some really bad memories attached to it =( ). But even that aside, they just overreached themselves with this one. Gothic 1 and 2 had this nice microcosm of three different competing factions of which you needed to irrevocably choose a single one, whereas Gothic 3 just let you do quests for whomever you liked. It decreased replayability immensely and made it overall too sandboxy for me.
Indra was here (20755) on 7/16/2009 11:07 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Ash Ligast II wrote--]Still not quite sure how longbowmen can actually defeat a rifle squad. :p
Not as unrealistic as you might think. Early incarnations of gun powder-based firearms were notorious for backfiring, crazy long reload times and even if they did work correctly, it was hard to hit a tree from 50 yards distance. [/Q --end Ash Ligast II wrote--]
No, sir. The implementation of professional gun-powdered based formations did not focus on individual units. Formations where drilled to "shoot straight ahead" instead of targeting hitting a specific target. Unlike archery units, gun powder based units acted as a long/medium ranged shock troop. Combination of guns-blazing and comrades dying in a single volley was primary aimed to disrupt moral, thus routing them. The brave Swiss halberders learnt that the hard way.
But moral, was never a consideration in most "simplistic" strategy war games. In reality, moral is the primary cause of victory or defeat in warfare, not total annihilation of the enemy.
â- (1623) on 7/17/2009 7:45 PM · Permalink · Report
Honestly, I don't see where you disagree with me. Obviously, early firearms had their place in an army, mostly to lessen enemy morale, as you rightly pointed out. And, yes, if they faced a giant enemy force on mid distance, they would definitely hit someone with it (possibly themselves). All I'm saying is that in the given scenario of two isolated squads facing each other (that's how I understood the scenario at least), the bowmen would have a good chance. Also depending on other circumstances than simply distance; if you're shooting against the wind, having a bow ain't much fun. If it's raining, being reliant on gun powder ain't much fun, either :P
Indra was here (20755) on 7/18/2009 12:21 AM · Permalink · Report
Well, that's the thing. If we're talking about one-on-one, I'd go with the longbow. Squad vs. squad in professional armies, even archer squads don't shoot at individual targets. Versus metal armor, archers have trouble penetrating anything while crossbows, though able to penetrate armor, are even slower than rifles.
Odd how the Chinese had professional crossbow units before archer units. Earliest archeological find is 300 B.C. I believe.
Foxhack (32100) on 7/12/2009 4:37 PM · Permalink · Report
I'm going to go against the grain here - Fatal Fury 3.
The game is beautiful, the control is pretty decent, it has a story (unlike the earlier games), it introduced new characters, it expanded the Fatal Fury mythos...
And then SNK decided to make many moves that should've been mapped to ONE button into two button combinations, they made certain super moves way too difficult to use and / or pointless, and the AI is completely messed up and predicts all your attacks.
I really like the game but the CPU spams worse than a hopped-up arcade freak.
St. Martyne (3648) on 7/12/2009 7:49 PM · Permalink · Report
I can say there is, actually, one game that proudly occupy both the position of the "worst sequel ever" and, coincidently "worst game I ever played". Ladies and gentlemen...
Slug Camargo (583) on 7/13/2009 2:02 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
Why, the abysmal, unbelievably imbecile piece of rotten shit known as Silent Hill: Homecoming, or "Silent Hill goes to Hollywood". Not even Yahtzee's review could prepare me for the amount of cheeseburger-chomping Hollywood garbage in that game. Motherfuck fucking Konami, I hope they all rot in hell =(
Parf (7873) on 7/13/2009 7:05 AM · Permalink · Report
I'd have to say that every Silent Hill game after Silent Hill 2 has been on a steady downward spiral in terms of enjoyment. Homecoming and 0rigins were both pretty bad in my book, whereas 3 and 4 passed by just barely.
I wonder why gaming companies just never seem to understand when to stop... If a game is successful and perfect in every aspect of rating-worthy categories, just leave it alone from there and move on to something new instead. We don't need more sequels, we need more good games in my opinion.
Big John WV (26954) on 7/14/2009 11:10 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Indra was here (20755) on 7/18/2009 12:22 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Erkenbrand wrote--]I think Might & Magic IX deserves a honorable mention in this thread here. :o) [/Q --end Erkenbrand wrote--] Almost nullified myself meeting the first monster. That was a terrible experience.
DJP Mom (11333) on 7/18/2009 12:36 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Erkenbrand wrote--]I think Might & Magic IX deserves a honorable mention in this thread here. :o) [/Q --end Erkenbrand wrote--] After all the horrible things I've heard about MMIX I can't wait to get hold of a copy and play it! :)
St. Martyne (3648) on 7/18/2009 7:41 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start DJP Mom wrote--] After all the horrible things I've heard about MMIX I can't wait to get hold of a copy and play it! :) [/Q --end DJP Mom wrote--]
That was exactly what I though until I've actually tried it. Even if you can get past ugly, uninspired graphics and sterile setting you'll still find a very dull game underneath.
It's... bad. Not in a single good sense of the word.
MZ per X (3017) on 7/19/2009 6:21 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start DJP Mom wrote--] After all the horrible things I've heard about MMIX I can't wait to get hold of a copy and play it! :)[/Q --end DJP Mom wrote--]I own a copy, yet I have to find the mental strength to play it for more than a few hours, with all the other games lying around.
Multimedia Mike (20664) on 7/17/2009 4:47 AM · Permalink · Report
Castlevania II: Simon's Quest. I just didn't get it.
Nicholas Steel (25) on 7/18/2009 7:34 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
Empire Earth 3.
'nuff said really, 99$ for a game worse then Pong and it stayed at that price for many months. I'm glad I bought it from EBGames, as they offer a 7 day guarantee that you like the game.
The game was released with a 0 day 500mb patch to download, took about 10 tries to download it to get it downloaded properly (MD5 hash verified)
Here's a nice review that sums the game up better then I ever could :) http://au.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/empireearthiii/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review
Elliott Wu (40) on 8/5/2009 8:16 AM · Permalink · Report
Tekken 4 for me.
After the greatness that was Tekken Tag, Tekken 4 was Namco's bold experiment towards making Tekken more 'Soulcalibur'-like by introducing a faux 8-way run and introduced closed environments in an attempt to ape their competitor Dead Or Alive.
This fell flat hard as the game basically betrayed the audience it fostered for 3 previous games, and the walled stages themselves did not fulfill their design intent as the positioning advantages you might get from using a wall is instantly gone the moment your foe learns to time a 13 frame input. (which is pretty generous)
Then add to the fact that Tekken 4 Jin was god-like broken, and the funky feel to the controls, you basically have one of the most controversial Tekkens of it's history.
Zeppin (8408) on 8/28/2009 8:30 PM · Permalink · Report
Age of Empires 3
Avernum 4 and 5
Civilization IV - I dislike this for many of the same reasons Indra already mentioned. I also felt that information wasn't displayed as clearly, which caused endless frustration early on that probably marred any future enjoyment.
Call of Duty 2 - The regenerating health broke the game for me. Health bars are by no means realistic but they allow a greater feeling of being human, even after the twelfth bullet, than automatic regeneration did. I went from feeling like an uncharacteristically skilled soldier to feeling like Captain America.
Escape from Monkey Island
Tomas Pettersson (31846) on 8/28/2009 9:21 PM · Permalink · Report
- Mega Traveller 2 : Not at all as atmospheric as the first game. Too boring and too large cities.
- Ys 3 : Side-scrolling action-RPG, do I need to say more... Got as far as to the first boss.