So while online I have run into a common argument when 2 parties have an argument over which game is the best in the series. Usually between someone who is pro retro while the other is pro current. The argument of the pro current side often is that the pro retro side cannot be objective because of nostalgia. This bothers me alot because I usually think the older games in a series are better than the newer ones but, at the same time I can understand where the pro current side are coming from. So in today's blog I will explain how the pro retro's view on a video game series is more than just nostalgia.
So current fans usually argue that the newer games may not as groundbreaking or revolutionary as the first they are better for what they are. For example newer iterations in a series usually have better graphics, more expansive worlds, better controls, and other things that show the power of the advanced technology utilized by the newer consoles. So what pro current fans usually believe is if its like the original just with technological advancements it should be better or at least equal right? Of course if a sequel is missing some of the original spark of the original it can be argued that the original is better but, if that is not the case wouldn't that mean that the newer game is better? Well not exactly. One thing newer iterations in a series can lack even if they have all the stuff the old one has is its own stuff. This point is actually one that is more important to those who have played every game in a series or at least many of them. You see when you first play a game all of the things that make up this game are new to you so a sequel cannot surprise or excite you with the same stuff. In fact I can get so bored with sequels that feel so much like the original that I may not even finish them. "We already played the first one let's see what new stuff the second one can show us." -Egoraptor
No a sequel does not have to be as revolutionary as the first but, I feel it should be different enough to make those that played the original to feel like it was made with them in mind. When I play newer Pokemon or The Legend of Zelda (3D) games I feel like they are made for either die-hard fans or people who have not played the originals. It wasn't always like this as Pokemon G/S/C and The Legend of Zelda Majora's Mask were both sequels but, they were considerably different to their originals. Pokemon G/S/C added a night/day cycle, traveling to new regions, breeding, hold items, new types, and the Pokegear which all expanded on the ideas of the original Pokemon making the experience considerably different. The Legend of Zelda Majora's Mask added a 3 day limit and masks which may not sound like much but, these 2 additions create a very different experience from Ocarina of Time. Coincidentally both these sequels had visual styles very reminiscent of their predecessors unlike the sequels that came after them which shows that a change of visual style alone doesn't differentiate games. I am a strong believer that a sequel must surpass its predecessor in every conceivable way to be considered successful.
So when I say Ocarina of Time is my favorite Zelda game it is not an insult to how good Wind Waker is. I just personally had more fun with Ocarina of Time because all of its features were new to me. I can't say Wind Waker or any other sequel is better than an older game that I honestly had more fun playing. Sure it is near impossible to make a sequel as revolutionary as the original but, adding features that create a new experience while building on the original is not an impossible task.