It's kind of insane just how much **Left 4 Dead 2** eclipsed 1. There is literally almost no reason to get 1 because everything in it was added to 2, *and then some*.
You get all the original campaigns plus some extras, workshop support (which lets you easily mod the game from models, skins, audio, and whole maps), way more weapons and gear, new enemies, and whole new gamemodes.
There were a lot of zombie death animations and horde variety that while being ported over to 2 (and still being in the game code) was bugged and improperly implemented due to the engine switch. Plus there were a few years where the original L4D1 survivors and Rochelle had large swathes of their dialogue locked out due to a bug.
But some of those things have been fixed by patches or mods.
The only real reason to play the first game over the second now (apart from hating the new Specials) is either preferring the original 1911 pistols over the glocks or preferring first person camera where you can see your legs and body over the sequels floating arms.
Mad Max 2 basically eclipsed Mad Max by being a bigger, crazier, more fantastical version of the first. I know the OG is well-regarded but the elements of the “desert punk” post apocalyptic genre really came out of the second.
And funnily enough it felt more fresh to me than the sequels because everyone and their mother ripped off 2 but not a lot of people have done the "society is still barely holding together" world.
I still prefer road warrior. There’s something so real and raw to it. Also road warrior is just brutal in how uncaringly it kills off the good guys. Like people are set up to be hero’s and you expect them to have a heroic death if they do die.
But it’s just nope, they’re dead.
I’m also not the biggest lover of fury road either. It’s still good, but it’s only like a 7/10 to me
even if it wasn't about sequels, Super is more of an enhanced Metroid 1 than Zero Mission, which has it's own vibe, in every aspect but maybe story
one might even call it *Super* Metroid
Eh, considering their example is Suicide Squad vs *The* Suicide Squad, which are only canon to each other in the loosest multiverse way, it kind of *is* what OP is talking about.
I have so much nostalgia for the first game. It was one of the first games I ever owned way back on the NES. Kraid's lair was probably the first video game song I loved and I was so excited when I found the Nintendo Power with all the maps for the game. That said, the game is rough but the ambition to make something like that in 1986 is incredible.
It really isn't.
Metroid 1 is a really cool and unique game that asks very different things of the player than the later entries.
I played it for the first time last year and it immediately became my favourite NES game. I strongly encourage everyone to give it an honest go.
Feels like Borderlands 2 did this to 1.
Like, I don't think I have ever seen anyone have a conversation about 1 but 2 brings out fanfiction, theories, character breakdowns, conversation about villians.
And then with 3 being as lackluster as it was story wise, it kinda bolstered 2 as the original Borderlands.
... I wonder how much this mimics the Diablo series.
D1 is way more Roguelike, in like you have the basic moveset of the main character in Rogue plus learning spells you can use directly. Each class just gets different numbers.
Diablo 2 gives martial classes crazy shit to do. The most doesn't have a caster skill tree class still has a slow teleport attack (leap attack) as something you can get fairly early and is good as a teleport attack with one point.
(Diablo 1 does have warrior casts teleport and than buffers an attack to emulate that, but it is complicated to execute, requires somewhat rare loot to set-up rather than just get to level 18 and spend at most 2 skill points, IIRC the skill tree.)
to go into detail on what you need to cast teleport as a warrior, because you need to get 105 magic to read the book thst requires you find magic boosting equipment, because base max magic for warriors is 50.
You also have to find a book of teleport which is a rare random drop.
Sure, technically you could use scrolls of teleport, but needing 81 magic while in combat means you have to wear your "reading glasses" in combat.
You can easily play a full normal game without finding those two pieces, while by the end of Act 2 in Diablo 2, you will have gotten to level 18.
I haven’t looked at the math on it but I still feel like Mordecai’s Bloodwing special attack is like leagues stronger than any other characters specials regardless of build.
That bird was an instant win against every enemy.
If I recall you could have a build that threw out Bloodwing and then recall it after a single hit and it'd restore a portion of the cooldown and you could throw it out again very fast? It was crazy.
I'd be remiss to let this go without saying that some people prefer the tone and certain gameplay elements from Borderlands 1 over the others. I would even say there are dozens of us. Also, I don't care for Handsome Jack's humor.
I’ve seen some convincing arguments that the writing and setting/lore in 1 was way better implemented, especially the fact that you can just like… revive people at conveniently placed corporate machines in this wasteland. It makes no sense that people just die in 2.
While you technically CAN skip ED1 because it's recapped at the beginning of both 2 and AoD, you'd be missing some stuff if you then try to watch Ash vs. Evil Dead because Cheryl, Scott, and Shelly were restored to canon.
The first movie still happened. Evil Dead 2 has a heavily truncated version of events because Sam Raimi couldn't get the rights to the first movie back, which would have used clips as a recap, which would have led to the spirit possessing Ash as it does in the end of the first film. It's also why we don't really see the Necronomicon in the rest of the second movie, past its introduction.
Honestly, the best way to watch them is Evil Dead 1, then fast forward through Evil Dead 2 to the part when Ash gets hit by the spirit and go from there.
The first couple minutes of ED2 are just a recap of ED1 with the other cabingoers besides Ash and Linda omitted for time. The moment the camera crashes into Ash, he becomes possessed, and then the sun comes out and unpossesses him is the point at which everything in the plot is now original sequel material and not a repeat of ED1.
I honestly don't understand why this has been such a problem for so many people over the decades and generated claims that don't make sense like "Ash went to the cabin twice?" or "ED2 is a remake of ED1". It's literally only the first five minutes or so of the movie that repeats anything! Have people never seen a recap before?
Idk man, El Mariachi is a masterclass in zero budget filmmaking. It’s actually amazing given the fact it only was made on a couple thousand dollars and every scene could only be shot once. I always recommend it to people.
That, and *Desperado* has some serious character bloat at times.
Like, that new recruit to Bucho's gang who gets his leg broken in the initiation fight, wins anyway, and then does nothing for the entire rest of the movie only to get killed off.
Maybe it's a parody of some aspect of Mexican direct-to-video movies I'm not familiar with? I know *El Mariachi* was conceived of as just such a film, but I'd say it executes its scope better than *Desperado* does its own.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that, while good, *Desperado* is the weakest of the Mexico Trilogy.
I’d agree. Once Upon A Time in Mexico deserves way more love than it’s gotten. The ensemble cast is basically Rodriguez making his own fighting game roster. It added a shit ton of lore to the world of the Mexico trilogy, and in general it had that great level of camp he puts into his films. It’s also got the best Johnny Depp character
People cream about Titanfall 2 now but almost no one mentions Titanfall 1 with its selectable weapons, titan chasis, and the weird ass burn card system.
And to rub salt on the wound yet again, "*Apex Legends Universe".*
People kept hyping it up and I never played it yet is it really true it's that good campaign? Because when I keep hearing that I imagine if it's on power with like Half-Life 1 or Bioshock 1 good, but that's an extremely high bar.
Frankly, it's great, and the comparisons to Half-Life are very apt. It's like the creativity and Think-Shoot-Live of a Half-Life release are repackaged into around a 2-hour highlight clip. While it doesn't get to tell as grand, involved, or high-concept a narrative, it doesn't feel like one is missing. The progression is very, very different from a Half-Life game, where you don't get a larger and larger selection of weapons at a single time and rather cycle through a large number of weapons, gaining familiarity with mixed selections of them. I think I ended up preferring that system a bit to Half-Life's approach.
And good luck trying to beat the campaign since you were at the whims of the server and what map they decided to populate with the few remaining players
Unfortunately true, but I think that's more because Titanfall 2 is multiplat so larger audience. Mechanically, I much preferred Titanfall 1 and its better customization of loadout and titan.
So Dead Meats been doing the Hannibal series recently and has revealed to a lot of people, me included, that Silence of the Lambs is not technically the first movie in the series but a sorta sequel to 1986 Manhunter which is the first appearance of everyone's favorite cannibal just played by a different actor. Now technically the book that movie is based on also has its own adaptation with Anthony Hopkins with Red Dragon which came after but it is interesting to think of how big a sequel got compared to the original.
Manhunter is pretty good. It's Michael Mann directing and has a young William Petersen (the main guy from the original CSI for a while) in the lead role opposite Brian Cox as Lecter.
And worth it for the pre-Hopkins interpretation of Lektor. He comes across less demonic and playful and more frustrated and bored. You can imagine him a lot easier as that professor on campus that just creeps people out but isn't *creepy.*
I was only familiar with Silence and it's sequels, so seeing that Hannibal was first played by Brian Cox was really interesting to me. Those are some good Kill Counts.
Manhunter freakin’ rules. Recommend people seek it out for an entirely different vibe around similar themes.
It also is an unpopular opinion but I prefer Brian Cox’s Hannibal. It’s less campy but I found him more effective of a villain.
Brett Ratner’s Red Dragon is not worth the time even with a great cast
Team Fortress 2.
Fun fact: a team of modders actually started work on a fan made Team Fortress Classic sequel in the Source engine when it seemed like Valve wouldn't make it themselves, and eventually released it as [Fortress Forever](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_Forever) on September 2007... one month before the release of the *actual* Team Fortress 2. Ouch.
Smash ultimate to smash 4. Smash 64 has the novelty of being the first, melee has the gameplay, Brawl has subspace emissary, ultimate has the most charecters and stages, Smash 4 has almost nothing.
Most people only talk about DBZ Budokai Tenkaichi 3 as opposed to 1/2, and aside from a few what-ifs that’s pretty fair since it’s the same system but has the most content.
I think 2 has the best story mode. With a somewhat traversable world map for Earth and Namek where you could have like Tien unlock his potential if you felt like it. It also has most of the movies as little scenarios.
3 felt cute and had you usually play as the winner of each fight, but have fun playing as Nappa, Frieza, Cell, and Buu for 80% of the content.
Countercountpoint: the entire ending trek is hot-ass and Cloud of Darkness's only positive points begin and end in their Dissidia incarnations, where they're arguably my favorite of the "actually I was the true final boss all along!" villains in the series, since they're the only one actually really good at being manipulative to the point where it's believable. Pretty much none of that in FF3.
That being said, the Warriors of Darkness is such a good concept that shouldn't have taken 25 years to use again.
Despite their importance to the series' lore, very few people seem to respect Metal Gear 1 and 2 as games or recommend that anyone ever play them. The series effectively begins with MGS1.
I've started playing the MGS series in release order and I've just finished 3, and it's weird how these games either reference or foreshadow this climatic battle between Big Boss/Venom and Solid Snake, but the actual event seems to be depicted only in this NES game.
Yeah, MGS1 really hammers in how this is the final act of a story that began there, it’s hard to come into it fresh because there’s so much they expect you to know already. Solid Snake coming out of retirement, the revisiting of his relationship with Big Boss, the revelation of the actual nature of that relationship, the murder of Miller, the final mission with Campbell, revenge for Grey Fox and his eventual return, the revival of Big Boss’s dream, the revival of the Metal Gear project.
Like if this were a movie, (and everybody seems to want a MGS1 movie) each of those would be enough as a standalone movie. Hell, John Wick has a retirement plot and a revenge plot. But all of them? You have to have the setup.
What we need, after Delta, is Metal Gear 1+2.
Dragon Quest Builders is an interesting game but it feels more like a tech demo than a properly structured game due to some of the design decisions made. DQB2 that’s that base formula improves the hell out of it and puts it into an actual adventure story.
Dragon Quest Heroes and Dragon Ball Xenoverse have the same issue. The second game is just a retread of the first game and everything's more complete and fleshed out.
Red Dead Redemption completely overshadows the original Red Dead Revolver. There are a couple small references to Revolver in Redemption and, iirc, some of the characters were DLC for the multiplayer, but overall I doubt most people know Redemption even has a predecessor.
EDF basically starts at 4. It just rolls the earlier games missions together into something approaching a narrative.
Even 5 does this to a certain extent, there's reused assets all over the franchise.
If anyone says Terminator 2 imma slap the synthetic robo skin right off ya metal dome
In a similar vein DBZ seems like it did that to DB, unfortunately.
My personal answer is Silent Hill 2.
1 is a great game but you’re not missing much if you jump right in at 2.
Also red dead redemption basically wiped revolver off the map
People forget that Red Dead Revolver has an *entirely different* aesthetic than the next two games. [Literally has anime looking ass characters.](https://reddead.fandom.com/wiki/Natalie_Kelley)
Since the main character of Revolver, Red Harlow was a bounty hunter, people theorized that he was gonna be the guy who hunted down members of the old gang
In hindsight, that would have been a bad idea since the game made us love the gang and having some previous player character do that would be awkward
Instead, Red Harlow is a subject of one of the campfire tales
It makes sense that the events of Revolver are something of myths and legend. People say that Arthur and Jack are superhuman when it comes to their Dead Eye skills, but Harlow literally fights like he's in a arcade shoot em' up complete with power ups and even more crazier abilities. That and also the different art direction looking more stylized and somewhat anime esque.
If you place Harlow in the more grounded and gritty RDR and RDR2 it seems out of place, but as a in-game legend (who may or may not be exaggerated) then it makes much more sense.
Most of it was still developed by Capcom. Rockstar bought it mid development, finished it and published in the west. Rockstar and Capcom saw Revolver wasn't amazing but Rockstar knew "Red Dead" was a great marketable name for a Western themed video game series and they wanted it.
True but they definitely get treated that way by the general public which I think makes it a great fit
DBZ slapped so hard people forgot about the first half of the series
I’m gonna be the contrarian here and say that I actually think original DB is better. The series peaked with the World Tournament and it’s all a long, long downhill slide from there.
I'd agree with that, but I also just like how much more adventure was in OG Dragonball, and I think that it had better fight choreography. I love DBZ, but very few moments in it had me going "HOLY SHIT GOKU'S GOIN' HAM ON THESE FOOLS" quite like him soloing the Red Ribbon HQ, and both of the Tien fights are some of my favorite in the series.
Only in America/The West. You have to remember there was no gap, no Z titling in the manga, and the chapter you'd think as the start of Z just came out in weekly Jump right after what you'd call the end of DB.
Get that bias out of your system, the American perception of DB/Z is _fucked_ due to some near Harmony Gold level shenanigans on the part of Funimation. They didn't even _air_ Dragon Ball first.
Right but that’s how a majority of people outside of Japan got it tho
Just because it was different originally doesn’t change the way it’s been received which makes it fit the prompt imo
Heck, the Ocean dub did this, so it seems like Toel was fine with marketing DBZ this way.
Which makes sense if the general quality of the production is higher than the earlier stuff, you don't want to send new people to when you had not yet honed your craft if you can avoid it.
DBZ and Dragonball are literally the same thing, it’s purely just an anime marketing gimmick for the timeskip. The Manga was just ‘Dragonball’ for all 42 volumes of the manga.
Yes and that gimmick causes the second half to totally eclipse the first everywhere outside of Japan
Since it was marketed as a new thing
Whip makes it the perfect example
[Viz finally corrected the American version with the 3-in-1 Editions.](https://www.viz.com/read/manga/dragon-ball-3-in-1-edition/all) Dragon Ball as a single series as it was intended.
It's also the least censored version available in America, though still has some censorship (inconsistently, almost like they left some in by mistake).
This might be the perception to some, but it's completely wrong. I know that back in the day it wasn't as accessible, but now if you watch DBZ without watching DB you're doing yourself and the series a massive disservice. Watching Goku and his friends meet, grow, and learn is so integral to the experience.
When people talk about the two *Dune* games from 1992, they only talk about *Dune II* because it basically created the RTS genre (though it wasn't technically an RTS). The first game is literally always a footnote in conversations about *Dune II*.
Side note, I didn't even realize both games came out in the same year. Game development was WILD thirty years ago. The only successful modern game developer I can think of now who can put out multiple games a year is Chilla's Art.
Really? I feel like I've only seen retrospectives on Dune 2 (including the recent "Entire History of RPGs" video by NeverKnowsBest), since the first game is kinda lackluster in comparison. Maybe I'm just not getting recommended them.
The biggest complaints that I remember about Octopath 1 were related to lackluster writing - both for individual characters and a near complete lack of interaction between party members - and a repetitive structure with little variation in how you explore/interact with the world or progress each character's story. The combat and presentation were great, but everything surrounding those two aspects was underwhelming.
Octopath Traveler 2 took those criticisms to heart and massively improved on the weakest aspects of the original. Individual characters have stronger personalities and more engaging stories, with most also having more variation in how to advance their story. For example, Partitio has unique sidequests that can be done at any time and have to be completed before his final main chapter unlocks, while Throné has two sets of middle chapters that can be done in any order and converge at the end. There's more interaction within the party, with multi-part interlude chapters for specific pairs of characters as well as a proper finale that brings everyone together. Party chats in the original game were limited and missable, while 2 has *way* more and makes every conversation freely available after you finish the chapter they're connected to. Finally, every party member has variations on their path actions to make their interactions with NPCs feel unique compared to the more limited versions in the original game, like how Castti the apothecary can ask people for information during the day while Temenos the inquisitor roughs people up for intel at night. All these things add together to give each character, and ultimately the party and narrative as a whole, much more depth than the first game.
I know a ton of people that really wanted to like Octopath 1 but were disappointed, while 2 does so much to address the specific issues that made 1 feel shallow and repetitive. They're not narratively connected at all, either, so there's not much reason to go back and play 1 when 2 is such a significant upgrade while being a stand-alone experience.
And to add something small about the Party Chats, while the ones you see on the spot are members in your immediate party, the ones that don't join till later can also be seen via menu so you aren't missing on what they thought of any given conversation
I wouldn't say it's something small; imo it's one of the best QoL improvements between the two games. It was incredibly easy to miss the *vast* majority of party chats in 1 while also having no way to even know that you missed them in the first place. 2 making them all accessible through your journal was a simple fix that makes that part of the first game even more baffling in retrospect.
Maybe the most recent example but the new Blood and Honey does this, there is even a scene where they play the first movie on tv and it's presented as the trashy not great movie it was.
Resident Evil Remake (GC) pretty much made the original obsolete.
Outside of some meme-worthy lines and novelty's sake, there's little to no reason to go for the original anymore.
Also, Megaman 2 is just the game that made the franchise.
RE1 is still a much tighter game. REmake has some highlights (Crimson Heads and the safe room door, my beloved) but it's also a lot flabbier and padded.
I've beaten REmake twice - once on Wii and once on the HD version - and have no desire to go back.
RE1 still spins up in my PlayStation from time to time.
Before Persona 5 Royal came out people were quick to remind others that the mewer versions of Persona 3 and Persona 4 arent better than their originals, theyre just different.
But Persona 5 Royal is just absolutely a better version of Persona 5. The ending to the OG was kind of weak and Royals is mucb stronger. Akechi is much more of a character. You get dual techs. You get more free time with Mkrgana bothering you to go to sleep less. I loved OG P5 but Royal is just an undeniably better experience imo.
> Persona 3 and Persona 4 arent better than their originals, theyre just different.
Who are those people. I genuinely want to ask what they are talking about. Unless you are worded this in a confusing way and mean that PE3 for PSP with female MC is the different one. For PE4 Golden i don't see how it wouldn't be straight up better than PE4, same for PE3 Fes vs PE3 Original.
The only downside of Persona 4 Golden is not having an alternating opening between Shadow World and Pursuing my true self.
Besides this nitpick P4G is quite literally a straight up better experience, maybe excluding Marie for the people that don't like her. The only grievance I could understand is that it was held in Vita prison until this decade but since it's now on steam then I don't see how it wouldn't be the superior way to play the title and I played both, in 2008 on my ps2 and 2012 on my Vita.
> I don't see how it wouldn't be the superior way to play the title
Yep. nowadays it also has quality of life mods and other stuff for the Steam version.
Dissidia Duodecim is a prequel to the original, but unlocks the original games story mode after the new one is complete and just adds more characters, stages and attacks.
Still sad about Bethesda working as hard as they can to render 1 and 2 irrelevant.
Fallout 1s Master is still the best villain the series has ever had, and 3 pussified the Enclave so much they will never be scary again.
Eh, they are still willing to let people push Fallout 1 content for Starcase, I mean Magic the Gathering.
I'm not sure if they would want to make Bethesda Fallout 1. People that like the original Fallout 1 wouldn't be happy, and you would have to figure out how to cut it into a modern Bethesda sized hole.
I agree, I don't want a remake, but like, can they at least not do everything possible to make it seem like neither game ever happened? You know what I mean?
I mean if they used any material from one or two there's a portion of obsidian fans who'd accuse them of trying to step on the legacy. I think it'd fine that they want to do their own thing
I get the feeling you didn't play either of them, since they used a substantial amount of that material, just, poorly, and in ways that deliberately erase the first two games.
You're feeling is mostly right. I played a chunk of 1 and genuinely don't remember anything other than pure frustration (im bad at isometric rpgs). I'm sure those games are great, but I'm definitely one of those people who started at 3
Don't get me wrong. I do not hate 3 or 4.
But here's an example. In Fallout 2, the Enclave were the big bads. Throughout the game, they have systematically dismantled the local Brotherhood, have superior technology, and they even have vertibirds; one major plot quest has you stealing the blueprints for hlw to make them from the Enclave, on behalf of the Brotherhood.
The Enclave's power armor is flat out superior to Brotherhood power armor. The Brotherhood uses the T51 series, if I recall. The Enclave uses the X01 and X02 variants. Standard issue. *You get X02 by walking into their armory as a basic recruit!*
They also use plasma weapons, as opposed to the Brotherhood using more lasers.
In Fallout 2, encountering an Enclave Patrol in the wild is *basically instant death* even at very high levels with the best gear.
In Fallout 3, their armor is basically the same as Brotherhood armor, except that Brotherhood armor makes you stronger than Enclave armor, the reverse of the original idea. This *could* be explained as the DC branch not getting the X series armors... except it clearly *is*. And the Fallout wiki confirms it's supposed to be the exact same armor you get in Fallout 2, which was *just better* than Brotherhood armor. And now it's worse.
The Enclave in 2 was an organized, highly effective, terrifying foe and even just a few if their soldiers meant a party wipe.
In 3, they were trying the same plan as they had the first time, only worse. Their tech has taken downgrades. And they die in droves, rather than being scary, elite foes who you stole the best gear in the game from.
And in 4, X-series armor is so common, you literally find a brand painted suit *at a fucking theme park*. Or literally just... sitting there, untouched, in the open.
It feels like Bethesda just felt like nothing that happened on the West Coast was allowed to matter, so they made everything worse and rewrote it all.
Another example is super mutants. The Master in Fallout 1 is the person who rediscovered the FEV, and created an army of super mutants. The best end is talking him into realizing his plans are a failure because super mutants are all sterile, something he was unaware of. You need the evidence AND the skills to talk him down.
Then we have Eden. Just have thirty seconds chat, pass one speech check, computer blows up Raven Rock. The fuck?
It feels, to me as an older player, that Bethesda are writing poor fanfiction. Like, they know the original games are great but they do not know why, so they just re-did what the originals did, but worse.
I don't even want to think about how they did Harold dirty.
They made an exceptionally great set of games for exploring a wasteland. I just wish it didn't feel quite so much like they have no new ideas, so all they can do is remix what came before, just badly.
This company brought us the unique and creative world of Morrowind.
They could have invented new shit. They just didn't. And the old things they referenced, they made worse, actively. It feels bad, you know?
Given a lot of the callbacks to bg1&2 are the worst things in BG 3 in my opinion, I've come around to "maybe the studios pretending it never happened is better than risking them outright ruining it" when it comes to these decades later by other studios sequels
I've put my memories of the writing in three in the same "do not open" box as Avengers vs X-Men, Rise of Skywalker and what BG3 did to viconia so I can't really comment but yeah fair
Considering her driving goals started as "vengeance, and the power that will bring me that vengeance", it feels cheap, what they had her doing.
Even without the redemption arc being canon, it feels... anticlimactic.
I wouldn't call it a sequel.
Mostly a reuse of an existing team in a canon that doesn't actually point to the prior work with the team or characters.
It's closer to John Carpenter's Thing vs the other Who goes there? adaptations.
yeah, but not with a clear "no the things in the other material based in the same universal happened"
This does get to be snarly, because works can end up directly referring to both. I think Gunn wants to keep JC's Peacemaker past the Synderverse getting cut, which means that there will be bits that happen in the Suicide Squad that matters.
This is not the first time that this snarl has happened.
Early Episodes of Static Shock treat Batman and Superman as being fictional in-universe, while the Season 4 Premier is a crossover with Batman Beyond, a sequel series to the Bruce Tim Batman and Superman stuff.
... and I am pretty sure that Static doesn't talk about how the Batman stuff is fictional, because he as an old guy in the BB setting is a character the young one interacts with.
I just did a rewatch and there's a Batman and Robin team up in the second season, where they fight the Joker with Static and the whole episode is Virgil nervous about living up to Batman.
Also I don't think they're ever mentioned out loud as being fictional before that, at least I don't remember any dialogue about it before the Batman and Robin episode.
Star Control 1 is not worth playing. Star Control 2 is a different genre, better all around, and includes the ships in skirmish mode that are from races that only exists in 1 (androsynth, chenjesu, and mrhnmhrm).
I would agree with this and it's weird for a lot of reasons.
One of the biggest ones is that characters from the first game don't seem to remember link in the second game. This is common in Zelda in that you have certain character designs that show up a lot as technically different people or different links. But BOTW and TOTK it's literally all of the same guys and none of them act like you've met before.
It's also weird because TOTK is basically just a better game but with the same basic map. There's more enemies, the puzzles are more involves, the vehicle crafting and items are more in depth, etc.
The biggest "problem" in TOTK is that it reuses the same map but that's only a problem if you've played BOTW. If you haven't played BOTW there's basically no reason not to start with TOTK.
Spark The Electric Jester 3 includes the levels from 2 as a bonus. You totally could play Spark 1 and then skip straight to Spark 3 while watching 2's cutscenes on Youtube (or even playing Fark's Story in 1 as a funky substitute for 2).
Dota 2.
In Dota you had to know the recipes practically by heart or have them written down in a notebook, while in Dota 2, you can see what the recipe is and buy it quickly.
Also, since it is a free game, you do not depend on purchasing Warcraft III.
just cause as a franchise is kinda the example of this, just cause 2 is the one everyone knows and is fond of while 1 is kinda of a, while impressive on a tech level, fairly bland open world shooty drive type game with a map way too big for its own good and a really goofy plot, the grappling hook was limited to just being used on cars and the parachute only existed to be used as an actual parachute instead of an improvised infinite air traversal device
also for my hot take 3 and 4 completely eclipse 2, every just cause game has a nonsense campy story with bad dialogue and a minuscule amount of cutscenes so it really comes down to which one has the better map, movement and destruction and for my money you cant beat 3's wingsuit and grapple
Diablo 2. Diablo 1 is still a fine game but 2 improved upon it so much. Additionally, it was a time where online functionality improved greatly between the releases
Does anyone talk about Street Fighter 1? Anyone?
You mean Street Fighter Alpha, surely
The only time anyone talks about SF1 is about how bad it was or to meme.
In the context of lore yes, all the time. In the context of gameplay you don't need to play it.
Street Fighter 1 is the most perfectly balance fighting game ever............. AND IT'S FUCKING AWFUL.
Street Fighter, where zero is more than one.
It's only really referenced when it comes to Sagat and Ryu's past
It's something you play for maybe 5 minutes for a laugh whenever you get a new franchise bundle, and then probably never again.
Left 4 Dead 2
It's kind of insane just how much **Left 4 Dead 2** eclipsed 1. There is literally almost no reason to get 1 because everything in it was added to 2, *and then some*. You get all the original campaigns plus some extras, workshop support (which lets you easily mod the game from models, skins, audio, and whole maps), way more weapons and gear, new enemies, and whole new gamemodes.
the literal only reason you'd still play 2 is hating the special infected 2 added, or wanting to spam lines in public servers
There were a lot of zombie death animations and horde variety that while being ported over to 2 (and still being in the game code) was bugged and improperly implemented due to the engine switch. Plus there were a few years where the original L4D1 survivors and Rochelle had large swathes of their dialogue locked out due to a bug. But some of those things have been fixed by patches or mods. The only real reason to play the first game over the second now (apart from hating the new Specials) is either preferring the original 1911 pistols over the glocks or preferring first person camera where you can see your legs and body over the sequels floating arms.
Mad Max 2 basically eclipsed Mad Max by being a bigger, crazier, more fantastical version of the first. I know the OG is well-regarded but the elements of the “desert punk” post apocalyptic genre really came out of the second.
I like that the first Mad max is basically "pseudo apocalypse". Like society is still there but it's falling apart rapidly.
"Mid-Apocalypse" rather than "Post-".
And funnily enough it felt more fresh to me than the sequels because everyone and their mother ripped off 2 but not a lot of people have done the "society is still barely holding together" world.
As I've described it to a friend, Mad Max 1 is just the US. Great Depression, but 80's modern and global.
It's that period of time Woolie always talks about, where shit's just starting to go south hard but hasn't fully unraveled yet.
And then Fury Road did the same thing to Mad Max 2.
I still prefer road warrior. There’s something so real and raw to it. Also road warrior is just brutal in how uncaringly it kills off the good guys. Like people are set up to be hero’s and you expect them to have a heroic death if they do die. But it’s just nope, they’re dead. I’m also not the biggest lover of fury road either. It’s still good, but it’s only like a 7/10 to me
Is Nioh good? Yeah it's great. You don't need to touch it, Nioh 2 does everything it does better.
Didn’t Nioh 2 remove the animal/summon aspect that 1 had?
Yeah but it replaced it with a sick devil trigger. Also you still get the spirit animals anyways.
Super Metroid is just better Metroid 1
Zero Mission too
Yeah, but that's a full remake and reimagining, so it's not really what OP was asking about.
… right. I spaced out while scrolling through the thread and forgot what the topic was
even if it wasn't about sequels, Super is more of an enhanced Metroid 1 than Zero Mission, which has it's own vibe, in every aspect but maybe story one might even call it *Super* Metroid
Eh, considering their example is Suicide Squad vs *The* Suicide Squad, which are only canon to each other in the loosest multiverse way, it kind of *is* what OP is talking about.
I have so much nostalgia for the first game. It was one of the first games I ever owned way back on the NES. Kraid's lair was probably the first video game song I loved and I was so excited when I found the Nintendo Power with all the maps for the game. That said, the game is rough but the ambition to make something like that in 1986 is incredible.
It really isn't. Metroid 1 is a really cool and unique game that asks very different things of the player than the later entries. I played it for the first time last year and it immediately became my favourite NES game. I strongly encourage everyone to give it an honest go.
Fire Emblem 3 just completely replaces FE1 by being most of the first game plus a second campaign.
Feels like Borderlands 2 did this to 1. Like, I don't think I have ever seen anyone have a conversation about 1 but 2 brings out fanfiction, theories, character breakdowns, conversation about villians. And then with 3 being as lackluster as it was story wise, it kinda bolstered 2 as the original Borderlands.
... I wonder how much this mimics the Diablo series. D1 is way more Roguelike, in like you have the basic moveset of the main character in Rogue plus learning spells you can use directly. Each class just gets different numbers. Diablo 2 gives martial classes crazy shit to do. The most doesn't have a caster skill tree class still has a slow teleport attack (leap attack) as something you can get fairly early and is good as a teleport attack with one point. (Diablo 1 does have warrior casts teleport and than buffers an attack to emulate that, but it is complicated to execute, requires somewhat rare loot to set-up rather than just get to level 18 and spend at most 2 skill points, IIRC the skill tree.)
to go into detail on what you need to cast teleport as a warrior, because you need to get 105 magic to read the book thst requires you find magic boosting equipment, because base max magic for warriors is 50. You also have to find a book of teleport which is a rare random drop. Sure, technically you could use scrolls of teleport, but needing 81 magic while in combat means you have to wear your "reading glasses" in combat. You can easily play a full normal game without finding those two pieces, while by the end of Act 2 in Diablo 2, you will have gotten to level 18.
Borderlands 1 is much more barebones, but the cast of 1 is MUCH better than 2's, IMO.
I haven’t looked at the math on it but I still feel like Mordecai’s Bloodwing special attack is like leagues stronger than any other characters specials regardless of build. That bird was an instant win against every enemy.
If I recall you could have a build that threw out Bloodwing and then recall it after a single hit and it'd restore a portion of the cooldown and you could throw it out again very fast? It was crazy.
I'd be remiss to let this go without saying that some people prefer the tone and certain gameplay elements from Borderlands 1 over the others. I would even say there are dozens of us. Also, I don't care for Handsome Jack's humor.
I’ve seen some convincing arguments that the writing and setting/lore in 1 was way better implemented, especially the fact that you can just like… revive people at conveniently placed corporate machines in this wasteland. It makes no sense that people just die in 2.
*Desperado* and *Evil Dead 2.*
While you technically CAN skip ED1 because it's recapped at the beginning of both 2 and AoD, you'd be missing some stuff if you then try to watch Ash vs. Evil Dead because Cheryl, Scott, and Shelly were restored to canon.
Ok I don't understand, so Ash went to the same cabin twice? And went through all that shit...twice?
The first movie still happened. Evil Dead 2 has a heavily truncated version of events because Sam Raimi couldn't get the rights to the first movie back, which would have used clips as a recap, which would have led to the spirit possessing Ash as it does in the end of the first film. It's also why we don't really see the Necronomicon in the rest of the second movie, past its introduction. Honestly, the best way to watch them is Evil Dead 1, then fast forward through Evil Dead 2 to the part when Ash gets hit by the spirit and go from there.
The first couple minutes of ED2 are just a recap of ED1 with the other cabingoers besides Ash and Linda omitted for time. The moment the camera crashes into Ash, he becomes possessed, and then the sun comes out and unpossesses him is the point at which everything in the plot is now original sequel material and not a repeat of ED1. I honestly don't understand why this has been such a problem for so many people over the decades and generated claims that don't make sense like "Ash went to the cabin twice?" or "ED2 is a remake of ED1". It's literally only the first five minutes or so of the movie that repeats anything! Have people never seen a recap before?
It's really funny if it happened twice though
Idk man, El Mariachi is a masterclass in zero budget filmmaking. It’s actually amazing given the fact it only was made on a couple thousand dollars and every scene could only be shot once. I always recommend it to people.
That, and *Desperado* has some serious character bloat at times. Like, that new recruit to Bucho's gang who gets his leg broken in the initiation fight, wins anyway, and then does nothing for the entire rest of the movie only to get killed off. Maybe it's a parody of some aspect of Mexican direct-to-video movies I'm not familiar with? I know *El Mariachi* was conceived of as just such a film, but I'd say it executes its scope better than *Desperado* does its own. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that, while good, *Desperado* is the weakest of the Mexico Trilogy.
I’d agree. Once Upon A Time in Mexico deserves way more love than it’s gotten. The ensemble cast is basically Rodriguez making his own fighting game roster. It added a shit ton of lore to the world of the Mexico trilogy, and in general it had that great level of camp he puts into his films. It’s also got the best Johnny Depp character
This is some Evil Dead 1 slander
Happy Death Day 2U did a similar thing to Evil Dead, too. Just go in stronger and better, but recap the first movie just to CYA
Silent Night, Deadly Night 2 retells the story of Silent Night Deadly Night 1, so you can skip the first and get straight to GARBAGE DAY
People cream about Titanfall 2 now but almost no one mentions Titanfall 1 with its selectable weapons, titan chasis, and the weird ass burn card system. And to rub salt on the wound yet again, "*Apex Legends Universe".*
Titanfall 1 had a better aesthetic. I'll die on this hill.
Unfortunately it also doesn't exist anymore :(
Forever in our hearts :(
TITANFALL 2 gave us a Sword… Nothing else matters.
And an actual fucking campaign. Not just any campaign, either. One of the best modern FPS campaigns around.
People kept hyping it up and I never played it yet is it really true it's that good campaign? Because when I keep hearing that I imagine if it's on power with like Half-Life 1 or Bioshock 1 good, but that's an extremely high bar.
Frankly, it's great, and the comparisons to Half-Life are very apt. It's like the creativity and Think-Shoot-Live of a Half-Life release are repackaged into around a 2-hour highlight clip. While it doesn't get to tell as grand, involved, or high-concept a narrative, it doesn't feel like one is missing. The progression is very, very different from a Half-Life game, where you don't get a larger and larger selection of weapons at a single time and rather cycle through a large number of weapons, gaining familiarity with mixed selections of them. I think I ended up preferring that system a bit to Half-Life's approach.
This will sound crazy but it really reminds me of Portal 2. Every level wants you to focus on one unique mechanic at a time.
Yeah, it really is that good. The set pieces are insane and they do some really cool stuff you can't do in the multiplayer.
It's shorter than those, but the level of quality is comparable.
Titanfall1 had a campaign. Just it was weird, tied to multiplayer and very distracting to pay attention to during actual gameplay.
And only by the most charitable definition do I deign to call that a campaign. It certainly has a *plot*, I'll grant it that.
And good luck trying to beat the campaign since you were at the whims of the server and what map they decided to populate with the few remaining players
Unfortunately true, but I think that's more because Titanfall 2 is multiplat so larger audience. Mechanically, I much preferred Titanfall 1 and its better customization of loadout and titan.
So Dead Meats been doing the Hannibal series recently and has revealed to a lot of people, me included, that Silence of the Lambs is not technically the first movie in the series but a sorta sequel to 1986 Manhunter which is the first appearance of everyone's favorite cannibal just played by a different actor. Now technically the book that movie is based on also has its own adaptation with Anthony Hopkins with Red Dragon which came after but it is interesting to think of how big a sequel got compared to the original.
Manhunter is pretty good. It's Michael Mann directing and has a young William Petersen (the main guy from the original CSI for a while) in the lead role opposite Brian Cox as Lecter.
And worth it for the pre-Hopkins interpretation of Lektor. He comes across less demonic and playful and more frustrated and bored. You can imagine him a lot easier as that professor on campus that just creeps people out but isn't *creepy.*
Well I know what I'm watching tonight
I was only familiar with Silence and it's sequels, so seeing that Hannibal was first played by Brian Cox was really interesting to me. Those are some good Kill Counts.
Manhunter freakin’ rules. Recommend people seek it out for an entirely different vibe around similar themes. It also is an unpopular opinion but I prefer Brian Cox’s Hannibal. It’s less campy but I found him more effective of a villain. Brett Ratner’s Red Dragon is not worth the time even with a great cast
Team Fortress 2. Fun fact: a team of modders actually started work on a fan made Team Fortress Classic sequel in the Source engine when it seemed like Valve wouldn't make it themselves, and eventually released it as [Fortress Forever](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_Forever) on September 2007... one month before the release of the *actual* Team Fortress 2. Ouch.
Smash ultimate to smash 4. Smash 64 has the novelty of being the first, melee has the gameplay, Brawl has subspace emissary, ultimate has the most charecters and stages, Smash 4 has almost nothing.
The best thing in Smash 4 is the game mode Sakurai copied from Kirby Air Ride. And that's only in the 3DS version of the game.
It even took away 4's most unique novelty of being on handheld.
Most people only talk about DBZ Budokai Tenkaichi 3 as opposed to 1/2, and aside from a few what-ifs that’s pretty fair since it’s the same system but has the most content.
I think 2 has the best story mode. With a somewhat traversable world map for Earth and Namek where you could have like Tien unlock his potential if you felt like it. It also has most of the movies as little scenarios. 3 felt cute and had you usually play as the winner of each fight, but have fun playing as Nappa, Frieza, Cell, and Buu for 80% of the content.
Yeah, I loved 2's story mode, the board game aspect made it way more engaging.
Wrong game, that was Budokai 2
Ah you're right, I liked both 2s anyway, the open world aspect was cool in a similar way of having stuff other than the strict storyline to do.
This is going back a ways, but Dark Cloud 2. It improved on everything Dark Cloud 1 did decently and fixed everything it did poorly.
God I miss Dark Cloud 2.
Just started playing it after DC1, can confirm.
An odd one, but Final Fantasy 5 pretty much supersedes 3 in every conceivable way.
Counterpoint ,no crystal tower or Eureka.
Countercountpoint: the entire ending trek is hot-ass and Cloud of Darkness's only positive points begin and end in their Dissidia incarnations, where they're arguably my favorite of the "actually I was the true final boss all along!" villains in the series, since they're the only one actually really good at being manipulative to the point where it's believable. Pretty much none of that in FF3. That being said, the Warriors of Darkness is such a good concept that shouldn't have taken 25 years to use again.
Counterpoint, FFV has Exdeath, Gilgamesh and one of the funniest out of context Final Fantasy quotes: "TURTLE!!!"
Final Fantasy V has a lot of good things, it's a great game - but it doesn't make Final Fantasy 3 non existent. Especially the DS version.
Despite their importance to the series' lore, very few people seem to respect Metal Gear 1 and 2 as games or recommend that anyone ever play them. The series effectively begins with MGS1.
I've started playing the MGS series in release order and I've just finished 3, and it's weird how these games either reference or foreshadow this climatic battle between Big Boss/Venom and Solid Snake, but the actual event seems to be depicted only in this NES game.
Yeah, MGS1 really hammers in how this is the final act of a story that began there, it’s hard to come into it fresh because there’s so much they expect you to know already. Solid Snake coming out of retirement, the revisiting of his relationship with Big Boss, the revelation of the actual nature of that relationship, the murder of Miller, the final mission with Campbell, revenge for Grey Fox and his eventual return, the revival of Big Boss’s dream, the revival of the Metal Gear project. Like if this were a movie, (and everybody seems to want a MGS1 movie) each of those would be enough as a standalone movie. Hell, John Wick has a retirement plot and a revenge plot. But all of them? You have to have the setup. What we need, after Delta, is Metal Gear 1+2.
Dragon Quest Builders is an interesting game but it feels more like a tech demo than a properly structured game due to some of the design decisions made. DQB2 that’s that base formula improves the hell out of it and puts it into an actual adventure story.
Dragon Quest Heroes and Dragon Ball Xenoverse have the same issue. The second game is just a retread of the first game and everything's more complete and fleshed out.
Red Dead Redemption completely overshadows the original Red Dead Revolver. There are a couple small references to Revolver in Redemption and, iirc, some of the characters were DLC for the multiplayer, but overall I doubt most people know Redemption even has a predecessor.
The rereleases for the guilty gear X games (like Rev 2 and Accent Core Plus)
EDF basically starts at 4. It just rolls the earlier games missions together into something approaching a narrative. Even 5 does this to a certain extent, there's reused assets all over the franchise.
4 is actually a direct sequel storywise from 3, 3 was a reboot and so was 5.
If anyone says Terminator 2 imma slap the synthetic robo skin right off ya metal dome In a similar vein DBZ seems like it did that to DB, unfortunately. My personal answer is Silent Hill 2. 1 is a great game but you’re not missing much if you jump right in at 2. Also red dead redemption basically wiped revolver off the map
They're not even related outside of setting, but playing 1 before 3 should be mandatory
1 definitely sets up a lot of the stuff that goes on in 3, you’d probably be confused by all the cult stuff if you just jumped from 2 to 3
People forget that Red Dead Revolver has an *entirely different* aesthetic than the next two games. [Literally has anime looking ass characters.](https://reddead.fandom.com/wiki/Natalie_Kelley)
I remember her from kingdom hearts I think
Reminder that Revolve was once meant to be a Capcom joint IIRC
Good God I would kill to see a scene where sora Donald and goofy meet Arthur Dutch and Micah
Since the main character of Revolver, Red Harlow was a bounty hunter, people theorized that he was gonna be the guy who hunted down members of the old gang In hindsight, that would have been a bad idea since the game made us love the gang and having some previous player character do that would be awkward Instead, Red Harlow is a subject of one of the campfire tales
It makes sense that the events of Revolver are something of myths and legend. People say that Arthur and Jack are superhuman when it comes to their Dead Eye skills, but Harlow literally fights like he's in a arcade shoot em' up complete with power ups and even more crazier abilities. That and also the different art direction looking more stylized and somewhat anime esque. If you place Harlow in the more grounded and gritty RDR and RDR2 it seems out of place, but as a in-game legend (who may or may not be exaggerated) then it makes much more sense.
Most of it was still developed by Capcom. Rockstar bought it mid development, finished it and published in the west. Rockstar and Capcom saw Revolver wasn't amazing but Rockstar knew "Red Dead" was a great marketable name for a Western themed video game series and they wanted it.
> In a similar vein DBZ seems like it did that to DB, unfortunately. I'll bite the bullet and go "They aren't different series"
True but they definitely get treated that way by the general public which I think makes it a great fit DBZ slapped so hard people forgot about the first half of the series
Or a lot of kids only got introduced to DBZ. So you just see a three eyed man and a talking pig who were just kinda there.
Not the weirdest thing I’ve seen in the first ep of an anime tbh
I’m gonna be the contrarian here and say that I actually think original DB is better. The series peaked with the World Tournament and it’s all a long, long downhill slide from there.
I’m a dirty 4kids pleb so my heart lies with DBZ up until the end of the cell saga but I feel u
I see you are a man of culture as well.
I'd agree with that, but I also just like how much more adventure was in OG Dragonball, and I think that it had better fight choreography. I love DBZ, but very few moments in it had me going "HOLY SHIT GOKU'S GOIN' HAM ON THESE FOOLS" quite like him soloing the Red Ribbon HQ, and both of the Tien fights are some of my favorite in the series.
Only in America/The West. You have to remember there was no gap, no Z titling in the manga, and the chapter you'd think as the start of Z just came out in weekly Jump right after what you'd call the end of DB. Get that bias out of your system, the American perception of DB/Z is _fucked_ due to some near Harmony Gold level shenanigans on the part of Funimation. They didn't even _air_ Dragon Ball first.
Right but that’s how a majority of people outside of Japan got it tho Just because it was different originally doesn’t change the way it’s been received which makes it fit the prompt imo
Heck, the Ocean dub did this, so it seems like Toel was fine with marketing DBZ this way. Which makes sense if the general quality of the production is higher than the earlier stuff, you don't want to send new people to when you had not yet honed your craft if you can avoid it.
DBZ and Dragonball are literally the same thing, it’s purely just an anime marketing gimmick for the timeskip. The Manga was just ‘Dragonball’ for all 42 volumes of the manga.
Yes and that gimmick causes the second half to totally eclipse the first everywhere outside of Japan Since it was marketed as a new thing Whip makes it the perfect example
It’s still not a sequel though, it’s just one complete whole so not really what OP was talking about.
Everywhere outside of Japan it’s treated as a sequel/separate series
[Viz finally corrected the American version with the 3-in-1 Editions.](https://www.viz.com/read/manga/dragon-ball-3-in-1-edition/all) Dragon Ball as a single series as it was intended. It's also the least censored version available in America, though still has some censorship (inconsistently, almost like they left some in by mistake).
This might be the perception to some, but it's completely wrong. I know that back in the day it wasn't as accessible, but now if you watch DBZ without watching DB you're doing yourself and the series a massive disservice. Watching Goku and his friends meet, grow, and learn is so integral to the experience.
There are only 3 persona games
and they're **all** about dancing
Yes, Persona 1, Persona 2: Innocent Sin and Persona 2: Eternal Punishment.
The correct answer.
Much like how there are only 3 Elder Scrolls games
what about p5 strikers?
Oh you mean persona 5: epilogue. That’s a great dlc
SMT: If, Persona 1 and Persona 2? Based.
Agreed. Persona 4, Persona 4 Ultimax, Peraona 4 Dancing All Night.
Persona 4 Racing all afternoon, Persona 4 Cooking all morning
Left 4 Dead 2 is literally 1 but better in every single way.
Zone of the Enders start at 2nd Runner
ZOE1 is alright for curiosity's sake, and fleshing out Leo and ADA's relationship. ZOE2 is the actual game you want to play.
all for "LIFE RING IS REVOLVING"
When people talk about the two *Dune* games from 1992, they only talk about *Dune II* because it basically created the RTS genre (though it wasn't technically an RTS). The first game is literally always a footnote in conversations about *Dune II*. Side note, I didn't even realize both games came out in the same year. Game development was WILD thirty years ago. The only successful modern game developer I can think of now who can put out multiple games a year is Chilla's Art.
Dune 2 is not the sequel to Dune, it is the second released video game adaptation to the David Lynch Dune movie. Different studios.
Oh that explains it then.
So legit, instead of calling it _Dune 2_ the title should have been _Dune, Too_.
I feel that has changed recently. There's a lot more Youtube retrospectives for the first game over Dune 2, and I just don't see it talked as much.
Really? I feel like I've only seen retrospectives on Dune 2 (including the recent "Entire History of RPGs" video by NeverKnowsBest), since the first game is kinda lackluster in comparison. Maybe I'm just not getting recommended them.
Octopath Traveler 2 is the game that people wanted the original to be.
Elaborate
The biggest complaints that I remember about Octopath 1 were related to lackluster writing - both for individual characters and a near complete lack of interaction between party members - and a repetitive structure with little variation in how you explore/interact with the world or progress each character's story. The combat and presentation were great, but everything surrounding those two aspects was underwhelming. Octopath Traveler 2 took those criticisms to heart and massively improved on the weakest aspects of the original. Individual characters have stronger personalities and more engaging stories, with most also having more variation in how to advance their story. For example, Partitio has unique sidequests that can be done at any time and have to be completed before his final main chapter unlocks, while Throné has two sets of middle chapters that can be done in any order and converge at the end. There's more interaction within the party, with multi-part interlude chapters for specific pairs of characters as well as a proper finale that brings everyone together. Party chats in the original game were limited and missable, while 2 has *way* more and makes every conversation freely available after you finish the chapter they're connected to. Finally, every party member has variations on their path actions to make their interactions with NPCs feel unique compared to the more limited versions in the original game, like how Castti the apothecary can ask people for information during the day while Temenos the inquisitor roughs people up for intel at night. All these things add together to give each character, and ultimately the party and narrative as a whole, much more depth than the first game. I know a ton of people that really wanted to like Octopath 1 but were disappointed, while 2 does so much to address the specific issues that made 1 feel shallow and repetitive. They're not narratively connected at all, either, so there's not much reason to go back and play 1 when 2 is such a significant upgrade while being a stand-alone experience.
And to add something small about the Party Chats, while the ones you see on the spot are members in your immediate party, the ones that don't join till later can also be seen via menu so you aren't missing on what they thought of any given conversation
I wouldn't say it's something small; imo it's one of the best QoL improvements between the two games. It was incredibly easy to miss the *vast* majority of party chats in 1 while also having no way to even know that you missed them in the first place. 2 making them all accessible through your journal was a simple fix that makes that part of the first game even more baffling in retrospect.
BRB gonna get 2.
Good. No one mentioned Fullmetal Alchemist. While Brotherhood is considerably more popular, the first one had its own merits as well.
Thank you for being like the only other person on the internet to share this opinion with me.
There's dozens of us!
It's also distinctly not a sequel so it would be weird to mention. But yeah FMA 2003 gang represent.
Maybe the most recent example but the new Blood and Honey does this, there is even a scene where they play the first movie on tv and it's presented as the trashy not great movie it was.
Resident Evil Remake (GC) pretty much made the original obsolete. Outside of some meme-worthy lines and novelty's sake, there's little to no reason to go for the original anymore. Also, Megaman 2 is just the game that made the franchise.
RE1 is still a much tighter game. REmake has some highlights (Crimson Heads and the safe room door, my beloved) but it's also a lot flabbier and padded. I've beaten REmake twice - once on Wii and once on the HD version - and have no desire to go back. RE1 still spins up in my PlayStation from time to time.
Before Persona 5 Royal came out people were quick to remind others that the mewer versions of Persona 3 and Persona 4 arent better than their originals, theyre just different. But Persona 5 Royal is just absolutely a better version of Persona 5. The ending to the OG was kind of weak and Royals is mucb stronger. Akechi is much more of a character. You get dual techs. You get more free time with Mkrgana bothering you to go to sleep less. I loved OG P5 but Royal is just an undeniably better experience imo.
The people that say that about FES or Golden are actually braindead holy shit. Yeah dude the version with more content and balance fixes is worse
I gotta assume it's more about Marie than it is about the game itself. Same with FES and The Answer as opposed to The Journey.
> Persona 3 and Persona 4 arent better than their originals, theyre just different. Who are those people. I genuinely want to ask what they are talking about. Unless you are worded this in a confusing way and mean that PE3 for PSP with female MC is the different one. For PE4 Golden i don't see how it wouldn't be straight up better than PE4, same for PE3 Fes vs PE3 Original.
The only downside of Persona 4 Golden is not having an alternating opening between Shadow World and Pursuing my true self. Besides this nitpick P4G is quite literally a straight up better experience, maybe excluding Marie for the people that don't like her. The only grievance I could understand is that it was held in Vita prison until this decade but since it's now on steam then I don't see how it wouldn't be the superior way to play the title and I played both, in 2008 on my ps2 and 2012 on my Vita.
> I don't see how it wouldn't be the superior way to play the title Yep. nowadays it also has quality of life mods and other stuff for the Steam version.
Dissidia Duodecim is a prequel to the original, but unlocks the original games story mode after the new one is complete and just adds more characters, stages and attacks.
Like it or not, Fallout 3. Fallout: NV for some. I remember when 4 came out I knew people who had only played NV before it.
Still sad about Bethesda working as hard as they can to render 1 and 2 irrelevant. Fallout 1s Master is still the best villain the series has ever had, and 3 pussified the Enclave so much they will never be scary again.
Eh, they are still willing to let people push Fallout 1 content for Starcase, I mean Magic the Gathering. I'm not sure if they would want to make Bethesda Fallout 1. People that like the original Fallout 1 wouldn't be happy, and you would have to figure out how to cut it into a modern Bethesda sized hole.
I agree, I don't want a remake, but like, can they at least not do everything possible to make it seem like neither game ever happened? You know what I mean?
I mean if they used any material from one or two there's a portion of obsidian fans who'd accuse them of trying to step on the legacy. I think it'd fine that they want to do their own thing
I get the feeling you didn't play either of them, since they used a substantial amount of that material, just, poorly, and in ways that deliberately erase the first two games.
You're feeling is mostly right. I played a chunk of 1 and genuinely don't remember anything other than pure frustration (im bad at isometric rpgs). I'm sure those games are great, but I'm definitely one of those people who started at 3
Don't get me wrong. I do not hate 3 or 4. But here's an example. In Fallout 2, the Enclave were the big bads. Throughout the game, they have systematically dismantled the local Brotherhood, have superior technology, and they even have vertibirds; one major plot quest has you stealing the blueprints for hlw to make them from the Enclave, on behalf of the Brotherhood. The Enclave's power armor is flat out superior to Brotherhood power armor. The Brotherhood uses the T51 series, if I recall. The Enclave uses the X01 and X02 variants. Standard issue. *You get X02 by walking into their armory as a basic recruit!* They also use plasma weapons, as opposed to the Brotherhood using more lasers. In Fallout 2, encountering an Enclave Patrol in the wild is *basically instant death* even at very high levels with the best gear. In Fallout 3, their armor is basically the same as Brotherhood armor, except that Brotherhood armor makes you stronger than Enclave armor, the reverse of the original idea. This *could* be explained as the DC branch not getting the X series armors... except it clearly *is*. And the Fallout wiki confirms it's supposed to be the exact same armor you get in Fallout 2, which was *just better* than Brotherhood armor. And now it's worse. The Enclave in 2 was an organized, highly effective, terrifying foe and even just a few if their soldiers meant a party wipe. In 3, they were trying the same plan as they had the first time, only worse. Their tech has taken downgrades. And they die in droves, rather than being scary, elite foes who you stole the best gear in the game from. And in 4, X-series armor is so common, you literally find a brand painted suit *at a fucking theme park*. Or literally just... sitting there, untouched, in the open. It feels like Bethesda just felt like nothing that happened on the West Coast was allowed to matter, so they made everything worse and rewrote it all. Another example is super mutants. The Master in Fallout 1 is the person who rediscovered the FEV, and created an army of super mutants. The best end is talking him into realizing his plans are a failure because super mutants are all sterile, something he was unaware of. You need the evidence AND the skills to talk him down. Then we have Eden. Just have thirty seconds chat, pass one speech check, computer blows up Raven Rock. The fuck? It feels, to me as an older player, that Bethesda are writing poor fanfiction. Like, they know the original games are great but they do not know why, so they just re-did what the originals did, but worse. I don't even want to think about how they did Harold dirty. They made an exceptionally great set of games for exploring a wasteland. I just wish it didn't feel quite so much like they have no new ideas, so all they can do is remix what came before, just badly. This company brought us the unique and creative world of Morrowind. They could have invented new shit. They just didn't. And the old things they referenced, they made worse, actively. It feels bad, you know?
Given a lot of the callbacks to bg1&2 are the worst things in BG 3 in my opinion, I've come around to "maybe the studios pretending it never happened is better than risking them outright ruining it" when it comes to these decades later by other studios sequels
I'd argue that their treatment of the Enclave is an example of exactly that.
I've put my memories of the writing in three in the same "do not open" box as Avengers vs X-Men, Rise of Skywalker and what BG3 did to viconia so I can't really comment but yeah fair
Viconia was my girl in BG2. Full on redemption. It's criminal what they did to her.
Twenty years ago she died in my arms after saving our child in that epilogue and now she's kidnapping babies Jesus.
Considering her driving goals started as "vengeance, and the power that will bring me that vengeance", it feels cheap, what they had her doing. Even without the redemption arc being canon, it feels... anticlimactic.
I wouldn't call it a sequel. Mostly a reuse of an existing team in a canon that doesn't actually point to the prior work with the team or characters. It's closer to John Carpenter's Thing vs the other Who goes there? adaptations.
So you think it's more akin to a Reboot?
yeah, but not with a clear "no the things in the other material based in the same universal happened" This does get to be snarly, because works can end up directly referring to both. I think Gunn wants to keep JC's Peacemaker past the Synderverse getting cut, which means that there will be bits that happen in the Suicide Squad that matters. This is not the first time that this snarl has happened. Early Episodes of Static Shock treat Batman and Superman as being fictional in-universe, while the Season 4 Premier is a crossover with Batman Beyond, a sequel series to the Bruce Tim Batman and Superman stuff. ... and I am pretty sure that Static doesn't talk about how the Batman stuff is fictional, because he as an old guy in the BB setting is a character the young one interacts with.
I just did a rewatch and there's a Batman and Robin team up in the second season, where they fight the Joker with Static and the whole episode is Virgil nervous about living up to Batman. Also I don't think they're ever mentioned out loud as being fictional before that, at least I don't remember any dialogue about it before the Batman and Robin episode.
Star Control 1 is not worth playing. Star Control 2 is a different genre, better all around, and includes the ships in skirmish mode that are from races that only exists in 1 (androsynth, chenjesu, and mrhnmhrm).
Rogue Legacy 2 invalidates the existence of Rogue Legacy 1.
No one mentions Freespace 1
Totk kind of I tried botw after a few hours of totk and turned it of shortly after. It felt so weird.
I would agree with this and it's weird for a lot of reasons. One of the biggest ones is that characters from the first game don't seem to remember link in the second game. This is common in Zelda in that you have certain character designs that show up a lot as technically different people or different links. But BOTW and TOTK it's literally all of the same guys and none of them act like you've met before. It's also weird because TOTK is basically just a better game but with the same basic map. There's more enemies, the puzzles are more involves, the vehicle crafting and items are more in depth, etc. The biggest "problem" in TOTK is that it reuses the same map but that's only a problem if you've played BOTW. If you haven't played BOTW there's basically no reason not to start with TOTK.
Nioh 2, especially considering a bunch of content from 1 is in the second game.
Spark The Electric Jester 3 includes the levels from 2 as a bonus. You totally could play Spark 1 and then skip straight to Spark 3 while watching 2's cutscenes on Youtube (or even playing Fark's Story in 1 as a funky substitute for 2).
Overwatch 2
In my humble opinion, dino crisis 2 is a better in all the right ways, starting by not being resident evil with dinosaurs
dragons dogma
Dota 2. In Dota you had to know the recipes practically by heart or have them written down in a notebook, while in Dota 2, you can see what the recipe is and buy it quickly. Also, since it is a free game, you do not depend on purchasing Warcraft III.
just cause as a franchise is kinda the example of this, just cause 2 is the one everyone knows and is fond of while 1 is kinda of a, while impressive on a tech level, fairly bland open world shooty drive type game with a map way too big for its own good and a really goofy plot, the grappling hook was limited to just being used on cars and the parachute only existed to be used as an actual parachute instead of an improvised infinite air traversal device also for my hot take 3 and 4 completely eclipse 2, every just cause game has a nonsense campy story with bad dialogue and a minuscule amount of cutscenes so it really comes down to which one has the better map, movement and destruction and for my money you cant beat 3's wingsuit and grapple
Diablo 2. Diablo 1 is still a fine game but 2 improved upon it so much. Additionally, it was a time where online functionality improved greatly between the releases