Sequels are usually a bad thing. For every one that changes game mechanics enough to make the new series entry fresh, there are five that tweak the graphics slightly, add a new combo counter and a new character or two. A sequel should not replace the original game; simple expansions of themes and mechanics should not cost full retail price. Instead, gamers deserve sequels that coexist with the originals. Super Mario 2 did not replace Super Mario 1, nor did 3 replace 2 – all of them were different enough to warrant keeping the older titles around. This is how sequels should be handled (someone inform EA, please).
 |
|
By “somewhat powerful” it means “very weak”.
|
Luckily for me, my ludicrous idealism is not applied uniformly. Certain series are built on such solid foundations that to demand they entirely reinvent themselves with each entry is unreasonable. This chink in my armor of hatred for boring sequels (it’s the sexy but useless kind of armor that barely covers my nipples) is where all my enemies will strike – of course we can all agree that “boring” sequels suck and the real debate is simply on which series have classic gameplay that should be rehashed ad nauseum. → Europa Universalis IV: Articles of War