James Bond Goldeneye, and every other James Bond games since then.

Woe Is You:

NoMoreSanity:

What the smarter guy said. Also, that they are basically the game is the reason I list it as a lousy sequel, since the gameply is near identical to Gears 1, with lousier story, gameplay and characters. SO it would count as a "lousy sequel" then.

I've been scratching my head over this and I honestly can't think of anything that's superior in the first Gears of War aside from the network code hiccups that I'm sure weren't there in the first game.

Hmm, I can't really understand why the first is simply better but it is. Gears 2 improved on every problem that plagued the original, yet it fails to be nearly as fun. I do like the story better in Gears 2 and the story mode in general is just better, but somehow Gears 2 barely feels worth the 60 bucks i spent on it.

I have already gone back to playing Gears 1 multiplayer, which i prefer over 2 completely.

Well, I don't count FFX-2 as a sequel, they are a so dissimilar that they really can't be called sequels but, and I'm surprised that it went so long with out mentioning (not just from me) but MGS2 Sons of Liberty. Repeating the first story was bad enough but replacing the main character was a serious offense. And I like Raiden. But when the Big Shell part started I said, "Who the Eff are you!?" And MGS4, I have never been so disappointed by a game in my life. Perhaps it is my fault for the expectations but still.

After that the Prince of Persia series. I just couldn't stand them after the first one, and I'm not just talking about the rage that was added to the Prince's character. Chrono Cross (Yeah, they've all been mentioned before I know), the the game was fun but the story made no sense to me.

But for me the absolute worst (after X-2 -- which never happened as far as I'm concerned) is Spyro: Ripto's Rage. Story aside the game drove me batty. "Hi Spyro, welcome to the land of obnoxious talking animals and menial side-quests!"

Oh god there are so many I can't stop, even though you all wish I would, remember the FFVII sequels? Like Dirge of Cerberus. Okay I haven't played that one but I've never heard anything good about it. And I'm not sure if it counts since it's a movie but Advent Children. I'm sorry it was nothing more than graphics wank to me, it took the story and negated it. Aeris's death doesn't mean anything if you make her tangible or revive her. Neither does Rufus's. And the story just didn't make sense or add up and that part where the old player party characters keep showing up and trying to shoot Cloud into the air or jump up really high? WTF? I've never seen anything so pointless in my life.

Okay I'm done I swear.

Mercs 2

I very much enjoyed Serious Sam (even with the frustrating bits) and thought the Second Encounter was an improvement. But I didn't like Serious Sam 2. I won't say at all, because it was fun......but it just didn't have the same vibe that the others did.

The other Serious Sams were a very tongue in cheek poke at the FPS genre as a whole, they presented themselves as serious games whilst being very silly underneath. Serious Sam 2, however, abandoned this design ethic and went for all out silliness and I think it was a lesser game because of it. It also had a mechanic I found quite annoying: that of herding you into a spot and then quite obviously blocking off all exites until you kill everything the room throws at you. Painkiller does this as well. To be fair, this does happen in the first 2, but they are done far more subtely and less often.

Probably the Painkiller sequel. The original game was massive fun to play, and the expansion, Painkiller: Battle Out of Hell, was just as brilliant.

Then along came the sequel Painkiller: Overdose. While I was expecting a fine-tuned, next-generation replica of the original game, what I got instead was.....THE ORIGINAL GAME. Other than a new jackass character and plot, no improvements, or changes for that matter, had been made. It still retained the fast-paced gameplay I have come to love, but I really was expecting more from it.

Probably got to agree with everyone and say KotOR and KotOR2 was probably a big disappointment. Sad, too. KotOR2 was a much better game, just suffered so horribly from the crunch at the end.

Also, FFX to FFX-2. Not because FFX-2 was a bad game, but solely because of FFX-2, Square-Enix will never, ever take a risk with the Final Fantasy series again, and that is just too bad. FFX-2 was a great game. I'm pretty sick and tired of hearing "It sucked because the lead characters were all happy and not-emo and had boobs."

Also, FFX-2 wins for having a nip-slip in the game, which made it into the american release.

Rollercoaster Tycoon 1 [good] and Rollercoaster Tycoon 2 [bad].

The third one owns though.

SSB Brawl, every Mario Kart after 64, Twilight Princess, Perfect Dark 2, Halo 2 & 3, Lineage 2 Chronicle 5, Mario Sunshine, Red Alert 3, Tiberium Wars and hopefully not Starcraft 2.

HardRockSamurai:
Probably the Painkiller 'sequel'.

Fixed. Overdose was, literally, a fan-made mod given a commercial release. And it shows. Oh god, does it show.

Sub-par sequels for me? Let's go through the list:

Command & Conquer: Renegade - No explanation required.

Contract J.A.C.K. - Not a bad game, but compared to NoLF2... Yeah

Deus Ex: Invisible War - Again, I actually quite liked this one, but compared to the original...

Dreamfall: The Longest Journey - WTF did you do to April? Why does the lead have an annoying Americanised English accent? What was the point of the combat system when it never gets used? What's with the guy you only play three times and don't give a rats ass about? Why did you try to kill April off? (And she's not dead, she can breath underwater) And don't even get me started on the plot that makes no sense.

Prince of Persia 7 - Yeah, it's the seventh one. And it's such a letdown after the SoT trilogy...

Simon the Sorcerer: Chaos Happens - If you can cope with the awful controls, 3D wasn't all that bad. This one... it's unfunny, illogical and a waste of everybody's time. Learn from my mistake. Never play this.

Soldier of Fortune: Payback - Utterly abysmal from start to finish and a complete betrayal of everything the original games were about.

Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness - Only a completionist would own this (hi there). It's full of bugs, an incredibly poor 'levelling' system, lacklustre plot, awkward controls and a pointless second character. There's a reason Core were fired over this.

There's more, but they're the games I either have or have played at some point.

As a note, I refuse to condone KotOR2 while this mod offers it redemption. The game itself wasn't at all bad, but I will concede that it did feel rushed. And, if you forget the fact that it's nothing to do with Bond, then Goldeneye: Rogue Agent isn't completely awful. Just 'meh'. And in that respect, it's much like most other Bond FPS', really.

Warrior Within was a pretty bad step in the wrong direction for The Prince of Persia series, but it made more sense when the trilogy came to its conclusion, partly because Ubisoft was openly admitting "Yes, the prince was a moron in the last game, this is him making up for it."

Then ofcoarse you have the new one, which is a turd in comparison. But I woudln't concider it a sequel.

Prexus:

Also, FFX to FFX-2. Not because FFX-2 was a bad game, but solely because of FFX-2, Square-Enix will never, ever take a risk with the Final Fantasy series again, and that is just too bad. FFX-2 was a great game. I'm pretty sick and tired of hearing "It sucked because the lead characters were all happy and not-emo and had boobs."

Also, FFX-2 wins for having a nip-slip in the game, which made it into the american release.

You can't seriously compare FFX-2 in any shape or form to the origanal. Are you truelly telling me you thought it was as good as the origanal, because it just seemed god aweful to me.

Disgaea: hour of darkness was amazing. The dark humour, the brilliant special effects and a decent story.
While with disgaea 2 the main charecter was such a dick it was impossible to like him and you never had the same sense of powerful attacks like you did in the first.
Hope the third ones better.
There are loads of games which need to be on the list
but i think this is one of the worst offenders.

SomeBritishDude:
Warrior Within was a pretty bad step in the wrong direction for The Prince of Persia series, but it made more sense when the trilogy came to its conclusion, partly because Ubisoft was openly admitting "Yes, the prince was a moron in the last game, this is him making up for it."

Prexus:

Also, FFX to FFX-2. Not because FFX-2 was a bad game, but solely because of FFX-2, Square-Enix will never, ever take a risk with the Final Fantasy series again, and that is just too bad. FFX-2 was a great game. I'm pretty sick and tired of hearing "It sucked because the lead characters were all happy and not-emo and had boobs."

Also, FFX-2 wins for having a nip-slip in the game, which made it into the american release.

You can't seriously compare FFX-2 in any shape or form to the origanal. Are you truelly telling me you thought it was as good as the origanal, because it just seemed god aweful to me.

At its very core, it was a half decent game. It just got buried beneath mountains of J-Pop and scantily clad women, and that was enough to put a lot of people off, me included. God knows I tried though.

And for the record, I counted 4 spelling errors in your two sentences. Might wanna keep an eye on those.

orannis62:
Well, Halo 1 was way better than the sequels.

That. Still can't beleive how much better the first is than the sequals.
Command and Conquer 1 and 2 were infinately better than Command and Conquer 3.

Dys:
[quote="orannis62" post="9.82448.1124645"][...]
Command and Conquer 1 and 2 were infinately better than Command and Conquer 3.

QFT. (and why the hell doesnt The Frist Decade get installed on my Win2000 system ?)

Zelda - Wink Waker and the "Oracle of" games. Maybe "good" but not as outstanding as their previous games.

Metroid Prime 2 - its not that lousy, but no match to MP1. Really disliked that level design and adventure focused gameplay.

Every Panzer Generel since 2 - tradet depth for shiny (and today ugly) 3D-graphics.

Battlezone 2 - I love part one, but I never got into this game. Dull design and the lack of music (maybe my system is to blame?) made me quit playing after 2-3 missions...

Quake 4 and Unreal 2 - man what a fight in 1998 about Quake and Unreal ... ten years later, both are "dead" - funny.

Monster post time. I'm going to post some counter-arguments, although I really just want to rant about some awesome games, so I don't know if all of them have been mentioned yet.

Banjo Tooie is much, much better than its predecessor, yet very few people tend to remember it. The level design is incredible and huge (the game is literally about three or four times the size of the original), the challenges are much more interesting, varied and difficult, the humour is a lot more prevalent and intelligent, and the game really forges out its own storyline and universe, whereas the original relied a lot on its storybook charm to get by. The graphics are also some of the best if not the best on the Nintendo 64. Easily in the top ten best games of all time, and horribly, terribly under-appreciated by so-called platforming "fans".

Another game that does not get the credit it deserves is another Rare title, Donkey Kong 64. Yes, it is lame, and yes, the DK Rap is annoying, but is it ever an awesome title. As a transition game between the two Banjos, it essentially takes the best from the first Banjo and expands upon it, with bigger and more interesting levels, multiple characters with diverse move sets and play styles, and a literal fuck-ton of stuff to collect in every world - five hundred regular bananas, dozens of coins, five blueprints, two Banana Fairies, and twenty-five Gold Bananas. Yeah, if you like collecting stuff and getting 100% completion, this is your dream game. It definitely lacks some of the finesse of both of the Banjo titles, and doesn't have as clever writing or presentation, but it speaks with its gameplay, and its gameplay says "awesome". Bonus points for some really, really memorable worlds despite relying on all the tired platforming cliches.

Oh, and did I mention that Super Mario Sunshine is better than Super Mario 64? Yeah, it is. A lot of people might cry blasphemy, but it is quite possibly the hardest 3D platform game ever made, and also one of the longest. It has an amazing number of secrets, a huge number of levels, and even though it is in some respects more linear, it opens up later on just fine. The only reason nobody likes this is really that it doesn't take place in the Mushroom Kingdom, which is understandable, as the setting does get a bit monotonous... but of course, first you complain about cliched fire worlds and ice worlds and now you want them back when they're gone. Flip-floppers. What really makes this one stand out, though, is F.L.U.D.D. - what is a character with one of the most annoying voices ever is also one of the best new gameplay mechanics introduced into a platform game. The abilities it brings, like hovering and rocket-boosting, open up a massive number of options, including ridiculously vertical platform challenges.

SeniorDingDong:
Zelda - Wink Waker and the "Oracle of" games. Maybe "good" but not as outstanding as their previous games.

Metroid Prime 2 - its not that lousy, but no match to MP1. Really disliked that level design and adventure focused gameplay.

On The Wind Waker - I agree, not better than Ocarina and Majora, but still an amazing game that was unfortunately marred by a slightly rushed development (they had to cut out two dungeons as a result of getting the game out in time by the release date). At least its beautiful presentation still stands strong. The Oracle games, however, are triumphs of handheld gaming and some of the best titles in the series - certainly the best 2D Zelda games. Seasons is awesome, but Ages is the one that really takes the cake, with some of the absolutely most twisted and difficult puzzles I have ever, ever seen in any game, period. If you can beat that one without a walkthrough, you deserve some serious praise, because it will skullfuck you.

You're complaining about "too much" exploration and adventure in Metroid Prime 2? Are you even playing the game for the right reasons? Metroid Prime is an amazing game and its sequels don't match it (possibly because it's just Super Metroid 3D, and that game is such a solid foundation to build on that anything else is superfluous), but I find that Metroid Prime 2 is one of the most satisfyingly challenging and best games in the series (and its generation) from a design perspective. Dark Aether does kind of suck, especially early on, but I got over it and so should you.

HardRockSamurai:
Then along came the sequel Painkiller: Overdose. While I was expecting a fine-tuned, next-generation replica of the original game, what I got instead was.....THE ORIGINAL GAME. Other than a new jackass character and plot, no improvements, or changes for that matter, had been made. It still retained the fast-paced gameplay I have come to love, but I really was expecting more from it.

That's because the "sequel" is actually an officially-endorsed mod of the original game. The guys who made it have nothing to do with the original developer, People Can Fly, and now they've been bought out by Epic, so if anyone does another Painkiller, I doubt it'll be them...

elricik:
Knights of the old republic, and then knights of the old republic 2. KOTOR2 wasn't a horrible game, but nothing could have lived up to the first one.

So very, very wrong. The Sith Lords beats the living shit out of the first game. Knights of the Old Republic is good, but it's as tired and cliched as possible. It invokes every single BioWare and Lucas trope and merges them together into one of the most predictable, yawn-worthy storylines ever. The characters, planets, etc. are actually quite memorable, but they are some of the most once-sided and bland ones I've ever seen in a role-playing game. The game is fun to play, but incredibly easy, and there is very little in the way of actual strategy to any of the combat - just click attack over and over and watch the enemies fall.

The Sith Lords is lacking a bit in polish, and I admit that the end of the game definitely feels a little bit rushed (though not nearly as bad as some people make it out to be - there's just one or two side-plots that don't get fully resolved). However, it has some of the best dialogue in any game I have ever played, as well as the best character in Kreia, who is one of the most awesomely manipulative, scheming, and yet likable people I have ever known. At any given moment you feel like she could be both an enemy, friend, observer, and has a thousand plots to take you and everyone else down, yet you rely on her and lover her for the advice she dispenses. Furthermore, The Sith Lords is quite possibly the only part of the Expanded Universe (or maybe even the entire Star Wars canon) to actually take itself seriously. The Force becomes a metaphor and subject of philosophical debate, and questions about the natures of good and evil as well as redemption and the value of life and existence are subtly introduced into nearly every important dialogue. From the writer of Planescape: Torment I would expect no less, but really, it beats the crap out of the original game in every respect when it comes to storyline and writing, even if it lacks the major twist of the first game. Oh, and did I mention that The Sith Lords is also a much deeper game, with more side-quests, much more balanced difficulty and character customisation, a better weapon upgrading and creation system, more use for skills like Security and Persuade, etc.?

The only reason, the only reason everyone things that the first Knights of the Old Republic is better than the second is because a) it is a nostalgia trip and movie fan service, and b) because it is made by BioWare, and people have a tendency to worship BioWare on name alone (not that they don't deserve a lot of this praise).

In fact, that nostalgia is basically why most people consider sequels to be inferior. You may have played the first game more and are that much more familiar with it, but generally, unless the sequel is passed off to a bunch of incompetents or put under a strict budget, the sequel will always blow away the original. The reason of this should be obvious: the original title was essentially a training ground for practicing the design elements of the first title. With an engine, gameplay style, storyline and universe, etc. planted firmly, as well as all the easy, first-comes-to-mind elements already established, designers have a lot more time and a lot more compulsion to really stretch themselves. This is most obviously seen in Gears of War 2, I think. I really dislike the first game in a lot of ways (but can appreciate the design decisions made), but I'm excited for the sequel despite having not played it yet, simply because now they've been given the opportunity to go wild with their imaginations. I'm tired of all this "the first one was better" crap - get your heads out of your asses and take off your rose-tinted glasses. This is supposed to be a forum for "real" and "intelligent" gamers, but all I see is a bunch of reminiscing rather than any critical analysis of what makes a good game - design.

Does Prince of Persia (2008) count as a sequel?
I've always liked Prince of Persia, but the last one just didn't make sense. ( Especially the ending, that was like one of the biggest 'WTF' moments in my life as a gamer )

The thousands of tekken games feel horribly useless since nothing is really different

I'd say Resident Evil had the worst sequels, everything up to Nemesis was above average survival horror with a few good scares (Not counting the sequels that weren't numbered, although there was some good things to be said for Outbreak), but from RE: 4, things got much worse

zhoomout:
While I agree with this to a certain extent (take any of my posts ranting about the original Sonics as an example) I don't agree entirely with your points. Sometimes, a design team may try to experiment too much with the premise and produce a game with a completely different feel and design, one that may not be perhaps as appealing as a previous title (for me, that's what happened to the GTA series after the transition from 2D to 3D with the exception of Vice City).

On the other hand some sequels are technically better than their predecessors by, for example, having better graphics and more expansive enviroments. However, they may be too similar to the prequels to warrent purchase. After all, who wants to pay for pretty much the same game twice?

Also, if a sequel carries its previous flaws with it (like the ever so wonderful camera of the Tomb Raider series) it becomes far more apparent and much less forgivable as they had been given the chance to fix a flaw that was present before but didn't.

Finally, sequels can sometimes present too many new characters, story-arcs and features that are not necessary and only make the experience feel like a confused mess (The film and television industry is also guilty of this).

These reasons can make a sequel seem worse than its predecessor, even if it might not be. Personally, I think if any idea is dragged out too much it becomes stale and I therefore stop buying after a certain point (This has happened to me with Zelda, Mario and Pokemon).

I understand what you're saying... but I'm talking about good sequels and good games in general, not bad sequels and bad games. :p

fix-the-spade:

The Rusk:

Although on a more inquisitive note, what made you like the first Far Cry more than the new one? I'm not trying to be rude or anything, I'm just curious is all.

It works
it works
IT WORKS!

In case you hadn't worked it out yet, my Far Cry 2 has suffered from amongst others the 69% glitch, the random unopenable door glitch, the car explodes for no apparent reason glitch, the falling through the level glitch and the unkillable assasination target glitch.

Far Cry has some minor glitches but it basically worked. It also had evil mutant monkies, a sense of humor, genuinely jaw dropping graphics, a mercenary in a cow boy hat, solid sneak'm'snipe gameplay and evil freaking monkies!

Although, t be honest my main problems with Far Cry 2 (besides the glitches) are that it ahs nothing to do with Far Cry and the level of hype that surrounds it. ar Cry sort of dropped fom the sky and it was great, Far Cry 2 was supposed to be this super awesome reboot of the franchise but it didn't quite quite quitequitequitequitequite...

So 69% of the time its glitches, every time?

Sorry lame joke but I had to say it.

NoMoreSanity:
Gears of War 2. Nuff said.

How? I thought the story was much better, the multiplayer was better, and it added multiple new modes like Horde and stuff.

No love for Warrior Within? =( *emotear (lol irony)* I actually loved that game, admittedly it had the weakest story, VAs, music etc. but the combat was so much fun and much less of a chore than 1 or 3, though 3 was also good. I think SOT was good in story and atmosphere and the platforming as best in 3. So in a sense I agree with Yahtzee that if combined they would make some kind of incredible super game.

SomeBritishDude:

Prexus:

Also, FFX to FFX-2. Not because FFX-2 was a bad game, but solely because of FFX-2, Square-Enix will never, ever take a risk with the Final Fantasy series again, and that is just too bad. FFX-2 was a great game. I'm pretty sick and tired of hearing "It sucked because the lead characters were all happy and not-emo and had boobs."

Also, FFX-2 wins for having a nip-slip in the game, which made it into the american release.

You can't seriously compare FFX-2 in any shape or form to the origanal. Are you truelly telling me you thought it was as good as the origanal, because it just seemed god aweful to me.

I'm not comparing FFX-2 to FFX, because if I was, I'd be going like "FFX-2 is the best game ever, compared to FFX." because FFX was a terrible game.

I am relating it to the direction that the series has gone. It's all repetitive, samey, and follows a strict formula. It has done since FF6, and will continue to do so probably for a long time. FFX-2 was a step outside of that mold. Static party, non-linear mission based gameplay, upbeat attitude in contrast to the dark, emo, gloomy attitude of the other FF games (since 5).

Thief: Deadly Shadows. Okay game, but when compared to Thief I and II... yeah, not. I guess Eidos and Ion Storm realised that and didn't name it Thief III.

Age of Empires III.

Rome: Total War. Battles were better than in Medieval but Medieval had a lot better campaign map.

Darth Marsden:

Command & Conquer: Renegade - No explanation required.

A spin-off, not a sequel. kekekekeke

I was a big fan of SaGa Frontier. I bought SaGa Frontier 2 as soon as it came out, unfortunately it was poop.

I have yet to find a sequal that other than half life episode 2 is better than the origninal product.

Prexus:

SomeBritishDude:

Prexus:

Also, FFX to FFX-2. Not because FFX-2 was a bad game, but solely because of FFX-2, Square-Enix will never, ever take a risk with the Final Fantasy series again, and that is just too bad. FFX-2 was a great game. I'm pretty sick and tired of hearing "It sucked because the lead characters were all happy and not-emo and had boobs."

Also, FFX-2 wins for having a nip-slip in the game, which made it into the american release.

You can't seriously compare FFX-2 in any shape or form to the origanal. Are you truelly telling me you thought it was as good as the origanal, because it just seemed god aweful to me.

I'm not comparing FFX-2 to FFX, because if I was, I'd be going like "FFX-2 is the best game ever, compared to FFX." because FFX was a terrible game.

I am relating it to the direction that the series has gone. It's all repetitive, samey, and follows a strict formula. It has done since FF6, and will continue to do so probably for a long time. FFX-2 was a step outside of that mold. Static party, non-linear mission based gameplay, upbeat attitude in contrast to the dark, emo, gloomy attitude of the other FF games (since 5).

Keep the Non Linear Quest Structure, Awesome Battles, Static Party and Dress Sphere system but ditch the Pop Starish J-Popness of it all for gods sake. The main problem with the plot is that the game was so trite it was almost painful, though there were some scenes of pure gold in that one (RE: The Travel Agency Investigation)

L4Y Duke:
This is for all those games which are good on their own, but when compared to their prequels, they just seem like total crap.

Red Faction 2 was a good game for example, but it just wasn't the sequel Red Faction justified.

Anyone else have any examples?

This.

Fallout 2

Master of Orion 3.

Biggest disappointment in gaming history, imho.

i thought red faction 2 - for gamecube - was awesome!

worst sequel[s]? Halo 2 & 3