- Jan 3, 2018
Does not count for:
God of War? Maybe, not sure.
God of War? Maybe, not sure.
Sure, but if we're counting SMB2 as a Mario game, we can count Snake's Revenge as a Metal Gear!Indeed. Many people do forget about the original games, and Snake's Revenge is a weird game, but it's not the real metal gear 2 and it deserves to be forgotten.
The real mg2 is Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake and it's a masterpiece that still holds up to this day, in my opinion.
You kid but this could very well be the case in terms of combat depth and amount of content. Bayo 2 was a huge step down from the ridiculous quality of the first game in favor of better production values and pacing.
The only issue with this is that each of those games are amazing in their own right. I really wish Square would give it another go and allow Matsuno to make the final chapter.The Ogre Battle series
RTS game where you move your groups around on a battlefield, liberating towns and fighting.
Fights were party based like an JRPG with limited controls, you could only tell the group simple orders like to attack the strongest, the leader, etc.
Tactical rpg made by the same people as Final Fantasy Tactics.
Had better story presentation that the original
Ogre Battle 64
Pretty much the same as the original except the maps were in 3d and the story was presented more like Tactics Ogre instead of brief dialogues like in the original.
Yep.It happens a lot in films too. And imo, it's because the creatives at the heart of the project are vindicated by its success, and typically bring ideas they were forced to cut by others into the sequel, for better or worse. Indiana Jones is a lot like that.
It can go the other way too. A lot of Terminator 2 is stuff Cameron cut from the original because he didn't have the know-how or money to realise (the T1000, etc). The Raid 2 was written before the first, but cost too much, so it was benched and a smaller concept constructed.
... I'm struggling to think of a game where the sequel is what they really wanted to make, but I know I've read examples.
Final Fantasy, at least as far as your character development mechanics are concerned.Anyone else notice a LOT of game trilogies follow this exact same formula?
Zelda. The original is the foundation. The second game ditches all of that and goes for a sidescrolling, RPG-lite adventure. Link to the Past is the first game with all of the adventure elements from Zelda II, a ton of new mechanics, much better graphics, an actual story and a much more structured adventure.
Castlevania. The original is the foundation. The second game ditches all of that and goes for an RPG-lite adventure, although it's much more similar to the first than in Zelda's case. The third goes back to the basics, adds more playable characters, and has tighter gameplay and level design.
Metal Gear Solid. The original is the foundation. The second game purposefully deconstructs the idea of a generic sequel with a meta-narrative about memes and what people expect vs. the truth, replaces its main character, and has a much different vibe. The third replays the basic beats of the first with new camo mechanics, a more robust codec team, and an interesting switch-up by being a period piece set in the 1960's.
Any other examples? Why do you think this is? Why is the second one usually "the weird one?"
If you want to do the Chrono games, you should go: