racketboy.com

TheSonicRetard wrote:

o.pwuaioc wrote:Often those sequels aren't given the proper funding. Game sequels are milked, though, as some movie sequels are (like Terminator II). You can usually tell though when a sequel isn't properly worked on and fails.

What? Terminator 2 was a sequel to a niche low-budget film with a cult following, that was given like 20 times the budget of the original. I don't know how anybody could call Terminator 2 a "milked sequel." It's pretty much the best counter example one can give to the whole "sequels are always worse" argument.

You misunderstood what I was saying (and I lay the blame squarely on me for the confused wording). What I was saying is that some sequels aren't given proper funding, while others are. Terminator II is a movie that was given proper funding (and as you pointed out, even better funding), and is therefore awesome.

o.pwuaioc wrote:

TheSonicRetard wrote:

o.pwuaioc wrote:Often those sequels aren't given the proper funding. Game sequels are milked, though, as some movie sequels are (like Terminator II). You can usually tell though when a sequel isn't properly worked on and fails.

What? Terminator 2 was a sequel to a niche low-budget film with a cult following, that was given like 20 times the budget of the original. I don't know how anybody could call Terminator 2 a "milked sequel." It's pretty much the best counter example one can give to the whole "sequels are always worse" argument.

You misunderstood what I was saying (and I lay the blame squarely on me for the confused wording). What I was saying is that some sequels aren't given proper funding, while others are. Terminator II is a movie that was given proper funding (and as you pointed out, even better funding), and is therefore awesome.

Oh, sorry about the confusion, then.

As to the original question: Is there any reason to try inferior prequels? Sure there is - because the game is fun and you want more. Example - I played Crash Bandicoot 1 after I played Crash Bandicoot 2, because I really liked Crash 2 and wanted more levels. Even though Crash 1 was rougher around the edges, it was still fun and I treated it more like an expansion pack.

I've done this before with other games. Sometimes it's as simple as wanting more of the same.

TheSonicRetard wrote:As to the original question: Is there any reason to try inferior prequels? Sure there is - because the game is fun and you want more. Example - I played Crash Bandicoot 1 after I played Crash Bandicoot 2, because I really liked Crash 2 and wanted more levels. Even though Crash 1 was rougher around the edges, it was still fun and I treated it more like an expansion pack.

I've done this before with other games. Sometimes it's as simple as wanting more of the same.

This is EXACTLY what I did with Borderlands. I never did play the first one, but LOVED the second one, so I went back and played the first one after I was done with Borderlands 2. Did I enjoy it? Sure, but the second one is far superior (IMO).

Which is kind of strange for me, because usually I find sequels to be inferior to the first game of the series. Then again, maybe it's the order in which I play them (as in the case of Borderlands).

p.s. sorry for the thread necro!

graffix_13 wrote:This is EXACTLY what I did with Borderlands. I never did play the first one, but LOVED the second one, so I went back and played the first one after I was done with Borderlands 2. Did I enjoy it? Sure, but the second one is far superior (IMO).

Oh dear -- playing Borderlands after playing Borderlands 2 is like having sex with a 10, and then having sex with a 4. Sure, it kinda feels the same, but the other one was just hotter.

I absolutely love Borderlands, but after 2, going backwards and playing 1 without any of the improvements they made just hurts.

irixith wrote:Oh dear -- playing Borderlands after playing Borderlands 2 is like having sex with a 10, and then having sex with a 4. Sure, it kinda feels the same, but the other one was just hotter.

whew...

<takes deep breath>

<fans self>

irixith wrote:

graffix_13 wrote:This is EXACTLY what I did with Borderlands. I never did play the first one, but LOVED the second one, so I went back and played the first one after I was done with Borderlands 2. Did I enjoy it? Sure, but the second one is far superior (IMO).

Oh dear -- playing Borderlands after playing Borderlands 2 is like having sex with a 10, and then having sex with a 4. Sure, it kinda feels the same, but the other one was just hotter.

I absolutely love Borderlands, but after 2, going backwards and playing 1 without any of the improvements they made just hurts.

don't know about the sex analogy , but this is what I meant sometimes the later version is an updated better , fully featured version of the game so is there a point going backwards?

I still dont know, but lately I have taking on the path of playing one game of every IP unless that IP is a lot different (Mario 64 - Mario galaxy , Call of Duty 2- COD Ghosts)

graffix_13 wrote:

TheSonicRetard wrote:As to the original question: Is there any reason to try inferior prequels? Sure there is - because the game is fun and you want more. Example - I played Crash Bandicoot 1 after I played Crash Bandicoot 2, because I really liked Crash 2 and wanted more levels. Even though Crash 1 was rougher around the edges, it was still fun and I treated it more like an expansion pack.

I've done this before with other games. Sometimes it's as simple as wanting more of the same.

This is EXACTLY what I did with Borderlands. I never did play the first one, but LOVED the second one, so I went back and played the first one after I was done with Borderlands 2. Did I enjoy it? Sure, but the second one is far superior (IMO).

Which is kind of strange for me, because usually I find sequels to be inferior to the first game of the series. Then again, maybe it's the order in which I play them (as in the case of Borderlands).

p.s. sorry for the thread necro!

I'd have to agree. There are a lot of games that I played like this, and I usually don't regret it. I'll also admit that sometimes they don't feel as good and there might be things that they improved in later versions. However, if I enjoyed the later game, I think I should at least give the earlier ones a shot.

Sometimes you're missing out if you don't play the "prequels". Some examples:
Mario Party 2 is far better than any other Mario Party, despite that it's technically "inferior".
I played Champions of Norrath, after I played Return to arms. However, I would have been really missing out if I hadn't played the earlier game. (which I almost skipped!)
Morrowind > Oblivion (IMO of course. This is another one I went back to play)

I think it's ALWAYS worth going back and at least trying the older game. Even if it gets terrible reviews, or if people praise how much "better" the newer game is.

why do people keep saying "prequel" in this thread?

dsheinem wrote:why do people keep saying "prequel" in this thread?

I felt weird typing it, but that's what OP had referred to them as. I thought I had put in quotes, but I guess not...

irixith wrote:Oh dear -- playing Borderlands after playing Borderlands 2 is like having sex with a 10, and then having sex with a 4. Sure, it kinda feels the same, but the other one was just hotter.

I absolutely love Borderlands, but after 2, going backwards and playing 1 without any of the improvements they made just hurts.

LOL! Good analogy. Although I'd put BL1 at a solid 5.

But yeah...after "meeting" Mordecai in BL2, I just had to play him in BL1. BL2 is superior in BL1 in all aspects, especially just running over health/ammo to auto-pick it up. Hitting square for each health and ammo drop was effing annoying!