Good Game , Bad Sequel

It seems like most of the games that come out these days are sequels . Sometimes they are more of the same , never adding anything new . Now , I don't have any problems with that model , but if you are going to make more of the same , make it better , polish it to perfection . And thats when most sequels fail , they make more of the same , but without any polish to it , just copying the original . Let's run through some examples

While the game is still good , it feels tired . Its almost insulting how the AC2 sequels just add one or two new weapons and calling that a new chapter . The whole game feels as old , as it's protagonist , once a fresh face of the new generation is now an ancient antique of times , not so long ago , but still forgotten in our minds .The metaphor suits AC:Revelations perfectly ! Well , maybe thats a bit mean . At least the game concluded the stories of it's two main protagonists , so we'll have to see new faces and stories in future instalments .

Now these two are fine examples of the worst , most half-hearted sequel school . They don't add anything , never improve on anything and don't even get what made the old parts great . Both the crazy fun of Ssaints 2 and the great action moments of COD4 were raped to the max , overused in some weird line of thought , that thats what made the originals great . Its like when you work a normal job and you go to the circus .It would be a great way make that event different from the other part of your life , but would it be so unique if you worked there every day ?

Maybe not the worst kind of sequel , but definitely the laziest .It's the same game as the old one . Mind you , a good game , but the same , so the variety is lost and everything stagnates .
Now , with all the nastiness being said , let's look at some good sequels

Now thats the magic formula ! Polish everything good about the original , then remove the bad things , and after that , add a bunch of new stuff and repaint the whole thing .The climbing was better , the combat was improved , the setting felt fresh . Now thats evolution ! AC3 is forming out to be on the same page , but it's still unknown .


Sometimes , its easier to come up with something new , rather than to fix something broken .The predecessors of these two are so unpopular , that many people don't even know about them . Only the name sticks , that way it's easier for the developers , companies are more willing to finance something old and proven (to some point) rather than to start a whole new and unfamiliar projects . And I'm alright with that , if something feels fresh and original , the what does it matter how its named ?