34 replies to this topic

[Auzzie Wingman]

World at War, Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops, when you strip the game specific content, is just the same as CoD4.
It's not a complete copy and paste, but enough to warrant reactions similar to Blade's.

There isn't enough emphasis on team play in CoD. No matter what mode you are playing, it becomes more or less a glorified Free For All. Besides the point though...

As far as innovation goes, as of CoD4:
- World at War: Brought in tank warfare, which alters the gameplay.
- Modern Warfare 2: Didn't play it enough because when I got it there was already too many glitch abusers and hackers. Luckily, I didn't pay money for the copy.
- Black Ops: As far as innovation goes, they added the new mechanic of dolphin diving. Everything else is mostly an expansion of previous things e.g. Zombies, Customisation. As far as enhancing gameplay goes, yeah it does heaps. But innovation... That dolphin dive is the only thing off the top of my head.

[Epic Kirby]

You guys act like Call of Duty is the only game with sequels

[Wertville]

Sequels are a good or bad thing depending on the game and the sequel. While games like COD make improvements that aren't worth what they cost, IMO, they are a lot better than some other companies.

For instance: Capcom. The worst offender of (And namer of) Capcom Sequel Stagnation. They will release games that are called 'sequels', but are really just the same game with tweaks. While that might have been ok back in the arcade days, in the modern day of update patches and DLC, this is unacceptable.

There are generally two reasons to justify a sequel: Improving/changing/adding to the gameplay, or continuing the plot.
Many sequels include both of the above. A key example is Tales of Symphonia: DoaNW. This game not only continues the plot several years after it left off, but it also vastly improves the gameplay of its predecessor. (For those who don't know, multiplayer was nearly impossible on the original, thanks to the camera >.<)

However, continuing the plot only works in games where the plot is important, such as RPGs and VNs. It was ok for Phoenix Wright to keep the same basic game for 2/3, simply because the plot was of equal priority to the gameplay. It is NOT ok for a sequel to Pacman with the same gameplay, but with Pacman fighting a different colored set of ghosts...

Anyway, whether or not a sequel is worth it or not is HIGHLY subjective. As seen in this very thread, some people find the changes in COD to be worth it, some don't. Some people find major gameplay changes are necessary, others just need an epic new plot. Personally, I'm in the middle

[Biohazard]

For instance: Capcom. The worst offender of (And namer of) Capcom Sequel Stagnation. They will release games that are called 'sequels', but are really just the same game with tweaks. While that might have been ok back in the arcade days, in the modern day of update patches and DLC, this is unacceptable.

When Capcom announced Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 (which was to be expected), I felt sorry for the people who bought the Collector's Editions.

[Aqua Omega]

Sequels and Prequels are good to a certain point.... but too much can be a risk as well. =/

[Brian6330]

It depends on the Sequel. If the sequel is practically the same as the predecessor without changing much, if anything (and not continuing the story in a game, like KH) then it really is just really suckish in my opinion.

If they change something, further the story, or it's like Mario or Sonic where it feels different than the others and is worth the money. Those are the right sequels and the first ones I mentioned are wrong...

Catch my drift?

[Waller]

It depends on the Sequel. If the sequel is practically the same as the predecessor without changing much, if anything (and not continuing the story in a game, like KH) then it really is just really suckish in my opinion.

If they change something, further the story, or it's like Mario or Sonic where it feels different than the others and is worth the money. Those are the right sequels and the first ones I mentioned are wrong...

Catch my drift?

Too bad Sonic games are bad now.

[Brian6330]

Too bad Sonic games are bad now.

That's sad but true...

(At least Sonic Colors was a step in the right direction )

[Wertville]

Too bad Sonic games are bad now.

That's sad but true...

(At least Sonic Colors was a step in the right direction )

Adventure 3. It's our only hope. Chao to the rescue!

[nintendo3DS]

That's sad but true...

(At least Sonic Colors was a step in the right direction )

My favorite Sonic games are Sonic Heroes, Sonic Advanced 1, 2, and 3, Sonic Battle. I wish the Sonic games now, were as good as they were back then. Since there not, I'm not really a Sonic fan anymore.

[Auzzie Wingman]

I like all Sonic games, because I'm a fanboy with low standards.

YAY!

[Brian6330]

I like all Sonic games, because I'm a fanboy with low standards.

YAY!

I liked Unleashed and the Secret Rings too, to be honest. I played Chu-nan and the Arid sands day time stages about 80times

I also like the Sonic Rush games for DS.


Don't hurt me

[Wertville]

I liked Unleashed and the Secret Rings too, to be honest. I played Chu-nan and the Arid sands day time stages about 80times

I also like the Sonic Rush games for DS.


Don't hurt me

The day stages in Unleashed were fun, and Secret Rings was OK. But what was wrong with Sonic Rush?

[Auzzie Wingman]

I liked playing Sonic and the Secret Rings, Unleashed and Black Knight.

One Sonic game I didn't necessarily like was Dark Brotherhood. Possibly because it's a poor RPG, Sonic shouldn't do RPGs, or that it was made by Bioware.

[Brian6330]

I liked playing Sonic and the Secret Rings, Unleashed and Black Knight.

One Sonic game I didn't necessarily like was Dark Brotherhood. Possibly because it's a poor RPG, Sonic shouldn't do RPGs, or that it was made by Bioware.

I've never gotten to playing that one, so I can't judge it...