Gone Home, Amnesia: The Dark Descent, Plants vs Zombies, Dead Space.
Great games that DON'T need a sequel?
I'm going to be a bit different:
Mass Effect 3 - despite how much of a let down it all was, kind of hard to top (in terms of threats) the whole Reaper stuff.
Modern Warfare 3 - As much as I enjoyed the adventures of Capt. Price, that trilogy feels complete.
The Pokemon franchise - if there's going to be follow ups, I'd rather they didn't increase the Pokemon count (maybe they stopped doing it in recent titles).
Metal Gear Solid series (post MGSV) - That looks like it's going to end, but yeah, just like Old Snake, we should leave it to rest.
Halo Series (Story) - Hard for me as a Halo fan to say it, but I feel like there's not a lot left to tell in the universe, the promeathans while interesting feel like a stretch for a villain. After the flood, it doesn't feel like there's much of an escalation. I could be wrong with Halo 5, but it feels like they're clutching for way too much in the expanded universe.
The Last of Us is really the only game that came to mind where a sequel (or prequel) could make sense, but I still wouldn't want it.
Obvious answer but The Last of Us doesn't need one.
People always say TLOU but I would MUCH rather Naughty Dog be working on a sequel to TLOU instead of a fucking THIRD sequel to Uncharted. Enough already. TLOU needs a sequel a hell of a lot more than Uncharted 3 does. Of course I'd prefer for them to actually to do something new altogether but that is apparently a lot to ask these days
Batman: Arkham Asylum.
Word
@bceagles128: they should do a jak and dexter
@bceagles128: They just need to put out the mandatory Naughty Dog franchise kart racer and put the series to bed.
Uncharted 3, Last of Us, Jak 3.
FFX-2 was a mistake.
I have no idea why people are so bummed about MGS5 looking to be the last true MGS game. It will fill in a large bit of time that has not been explored and make the series come full circle to the very beginning. We won't need more MGS games afterwards (now, something like Metal Gear Revolver or Metal Gear Rising 2 on the other hand...).
I don't think that gamers can fully decide if a game needs a sequel or not, as it is totally up to the developers to decide that based on how much they can add to the world they made.
But still, we can always call a game as a great addition or a milking process based on what we get.
Mass Effect 3 maybe?
I'm one of the few people who really liked the ending
While the universe is super awesome I'm not sure I want a sequel, I just think they'll have trouble creating a protagonist different enough from (yet equally awesome as) Shepard & I can't really see how they're going to top the reaper threat
I'll get Mass Effect 4 though and probably really like it tbh
Dark Souls. As much as I enjoyed playing Dark Souls 2, and putting aside complaints about the inferior level design, it suffered SO heavily in the lore/story front by being tied to the first game. I just did not give two flying fucks about the lore in that game at all. Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, and Bloodborne are all fantastic on that front though. It could have something to do with Miyazaki's lack of involvement, but even with him I think there would have been huge problems. That kind of storytelling and world-building just demand to have completely new worlds that aren't tied to anything else. A clean slate. I guess we'll see if having him on board helps when DSIII comes out, but I really wish those games could all be separate, completely different worlds that just happen to be called Dark Souls because of similar gameplay and for marketing purposes.
@dubios451: Yeah, the video game series that last ended with a straight up cliff hanger that basically advertised a sequel. And indeed Valve themselves, at the time, had announced not one, but TWO games in development that were to continue Half-Life. Totally no need for a sequel... >_>
I would say The Last of Us, Journey, and Minecraft.
Diablo.
The first game was absolutely amazing, incredibly atmospheric and like the Souls games it let you infer the major story instead of putting you through hours of exposition, and the game area was condensed enough to never feel like it was spread out too thin or like the game play had any time to wear out it's welcome.
I guess I could list all Blizzard's games though - WarCraft II is pretty much the only sequel they've ever done that actually improved and expanded on the previous game. I'd absolutely not want them to revisit BlackThorne or The Lost Vikings when you look at how their past few games have turned out.
Infamous 2 didn't need a sequel.
Halo 3. After their massive "FINISH THE FIGHT" campaign a new trilogy is just a blatant cash grab. I guess you can't really let a franchise as big as Halo die but still.
Bionic Commando Rearmed
The Last of Us. It is the obvious choice. The game does an amazing job of keeping the world tense all the way to the end. It worked because it was emotionally stimulating. This is a hard thing to keep going for a whole game. I imagine it would start to fall flat for the sequel. The beginning was amazing subverting my expectations of what this game would be. I can't see a way that the sequel does anything like that. If it did it would feel forced, and if it did not it would be disappointing.
Uncharted 2. I played Uncharted 3 and remember little of it. I know it was pretty good, but I just don't remember. It suffers from the same thing Star Wars did with Return of the Jedi. It was a good movie, but after The Empire Strikes Back, it just pales in comparison. I still have a hard time finishing the trilogy because I lose a little interest when The Empire Strikes Back credits roll.
I think games with an incredible universes like Red Dead or Mass Effect are perfect for new stories set in these sprawling universes. The danger with that is to set them far enough apart that it is not just a bunch of call backs and old character introductions. Look what they are up to now! Yuck. The real issue that I have is with games that rely heavily on characters and story in a tight package. Games with great game play or that rely on exploration and/or loot collecting can get away with some issues if the sequels really nail upgrading the things that made the first great. With the tighter games that focus on story and characters, I find myself picking apart any idiosyncrasy i find in the game. Often adding more opens up new plot holes and character inconsistency which takes away from both the sequel and the memories of the first game.
Cook, Serve, Delicious!
YO WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS HORSESHIT?!
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2015/07/02/cook-serve-delicious-2-coming-to-ps4/
This is mostly just "good games that I don't think should have had sequels."
- Knights of the Old Republic
- Fez (you know, if Fez II actually got finished)
- Hotline Miami
- Half-Life
- Chrono Trigger
- Dragon Age: Origins
- BioShock
- Portal
Dead Space
Oh, you mean Dead Space 2, right? Because that's the one with the electrified harpoon gun. Sure, it made it more action-y and made the protagonist talk for no good reason, but it's still a great game. Good thing the series stopped after that. Heaven knows how badly those corporate suits at EA would ruin a third installment if it was ever made.
Serious answer: In general, if a game is good I'm generally in favor of it getting expanded and iterated upon. It's only ultra story-focused stuff that I'm more iffy about. There never needs to be a direct sequel to Planescape Torment, for example (which is why they're making a spiritual successor instead). But, since I'm here and we're dumping on sequels that already exist I might as well twist the knife a little by saying that I don't think Telltale's The Walking Dead needed another season after that first one (but weirdly enough I'd totally be down for another season of The Wolf Among Us) and Bioshock 2 was totally superfluous.
Dead Space 2 was terrible. The atmospheric design of the first is completely missing and the copy and pasting of area's doesn't help. Way too many cheap enemy spawns in that game too. Most I remember from DR2 was the dreaded end sequence, where you'd have to replay large sections of the game because the checkpoints in the game were so scarce. It's not 'tense' to give the player the idea that they have to replay the last 30 minutes if they fail. It's bad design because your final encounter asks the player to do something the controls weren't designed for, looping into frustration. If you're going for the Resident Evil 4 thing, then copy them right. Don't make every single enemy as fast as a bullet while the player movement is so slow and deliberate.
Maybe it was fine on Normal, but on the higher difficulties I found it to be extremely frustrating. If we leave out technical issues, it honestly couldn't have been a worse game.
@zevvion: I don't remember any of that stuff, but the end of DS 2 is also sort of a blur at this point. Something something marker, something something ghost. And you put a needle in your eye and it's really unpleasant. I can remember the end of Dead Space 3 though, if only because of how dumb and terrible it is!
Psychonauts actually needs a sequel. You're all wrong. It wasn't the platforming that made that game, but the incredibly fun premise. And it could be expanded a whole lot.
I need a sequel to The Fall
The Last of Us came to my mind immediately, I love that game and the ending was satisfactory for me.
People saying Spelunky and Binding of Isaac are crazy though. A new Spelunky with more items, more enemies, more areas and greater randomization could be fantastic and Rebirth blows vanilla Isaac out of the water. I have played hours upon hours of Rebirth, platinum'd it, and cannot wait for the Afterbirth expansion.
Last of Us; ''swear to me'' is the best ending for that game if they were to make a sequel it should have nothing to do with joel and ellie. There are plenty of interesting characters set up during the game I don't see why they couldn't make a game surrounding any them, like Ish or Bill.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment