Rather curious... Sequels and expansion packs to games are both very welcome things, at least I think so. If a game is worth buying, odds are, any continuation of the game would also be worth buying. It makes sense. But for some reason it never works out that way...

But what does the last bastion of net-sanity prefer?

Expansion packs, at least in my experience, have a much higher success rate than sequels. Not talking sales figures, or profit margins, but from the end-user's standpoint, an expansion pack cannot deviate too much from the core game. As such, if you liked the game, you'll probably like it with more toys, levels, and story. Add to that, expansions tend to be cheaper (usually no more than 2/3rds of the game's original price). One of the few downsides to an expansion pack is that it is stuck with the engine of the original, and thus will always be on the older-side of technology. Another downside that happens now and then, is that the expansion's plot seems half-baked or just tacked on (like C&C:RA2 Yuri's Revenge) or simply uses the game's engine to spin an unrelated story (Neverwinter Nights: Undrentide/Underdark)

Now sequels gain the advantage that they can improve the engine and graphics, and make the new game do things the original never could. While improvements are usually a plus, this is also the risk factor with sequels. All too often, the developers "improve" something, only to take away some of the original game's appeal. And improvements also come at the cost of system resources, it is not uncommon for a sequel to be so much more demanding on a computer, that much of the fanbase won't be able to play it, even if they wanted to. But at the end of the day, PC gamers know that their hobby requires constant upgrades, and a full-on sequel tends to have much more content per-dollar than any expansion pack would. In addition, the plot of a sequel is more consistently related to the original game (or put another way, doesn't just spin bullshit like some expansions).

So which side of the fence are you on? Would you rather not tamper with a good thing, preferring the safety of expansion packs to preserve what you loved in a game... Or are you all about progress, and having your favorite game always looking its best, and thus prefer a sequel to beloved titles?

Myself, I side with Expansion Packs. I look at games like Rollercoaster Tycoon or Battlefield 1942 and say "Do I really want to re-learn all the controls for the new game? The old one works fine, I just want more levels".

Also for fun...
Khell's Picks: Best/Worst Expansions and Sequels
Best Expansion - Battlefield 2: Special Forces
Worst Expansion - Diablo: Hellfire
Best Sequel - Freelancer (Sequel of Starlancer)
Worst Sequel - Master of Orion 3
Most Needing of an Expansion - Roller Coaster Tycoon 3 (Needs a third)
Most Needing of a Sequel - Freelancer

Expansions do the name, they extend gameplay. The way I see it, they are everything that ought to get released in patches, but are too big to be. I think the best expansion I ever played was Call of Duty: United Offensive. For the multiplayer aspect of it, it was 1000x more fun than the vanilla COD.

The thing with sequels is that they have to bring A) something new, and B) maintain the old story/idea. It's a fine line between past and future they have to walk, and in too many a case, they pursue too much of A (often in a manner unhelpful for gameplay) and forget B. But likewise, if they are too B heavy, they suffer from lack of A.

I voted expansion. It is a much easier way to get new content for a game at a cheaper price. And yeah, Hellfire was the worst expansion ever.

You know, I can't answer. It's a little too subjective, I like video games. If the expansion is good, it's good. If it's bad, it's bad. I just don't like paying 60 dollars if I'm getting a sequal small enough to have been an expansion. I'm looking at you Ressurection of Evil.

I would much rather have a sequel than an expansion.

Why you might ask; because sequels are brand spanking new. I feel that the things contained inside an expansion are almost always there for a quick buck. Nothings new, same old, same old. A SEQUAL is an entirely new game.

i like sequels

I prefer sequels, better engine (not just graphics), and it furthers the story more than an expansion ever could. Game play should be fun, but story is still the most important thing for me, See KotOR. That's the other reason i'm voting for sequels, KotOR 3 WoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOt,Revan.

Plus the Gobeldegook to do with all the extra CD's or downloads for Expansion Packs annoys the living crap out of me, I have yet to find where my BF2 SF DVD went.

It really depends on the type of game for me. If it's something like the sims, then definitely an expansion. It's the same with games that are primarily multiplayer, such as the Battlefield series. Though, like consoles, games get boring after a few years, and a sequel is required to keep it fresh. (like battlefield 2, but Vietnam and 2142 were too soon. I did love titan mode, though.)

If it's a non-multiplayer game, or a game where multiplayer is just tagged on and the single player is the focus, then i prefer sequels, such as in the Half-Life Series.

Though i recently have discovered the middle-ground, and have fallen in love with episodic gaming. And no, Half-Life 2 Episodes do not count as episodic content.

And i'll copy Kshell:

Best Expansion: Battlefield 1942: Road to Rome
Worst Expansion: The Lort of The Rings: The Battle For Middle-Earth 2, The Rise of the Witch-King (ruined a great game)
Best Sequel: Half-Life 2 Episodes
Worst Sequel: MGS 2
Most in need of an expansion: The Lord of the Rings Online (and luckily, it's coming. It's too bad it'll be forever before they add the southern regions)
Most in need of a sequel: Stubbs the Zombie (a beautiful game, but too short)

Edit: Where's the i like both option?

Sequels? Expansions?

Give me free mods built by the community instead. Counter Strike? Team Fortress? Point of Existence? Day of Defeat?

Sequels are better than expansions because they are a completely new game with a new story, new features etc. Expansions do what they say they do; EXPAND. This is not the same as IMPROVE. You'll find that expansions tend to pile on new things without fixing the things that need attention.

While I dislike both there are exceptions to the rule Edit: However, know that I think about it, there are many good sequels, but not as many good expansions (probably as expansions are primarily for the PC, and have become less common). Like Rollercoaster Tycoon 2 was an amazing game, but the expansions add very little to the game (with the exception of Corkscrew Follies). It is hard to judge such a wide variety of sequels because there are so many bad ones, yet there are so many good ones that even beat the original. Comparing RCT2 to RCT3 is a joke, as I feel RCT3 doesn't really hold up and I find that I rather be playing RCT2 instead (However, there is subjectivity in all of this as well). I think what it comes down to is the more sequels made for a game the more chance it will fail (somewhat obvious I guess).

Can anyone think of a good original with a bad sequel (the second addition to the series, even if there is a 3rd, 4th, etc.)? I ask because I am having trouble thinking of one off the top of my head, but I am sure there has to be one.

fantomspower:

Can anyone think of a good original with a bad sequel (the second addition to the series, even if there is a 3rd, 4th, etc.)? I ask because I am having trouble thinking of one off the top of my head, but I am sure there has to be one.

Perfect Dark. Blam.

Atmosck:
Edit: Where's the i like both option?

Unless you are the rare type of person who wants entirely new games every time (I left the third option for those people), everyone else has to make a choice, one or the other. To have a "Both" option denies the whole point of the thread, that being, if you had to pick between an expansion or a sequel, which would you want more?

And Fantomspower, you surprise me. In many, MANY ways, I feel RCT3 w/ its 2 expansions greatly out-did RCT2 w/ all its expansions... The only thing I find lacking in 3 was the ability to kill park patrons... But that in its own way became fun too, as I would sit peeps in a pool of water and watch them not die for hours on end, or make a Station-Only coaster with powered launch, and have it fire the cars onto populated walkways, knocking peeps in all directions.

But as to your question...

fantomspower:
Can anyone think of a good original with a bad sequel (the second addition to the series, even if there is a 3rd, 4th, etc.)? I ask because I am having trouble thinking of one off the top of my head, but I am sure there has to be one.

Well, Fable is gearing up to be that way... As much as they've improved upon Fable 1, Fable 2's whole elimination of the minimap and highlighted items/monsters in favor of a gimmicky "dog" already killed any interest I had in the game.

Command and Conquer? I found C&C original to be one of the pinnacles of RTS gaming, and Tiberian Sun to be a bucket full of Paris Hilton's used maxipads. I'm serious, C&C2 was such a letdown, and after the MASSIVE wait for it (Promised "Coming Soon" at the end of C&C1, didn't show up for YEARS).

Grand Theft Auto. GTA1 was the ultimate arcade-style game, and GTA2 was the same game, with the fun scaled back and the speed set to go-cart levels. Not a single improvement over GTA1, and plenty removed.

For the console end, Final Fantasy X-2... Kinda fits, if each FF is its own game, X-2 was actually a sequel for once, and it was 99% suckage, 1% good J-Pop.

I put my money on sequels. In many cases expansions come too long after the original game. In many cases I have finished the game and often sold it before the expansion comes out. I just don't want to start the whole thing from scratch just for a few hours of extra stuff.

Expansions are great when the game has a great replay value. Games like Titan Quest get a lot out of their expansions, but these games are rare, because there are not a lot of games you want to keep on playing again and again.

Sequels give the game developers the chance to change the things that people didn't like, or they didn't like. They can update the game to more modern appearance (not just visual effects, but for instance the change from VGA graphics to SVGA or greater). Sequels of course need more work to do, but they are complete games all by themselves, and not just a little extra for the players of the original.

Best sequel: Master of Orion 2
Worst sequel: Master of Orion 3
Best Expansion: Titan Quest - Immortal Throne
Worst Expansion: C&C Counterstrike

Sequels. New story and new units compared to just an add on. plus they tend to rethink some of the things they did in the first one in essence taking something good finding out what made it not great then make the new product great.

Sequels because they advance the or bring a new story.Expansions are just advancing gameplay and maybe a little story for a short time

Hard to say, some expansions keep you playing the game you love, whereas sequels can bring on further fun not possible with the previous.

Khell_Sennet:

Grand Theft Auto. GTA1 was the ultimate arcade-style game, and GTA2 was the same game, with the fun scaled back and the speed set to go-cart levels. Not a single improvement over GTA1, and plenty removed.

Interesting, I found GTA2 to be my favorite of the series. Maybe, I need to go back and give GTA1 another go. I still like GTA3 and Vice City, but since Vice I find the rest to be lackluster. I'd say GTAIV was a great disappointment for me because of the hype, plus I will never understand how it got a 10/10 by most reviewers. It is simply baffling that a game that introduces nothing groundbreaking and can't even provide a proper 3rd person shooter, while also incorporating such poor physics get such a review. When a street light acts like paper when being hit by a car, but a tree won't even budge; we're not talking giant redwoods here (in fact compared to the rest of the graphics the trees look like complete ass). Further, what is with the shiny cars, it seems every car on the street is brand new and buffed to high-heaven, where as the rest of the city looks like a dump (starting area). Anyways I could rant on about GTAIV for awhile, so I'll leave it there.

As for Fable 2, it is hard to judge until it is out, but the first one fell flat for me so if they can make it more dynamic it might be a success in my book. However, if what you say is true about the dog acting as a substitute for a mini-map/navigation system just seems odd to me. Fable for me fell apart when I figured out that the choice between good/evil was made inconsequential by a certain story-driven choice. Also, I found after that arena event the game turned into a grind. Not to get into more details, but Fable 2 doesn't have to do much to impress me. I'd say Fable was just OK, so if Fable 2 is OK or good then all works out in the end I guess.

I prefer expansion packs, though sequels are great too. Expansion packs are meant for games that are meant to get new material (The Sims for example). I definitely enjoy expansion packs more, due to them being in addition to all other content. Let's take The Sims 2: there's plenty of expansion packs, and even though it's not exactly the newest of games, people still continue to play it due to the novelty of playing with so many aspects.

Expansion packs for games unlike The Sims and Rollercoaster Tycoon are meant to give you something to do until the sequel's out, while still fulfilling the description of an expansion; The Elder Scrolls games are examples of such. TESIII: Morrowind had two official expansions made while Bethesda was working on TESIV: Oblivion (Tribunal and Bloodmoon). Both expansions expanded gameplay and gave players new content to nibble away at until Oblivion's release.

The difference between The Sims and Oblivion is that the expansions for The Sims are effectively new titles, but it retains the interface and everything you liked (or didn't like) about the original game, and instead of continuously pumping out new sequels, when a sequel is released, much more care is taken into bug removal and updates.

On another note, I prefer mods released online above expansions and sequels; they're free and expand the game, sometimes changing the interfaces as well.

I prefer sequels. And not some wishy-washy wanking off the same engine (I'm looking at you, San Andreas), but a real sequel, like comparing HL to HL2.

I like expansions a little more. If you liked the core game then an extra campaign or two, a few new toys, modes and gameplay tweaks for fifty dollars is a pretty good deal.

Sequels sometimes mean you have to upgrade or buy a new system, or there are radical gameplay changes. Not that they're all bad, I just prefer the episodic element of expansions.

Modpacks and user made stuff is also really cool. Especially since most of it's free.

Well, I don't like either that much, but if I had to choose, I'd go with Expansion Packs. It's easier to be pessimistic about them. Although, I think Dawn of War 2 might sway my opinion and make me like sequels.

Of course, community-made mods beat both sequels and expansion packs.

Be it sequel or expansion, I want something which builds on the previous game/installment and (tries) to improve it. I'll take the Dawn of War series.

Dawn of War: Fun RTS, nice balance and an average-good storyline depending on your personal preference

Winter Assault: Introduced a new playable race and had a storyline. Didn't play the storyline myself so I can't comment, but it built on what we had and added more. Perfect for an expansion.

Dark Crusade: More races, swaps out the story mode for a more Risk-style campaign base. Mixing things up a bit and expanding and a lot of people enjoyed this, however it got fairly repetitive after a while. Again, builds on what we had and introduced something new. Getting rid of the story was, in my opinion, a bad idea. I'd have much rather seen both a story+risk style gameplay, but I was entertained enough by Dark Crusade.

Soulstorm: Ah, the crux. Many a debate on this expansion pack. The last one in the Dawn of War series before Dawn of War 2 finally comes out. Added two new races again (Sisters of Battle+Dark Eldar), added dubiously useful air units and artificially made the risk-style campaign seem longer. I say artifically because all they did was instead of having 12+ zones on one planet, they gave you 5 planets with three zones a piece. There were more zones, I admit it, but when they advertised a whole solar system, I was thinking scores of zones to take control of for truly epic scale terrain control.

Not only that, but the Soulstorm was buggy to hell, the new air units, as stated, were only useful if you were the right race, and some of the heroes had just been copy pasted from Dark Crusade to Soulstorm, not even taking the time to correct the names in the Wargear screen. Soulstorm is what I didn't think an expansion should be. They didn't add much, with Sisters of Battle being little more than Space Marines with shinier fire effects, no new campaign or story to interest you and bugs "up the arse" which severely detracted from the whole fun of it.

Sequels, similarly, should build on the game and improve. I find Baldurs Gate 2 did this quite and well, vastly improving gameplay and making it on the whole more enjoyable, while still capturing a lot of the feel and atmosphere of the first game. Conversely, Halo 2 to Halo 3 did not so good. Oh yes, it gave you new skins, the Forge, and a bunch of new weapons+vehicles, but the gameplay hadn't been improved (though it was still adequate), the story was nothing to write home about and in general it felt more like it should have been an expansion tagged onto the end of Halo 2 rather than a standalone game.

Talking about Halo 3 leads me neatly to my next point: Length. If your game's main story mode is too short it leaves a sour taste in the back of a gamers throat I find. There are notable exceptions (Portal, for one) where the length is just about right. But for an 'epic' sequel which was supposed to be finishing the series, it seems rather foolish to have less than 10 hours of story mode in there. Though, before I get outed as a Halo 3 flamer, it should be noted that I did enjoy Halo 3, I just thought it could be better.

Both sequels and expansions should improve what we have. I find expansions should continue the story (or chapter) of the main character such as in Halflife 2 and it's episodic expansions. If you were to view it as a literary series, expansion packs should be a few more chapters, whereas sequels should be a whole new book if you catch my meaning. Diablo 2 did this quite well, with Act 5 (Lord of Destruction) starting literally just after you've offed Diablo, whereas Diablo 3 appears, from what I gather, to start a number of years after Baal's defeat.

In summary (finally), I like both for what they are, but generally I prefer sequels cos they often do more for the game series as a whole than an expansion does. The endless disk swapping and updates needed for download are another reason I prefer sequels, but then, I'd prefer an update which fixes bugs than no update at all.

I get the feeling not all of that made sense, but I hope you got the gist of what I was saying.

I'm rather surprised nobody has made mention of Everquest yet (unless I missed it)... EQ1 is over a decade old, and still getting expansions, and EQ2 has followed in its footsteps with a strong focus on expansion over sequelage. While I detest Everquest, I wish some of my more beloved games would get close to the number of expansions EQ1 received...

With regards to game "Mods", I generally left them out of my topic because mods are free, and too varied to generalize. I've seen mods that aren't much more than a single item or improvement (Gun Light mod for Doom3), and I've seen mods which dwarf the core game in length, content, and replayability (DC Final). There is no set expectation with mods, and being free, they don't factor much into the choice of "If you could buy just one, which would you prefer".

What happened to the "I like both" option?

HobbesMkii:
I think the best expansion I ever played was Call of Duty: United Offensive. For the multiplayer aspect of it, it was 1000x more fun than the vanilla COD.

That was a great expansion pack.

Xpacs are the bomb as long as the devs realize when it's time to release a sequel. I'm looking at you WoW

It really depends on what the expansion or sequel brings to the table, and how well it's priced. Everyone remember the 500,000 different expansion packs that were released for The Sims? They were nice additions to the game but not worth 20 bucks a pop. Likewise a sequel should bring enough new plot/game concepts to worth buying. Im a little hesatent about the new Stalker game because it dosn't look like it's bringing that much to the table.

Overall though I prefer a full fledged sequel to an expansion pack, but expansion packs are easier to create so the are released more frequently so if you want a sequel you have to wait a bit longer.

Expansions. In expansions they simply extend the gameplay and fix possible issues you had with the original. In sequels, a lot of the same mistakes seem to be made, i need to relearn the entire game and more often then not, the story is less interesting to me.

I also think expansions are more cost effective for a developer/publisher, but i couldn't state that as fact. Win-win in my book.