Call of Duty. Still I feel like I'm playing a lesser version of shooters I used to play. So far Halo: Reach comes close in terms of options and modes, but all the guns and maps feel the same in CoD's to me :/ I was actually hoping for Black Ops to take a turn to the zombies near the end, but meh, guess I don't like realistic (sort off) shooters. But I can't understand why such a dumbed down game ever got so popular.
Although I don't know whether you can consider it "sucessful", The Longest Journey should never have been made into a series. Not because of any quality issues (I love Dreamfall), but for having to wait an eternity for the next game to be made.
Conceptually, Mario shouldn't have caught on. They are games about a fat Italian plumber with no fashion sense who runs around crushing small animals under his body weight, occasionally eating weird mushrooms causing strange effects to happen. Nothing about that sounds remotely appealing. But somehow, the games are awesome, despite the somewhat odd premise.
Kinda wish Fable and Civ had stopped at the first installment. People like Molyneux and Meier shouldn't be tied up on one franchise for decades at a time.
" Final Fantasy. A mediocre game that spawned sequels for no apparent reason. "
I second this. The sequels were pretty good, and I have a special place in my heart for the ninth one, but the first game was nothing special. "
Again, a case of Final Fantasy confusion. The first game was alright; the second game, however, was the one where the series logically should have died, not accounting for sequels following it.
@Meteora: Lol discuss? Ok mam... Halo 1 was great so i disagree, although it did go downhill from there. Final Fantasy 1(i finished all of them) was mediocre, but from it spawned great ones, 4,5,6,7,8,9,10. Call of duty... the old ones were kind of bad, although modern warfare is in my opinion of the best fps's out there. So again it was worth it. Mass effect... i agree but again, the second one was good. Uncharted, " " Mario, i agree, no sequel deserved. And nintendo... sure
So although sequels on some occasions should not have been made because the initial games were mediocre, as it is in programming, you have to flesh out your code and improve on it, so its an incremental process, so maybe you should judge the present result of the coding... aka was it worth it? On most of those i would say yes, Mario, well its too broad... and Nintendo... well have they made anything good?
edit: on the other hand, if games were ONLY good because of their story, then they deserve no sequel, since its usually a fluke. Aka KOTOR, or Bioshock.
Log in to comment